The Real Proposal™ magazine BlogSpot

"In sickness and in health..." It's for more than just the flu

2009-06-24T02:53:00.042-05:00

On May 19, 2009, my husband died. He was 57. As foreign and inconceivable as these words still appear to my present consciousness, I have awakened each morning since to this stark reality with the deepest and near palpable sense of loss imaginable. I not only loved my husband. I was also still very much in love with him when he died, which is what, perhaps, has tipped the scales towards my ultimate acknowledgement that this profound experience of losing a spouse is nothing akin to a divorce. After the failure of my first marriage, I had come to the unfortunate conclusion that divorce was like a death, except the person from whom you were now divorced was still very much alive. Now, I realize the falsity of that conclusion as I am humbly and indelibly struck by the finality of “till death do us part”.

Over the past year or so, I have watched with careful interest the struggles with cancer of the late, former White House press secretary, Tony Snow, "Last Lecture" sensation Randy Pausch, and UK reality-TV celebrity Jade Goody, as well as actors Patrick Swayze and Farrah Fawcett, and certainly identified closely with different aspects of their much-publicized scenarios as only one who is “walking the walk” can. To be sure, I was not the one diagnosed with colorectal cancer that later metastasized to the liver and to both lungs; it was my husband. But I had become his fierce and unwavering advocate, determined to remain one step ahead of his current treatment options and beat this “mistress” that threatened to consume and snatch him away at will. And we were a team. We had been college sweethearts. We had been separated for 22 years not because of a row or argument but by extenuating circumstances, without either of us knowing how to make contact directly. And we had been reunited – by God, we were certain – through extraordinary circumstances on Christmas Day 2001 when my father died, and it was only God that we determined would separate us a second time.

And, make no mistake, my husband fought the good fight. And I was proud of him, proud of how he conducted himself throughout his journey with cancer, proud of the very real inspiration he became to everyone with whom he had contact. Doctors, nurses, fellow patients, our neighborhood supermarket cashiers and checkout personnel, the neighborhood florist, fellow church members, siblings, our immediate family, and close friends can all attest to this. But, perhaps, no one knew better than I did his private struggles and the depths to which he had to dig spiritually to remain optimistic and upbeat despite endless rounds of radiation treatments, surgeries, chemotherapy sessions, alternative interventional radiology procedures, and holistic remedies. Without a doubt, there were times I was in awe of his courage and his strength, times when I knew I would have personally given up were our situations reversed. But I dared not say or imply such a thing. I was his "air" he would tell me, and I was not about to let him suffocate. My husband determined early on not to allow this disease to define his walk, his legacy, or the quality of life that he resolved to enjoy with us. Truthfully, it was not until the last five months of his valiant four and a half-year battle to remain with us that most people became aware of how seriously ill my husband truly was. And I was honored and happy to care for him and attend to the details he no longer could.

On August 24, we would have been married five years. Over the past four and a half years since my husband’s initial awareness that something was very wrong and his official diagnosis, we have looked back often to the time we got married and the vows we took on our wedding day, “…in sickness and in health…” For one hundred percent sure, neither of us were thinking cancer. I very much doubt, in fact, that any typical couple getting married does. Sure, you think the flu…or even a broken something…and yes, you’re willing to run to the corner store for Kleenex and Tylenol, and are even willing to make the proverbial chicken soup. No one’s thinking cancer. Or, something terminal. But, there we were…almost straight out of the starting gate within a few months of our wedding vows with the wind sucked out of our sail. Would we still have gone through with our marriage had we known what was coming down the pike? To be sure, we have asked that question of ourselves several times over the past few years and have come to the unmistakable conclusion: Yes, we would. Has it been an easy road? Unequivocally, no. But, somehow, perhaps because of our faith, we were able to look past our daily circumstance and see God’s grace over our entire situation, if only in bringing my husband full circle and back into my life, which is where he wanted to spend precious time if these were destined to be his final days on earth.

All of which brings me to the unfortunate recognition that not everyone would have chosen to remain together. In fact, as we journeyed through each hospital visit and stay, we became aware of the fascination we provided to several people, from doctors to nurses to patient care technicians. “We’re so glad to see you two together!” they would say, which meant what exactly, we used to wonder at first? Simply, they had seen enough to know that too many couples never make it through such a journey with illness. And we heard the horror stories of men who bolted the minute the diagnosis was given and the wife was facing a double mastectomy, or the women who left for “greener pastures” once the husband was no longer able to support the household or perform sexually as before. “Who are these people?” I would ask, if only to assuage any insecurities my husband might have in that regard.

Without question, I understand the stage of the journey that Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze are now in, and I pray for a miracle for them. I know also the torment their respective partners are going through…and my heart goes out to them. Their journeys have been different with respect to the nature of their relationships. Patrick has been married to his longtime sweetheart, Lisa Niemi, for 33 years while the path for Farrah and Ryan has hardly been a straight one. And it really makes one wonder, doesn’t it, why, now, after a tumultuous but long-term 29-year cohabiting relationship, Farrah is finally saying yes to Ryan’s marriage proposal? Is it just because she knows she is dying and won’t have long to put up with his “bossy” ways? Is it because she has finally seen that commitment has been the watershed issue of their relationship? Or, is there something more fundamental to these marriage vows, when taken with our eyes wide open, which recognizes that marriage is not just about a “piece of paper”? It is a deeper, spiritual acknowledgment that you are willing to walk the walk and not just talk the talk in a relationship, and that you are in it for the long haul, “forsaking all others, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health till death do you part”. Somehow, “let’s live together, baby” doesn’t quite have the same feel ultimately.

Finally, no divorce could bring the sense of peace I now have that I did everything possible to remain faithful, supportive, and committed to my marriage, and to loving my husband in the way he demonstrated so visibly every day his consuming love and commitment to me. Certainly, I rest also in the knowledge that my husband and I didn’t part because we could not reconcile our differences. And I am grateful for the life lessons I have learned throughout, the insight on and the deep compassion I have now for the millions of couples struggling with prolonged sickness and health issues within their marriage. I am a better person for having walked this walk with my husband, and I would do it again in a heartbeat because of the man he was. If I go back to our beginnings, I remember thinking from the outset what a breath of fresh air this man was. And he proved me right. He knew straight up what he wanted - me - and has continued to love me unconditionally through the years. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, I am left with a distinctly vacant feeling of having lost something extremely valuable, magnified, perhaps, one hundred-fold. But now, my children have seen a fine example of manhood and fatherhood and, as women, what they ought to expect and value in a good husband. That alone is a gift beyond compare. The rest – and our restoration – is now up to God. And He has our full attention.

Editors' Note: We note sadly that Patrick Swayze passed away on September 14, 2009 after a valiant battle with pancreatic cancer. Farrah Fawcett succumbed to anal cancer on June 25, 2009 after a near three-years battle. We convey our deepest condolences to their respective families.

RELATED ARTICLE: Coping when a partner has a terminal illness Times Online- UK, August 28, 2008
Confronting a fatal illness in a partner can put intolerable strain on a couple. But society expects saint-like behaviour. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Taking Their Lives into Their Own Hands Gainesville Sun, By Lauren Levy- Newsies Contributing Writer, April 17, 2009
When my father was diagnosed with colorectal cancer four years ago, I was not aware of the journey this would take my family on. . . . . . Throughout this process, it has become evident that patients, especially when dealing with multidisciplinary diseases like cancer, need to be thoroughly proactive when it comes to their health care treatments; simply relying on the diagnoses of their doctors without doing their own research can cost them their lives. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Once-fatal cancers now treated as a chronic disease International Herald Tribune, By Jane E. Brody, June 17, 2008
Fisch calls the new therapy for advanced cancer "the hitchhiker model." Time is bought by going from point A, the first-line therapy, to point B, the second-line therapy, to point C, the third line of therapy, and so on. The approach can continue indefinitely, as long as new therapies become available and patients remain well enough to withstand the rigors of treatment. But Fisch noted that adding meaningful years to the lives of patients with advanced cancer depends in part on avoiding the attitude, prevalent among some physicians, that cancer is hopeless after it has metastasized. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Fear is a waste of time Townhall.com- Free Republic.com, By Tony Snow, September 16, 2005
Still, the last few months -- my time of surgery and chemo -- have been the happiest and most thrilling of my life. They have confirmed lessons that seem at once too good to be true, and too important and vital not to be. Here is a short inventory: Faith matters. Prayers heal. Love overcomes. People want to do good for others; they just need excuses. Fear is a waste of time. The worst that can happen is that we'll die -- which happens to everybody, anyway. Until the Grim Reaper comes knocking, we're alive. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A diagnosis of cancer is trying for any marriage Boston Globe, By Judy Foreman, August 22, 2005
Obviously, when cancer strikes, there's no easy role in any marriage, whether you're the patient or the spouse. What makes some marriages fall apart under the strain of cancer and others get stronger? That's a tough one, but researchers are finding some clues. . .

Posted by Donna Kassin, President & Founder- The Real Proposal magazine

Yes, we did. But we're not ready to throw confetti

2008-11-08T14:14:00.060-05:00

The people of America have spoken. And who among us could not feel pride at this transcendental moment in American history when we, the people, elected the first African-American president of the United States of America? To not acknowledge and savor this historic moment in a nation that once considered blacks property would be churlish. Indeed, Mr. Obama is to be sincerely congratulated. It is a historic accomplishment for him to become the first African-American to be elected to the highest office in the land, and we can understand the nation's pride and jubilance in this achievement. Many of us desired to vote for Mr. Obama not just because of its historical significance but because, to be sure, on several other levels he is qualified for the office of the presidency. But we couldn’t. And, instead, many of us find ourselves in a grieving process of sorts, not because of Mr. Obama's victory but because his advent represents a potential threat to what many in this country revere as core foundational principles that have been the cornerstones upon which our great nation has been built, and upon which we have thrived to become, certainly, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on this planet.

To be sure, the institution of marriage as it has been defined for millennia as the union of one man and one woman is no longer secure with Mr. Obama at the helm. Neither is the sanctity of human life, if his voting record in favor of abortion on demand at any stage within a woman’s nine-month pregnancy is to be viewed as a precursor of his intent for our laws that govern abortion and the rights of the unborn.

We have no interest in deciphering Mr. Obama's "nuances" such as when he states his belief that marriage is "between a man and a woman," and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage," while, at the same time, reiterating his clear opposition to Proposition 8 — the California ballot measure which has, at least for now, restored to the state of California the traditional definition of marriage that was usurped by a renegade State Supreme Court to include same-sex couples. Let's just look at the facts. Mr. Obama has indicated clearly to homosexual lobby groups his unequivocal determination to invoke a complete repeal of both sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, essentially, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. As a constitutional scholar, Mr. Obama knows exactly what this would mean to those, now, 30 states that have voted to amend their state constitutions to protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. A repeal of the DOMA would likely mean renewed challenges to the amended constitutions of these states by homosexual lobby groups, who are seemingly able to bend the ears of our state judiciaries with the kind of compassionate ill-logic and false arguments that demand legislation from the bench. This is precisely what is happening now in California, even after a clear and decisive victory — for the second time — to secure the traditional definition of marriage in state law, according to the democratic will of the people. Homosexuals typically argue that such legislative intervention is authorized by and entrenched in our constitution to protect minorities from the "tyrannical will of the majority." But isn't that the very definition of tyranny?

Further, Mr. Obama is being hypocritical — not just pandering to special interest groups — when he stands before a black church on Father's Day admonishing black fathers for absconding their financial and parental responsibilities to children they have fathered, and extolling the virtues of intact families and the critical role that fathers play in maintaining the foundation of the family while, at the same time, giving support to lesbians that want to adopt children and create families, which by their very nature remove a father from the equation.

Furthermore, Mr. Obama seems committed to becoming the most liberal pro-abortion president ever voted into office. Unbelievably, he is the only elected official on record for supporting infanticide for babies that have survived botched abortions. Therefore, can anyone doubt that, when the time comes, he will appoint to the United States Supreme Court liberal judges who reflect his ideology? More and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes, which, if implemented, could drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed, even on under-age girls without having to secure the consent of at least one of their parents. One component of the Obama abortion agenda, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), is coming under increased scrutiny from many quarters. The FOCA is the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress. It is a bill that would establish a federal “abortion right” broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” In fact, in his too-little-noted speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Mr. Obama said, “The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do.”

Without a doubt, Mr. Obama continually demonstrates that he suffers from the same malady as so many others whom we look up to as the "intellectual elite" — he's educated beyond his intelligence yet still fundamentally lacking in wisdom. And, indeed, we cannot support a man who has declared that, should one of his daughters make a mistake and come up pregnant, he would not want to see her "punished with a baby." Without any euphemistic substitutions such as "fetus" or "tissue blob," Mr. Obama has provided further evidence of his hypocrisy — that his knowledge of what is being killed en utero through abortion is not "above his pay grade."

When all is said and done, our hope is not in a political process...or a man, for that matter. Our hope remains in God and we cannot forget that. He hasn't made a mistake. Nor has He lost control of things. And maybe His ways are, indeed, higher than ours and, eventually, all things will work together for our good. Until such time, however, unlike what Mr. Obama proclaimed in his now historic acceptance speech as our newly-minted president-elect, the issues that cause us concern cannot be swept under the carpet or just labeled as some kind of "partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long". The issues we raise are substantive and go well beyond partisanship as the very continuation of our society depends on the respect for life and the recognition that such life is best and ideally raised in a traditional family structure consisting of a loving mother and father. Mr. Obama, as our new president-elect, has now stated for the record:

“... Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House— a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, ‘We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.’ And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn— I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too...”

Magnanimity aside — if only because Mr. Obama's continuous rhetoric has, by far, trumped his performance record — we can only hope so. And we can only hope also that, because he has witnessed the power of our democracy, he will determine to uphold and act upon the clear and decisive will of the people demonstrated in California, Arizona, Florida, and 27 other states, so far, regarding the definition of marriage. Proposition 8, Proposition 102, and Proposition 2 have won by 52.5%, 56.5%, and 62% majorities respectively through the same democratic process that has now elected Mr. Obama president. Yet, even now, there are many within the media that are continuing to push their own agenda and that of homosexual lobby groups by postulating a seeming "paradox" of an election that has given the presidency of the United States to the first African-American in our history yet has failed to give "equal rights" to homosexuals. But the evidence is clear. The electorate is awakening to the marketing ruse that is being sold to them regarding homosexuality. They are awakening to the "nuanced" positions, which deceptively seek to equate clearly inherent human characteristics such as race and gender with homosexual proclivities, and to enshrine homosexual preferences as "inalienable rights" endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Obama may have succeeded in convincing a majority of Americans that a vote for him was in their best interest. But what is now clear is that he was incapable of convincing even his biggest supporters — the African-American community — to vote their interests, only as he defined them. Analysts report that the marriage measures would not have passed without black voter support, and that 70% of black voters supported the ballot initiatives on marriage. Without a doubt, this is an indication that, while many citizens voted to support a black candidate in this historic election, they did not support his liberal policy positions. Americans are defined by more than their paychecks, and this is a fact that Mr. Obama will come to appreciate more and more in the days ahead.

Finally, our nation — and, indeed, the world — has an answer to the rhetorical question of old, "Is America able to elect a Black president?" Well, yes, we can. Finally, we also have an answer regarding whether we would ever retire and move beyond the Jesse Jackson's and the Al Sharpton's as the face of leadership in the African-American community, and the incessant arguing about race relations. Well, obviously, we can. And we should. By virtue of the Afro-Caribbean roots in our diverse family tree at The Real Proposal magazine, we have an enormous interest in seeing the first legitimate African-American contender succeed in the highest office of the land...just not his liberal agenda. And were these issues not sufficient for pause, there are still yet unanswered questions regarding Mr. Obama's background and past affiliations. So, pardon us, if we're not quite ready to throw the inauguration confetti.

RELATED VIDEO: Obama Citizenship: (Ep. 6: October Surprise) You Tube.com, October 10, 2008
In "October Surprise", Molotov Mitchell interviews the plaintiff, Philip Berg, in a stunning federal case against Barack Obama. The case is nothing short of electrifying, but the mainstream media is doing its best to keep Americans in the dark. Philip Berg is a Pennsylvania attorney who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, the former Democratic Chairman of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, an 8-year member of the state democratic committee, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and a past candidate for both governor of Pennsylvania and United States Senator.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lawyer challenges Obama Citizenship? Truth or Fiction.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Efforts to Sell Obama to Pro-Life Americans Collide With His Support for Sweeping Pro-abortion Policy Changes National Right to Life Committee, By Douglas Johnson-Legislative Director, October 7, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s Communist Mentor Accuracy in Media, By Cliff Kincaid, February 18, 2008

Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2!

2008-10-22T03:12:00.041-05:00

If you blinked during the mainstream media’s blanket coverage of Wall Street's recent meltdown and the government’s subsequent bailout response plan, or their heightened coverage of the 2008 Presidential elections, you may have missed the fact that Connecticut recently became the third state of our union to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. To be sure, there was none of the frenetic coverage accorded the California Supreme Court decision in May to legalize same-sex marriage in that state, or the subsequent spectacles afforded the nation by the same-sex weddings that took place en masse when the law handed down by the state judiciary took effect on June 16. But make no mistake, next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America. It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

Arizona and Florida have similar proposals on their ballots — Proposition 102 and Proposition 2, respectively — which seek to amend their state constitutions to define Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While it is vital that these propositions pass decisively, in some cases like Florida by more than a 60% majority to ratify that state's constitutional amendment, the situation in California is, perhaps, the most critical. Indeed, Proposition 8 represents the only option at this stage to return democratic governance to the people of California who already voted by a 61% majority in 2000, through Proposition 22, to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. Conservative commentator and scholar, Dennis Prager, summarizes the California situation:

"...What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society..."

Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society’s new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes." But, as Prager points out:

"…These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency. Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?…”

Indeed, we are just beginning to get some honest answers from homosexual activists with respect to these questions. Clearly, many of them like Peter Tatchell — a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party — already know that homosexuality isn’t natural and are actually saying out loud now what many researchers, psychologists, and social scientists have been saying all along, which is that we ought to ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’ because gay desire is not genetically determined. But consider now what homosexual activists like John Corvino — a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who travels the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics — are saying now in the midst of all the deception being spouted regarding what it is exactly that homosexuals are seeking from society at large. For many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” But Corvino provided a breath of fresh air recently by telling us, honestly, that what homosexuals really want goes well beyond tolerance. What they want, he says, is moral approval. However, Austin Nimocks — senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation — breaks down what this translates to for the rest of us and reminds us that, unfortunately, this is a mindset we cannot afford:

"…This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.

Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, “That’s a good thing.” Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.

Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.

Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you? Well, there’s no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda—in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain “benefits” is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:…"

So, what’s really at stake in this same-sex marriage debate? For one thing, our religious liberty, as we discussed at length after the California Supreme Court ruling. And for another, our First Amendment rights to free speech. However, as R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., reminds us, when we go out to vote YES on Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida, and Proposition 102 in Arizona, ours is not the odd and out-of-step position that it is typically characterized as by the mainstream media. Same-sex marriage may, for now, be legal in three of fifty states in the United States. And beyond our borders, it is legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Canada and Norway. However, this represents a very small percentage of the world's population. Same-sex marriage is, by any measure, the exception rather than the rule. Even when legalized civil unions and domestic partnerships are thrown into the mix, the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world's nations.

Keep that in mind when you observe the media's coverage of the issue. Keep that in mind as you determine to understand why Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most every major religion as well as every civilized culture have weighed and, ultimately, rejected homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. And keep that in mind as you vote YES to preserve the definition of Marriage. It has always been—and should continue to be— defined as one man, one woman!

RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 1 Focus on the Family.org, September 29, 2008
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager discusses the biblical foundation of marriage and offers a thoughtful examination of how that foundation is being undermined in American culture.

RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 2 Focus on the Family.org, September 30, 2008

John McCain or Barack Obama? For us, there’s only one option

2008-08-18T23:22:00.074-05:00

Last weekend's courting of evangelicals by John McCain and Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church Civil Forum makes this photo we received recently of Barack Obama under the header "Photo U Won't See on FOX!!!!" even more relevant. Was this just another “photo-op” in a carefully orchestrated PR campaign to dispel the uneasy qualms of a still-questioning public regarding Obama's Christian credo in light of his Islamic fundamentalist upbringing at an Indonesian school in his formative years? We'll leave you to decide.

However, on so many levels, it is not just Barack Obama that needs our prayers. We need to pray also for John McCain, and for this country. In fact, we ought to be praying that, come November, we do not get the kind of president we truly deserve. Why? Because, as the presidential elections approach and we take a hard look at the sociopolitical and cultural landscape in this country, can we truly say that, as America's Founding Fathers wisely intended, we are still one nation...under God? Hardly. The sad reality is that both presumptive candidates for the presidency of the United States — chosen, ultimately, from a decidedly tainted pack from both sides of the Democratic-Republican divide — constitute a less-than-stellar reflection of our spiritual and moral condition as a nation, and it is delusional to believe that there isn't a leadership crisis in America.

An old proverb reminds us, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD," which, if applied to the upcoming presidential elections, would imply that whichever candidate prevails has been ordained for this juncture of our history. That said, however, we ought not be fooled into believing that the outcome will necessarily be "good." Sometimes, we are granted what we wish for, only to find that the very thing leads to tragic consequences, which seem destined to teach us wisdom.

At election time, it is "we the people" that decide who our decision makers will be. But, as Daniel Taylor & Mark McCloskey point out in their recent article, How to Pick a President: Why Virtue Trumps Policy, all too often we decide poorly, largely because we ask the wrong questions. Typically, we demand to know details of how political candidates are going to solve our problems. How are they going to stop the continued slide of the United States dollar? How are they going to get the troops home from Iraq? How are they going to fix Social Security, or Healthcare for that matter — essentially, what's in it for me? However, while there is value in hearing a candidate's plans and proposals, this ought to be of secondary or even lesser importance since history and experience bear evidence to the fact that few, if any, of those plans and proposals will survive the political process intact.

Indeed, many crucial political decisions of the future will revolve around unpredictable events and issues. No candidate's "policy" on terrorism, for example, foresaw or was adequate for 9/11. No candidate had a policy or ideology that would have made Hurricane Katrina greatly less painful. In fact, little over a month ago, no one contemplated Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia and how this could affect US international policy. Therefore, a political leader must have the capacity and the wisdom to respond effectively to ever-changing and unprecedented situations. Ultimately, then, we really should vote for the candidate whom we believe has the qualities — the virtues, both moral and physical, as well as the character and integrity — to decide wisely in situations where policies, positions, and ideologies will be of little help. Taylor and McCloskey remind us that competence alone, without virtue, is poisonous; it simply makes one more effective at doing wrong. Moreover, being virtuous is an expression of competence.

Too often, we have attributed wisdom to lead to people who have merely been resourceful enough to succeed in business or some other area. We have de-stigmatized many private failures in recent years (divorce, past drug use, sexual irresponsibility). However, it is still relevant to expect that public leaders show wisdom in the choices they make in their private lives. Indeed, it is not scandal-mongering that ought to spark our interest in the private lives of public servants, but the fact that private indiscretion calls into question their public decision-making skills. It is not just intelligence or knowledge but also the practical wisdom that is necessary to respond effectively to the many political problems that involve scarce resources, or "no good choices."

In his Digging Deeper article, Thorns in a Nation’s side, Adrian Rogers reminds us of a time in Israel's history, summarized in Judges 17:6, which could surely apply to America today: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes". That is, there was no fixed standard of morality. Without a doubt, this had serious consequences for Israel as a nation and, without a doubt, there will be serious consequences for the United States if, in choosing our "king," we continue to move away from our spiritual center towards the kind of liberal, postmodernist thought postulated in some quarters, which fools us into believing that truth is relative and can only be perceived through the senses. More and more, our leaders — and activist courts — are devising laws that call evil, good and legitimizing what is politically expedient. Rogers reminds us how we have found ourselves in this predicament:

" * We have moved from authority to relativism. We have a government today that’s run by polls—find out what people want and then give it back to them. Can you imagine Moses taking a poll in Egypt or Martin Luther at the reformation? That’s not leadership.

* We have moved from truth to pragmatism. No longer do we ask is it true? We ask does it work? It’s man-centered rather than God-centered.

* We have gone from revelation to feeling. Psychology has been substituted for theology. Sin is no longer the enemy; sorrow and sadness are. Feeling good about yourself is the number one priority.

* We’ve gone from convictions to opinions. Few people really have convictions about anything except their right to be happy.

Edmond Burke made a classic statement: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” A nation in crisis is susceptible to evil leadership, and all that is necessary for that to happen is that we stand by and let it happen. The first parable in God’s Word, found in Judges 9:8-15, illustrates this. It tells of a prophet named Jotham who told of the trees looking for a king. They went to the olive tree, but he was happy in his fatness. They went to the fig tree, but he was too busy producing figs with his sweetness. They went to the vine, but he was producing wine. They were all busy doing good things, so they went to the bramble [thorn bush]. They asked the bramble, “Will you rule over us?” He said, “I’ll be glad to.” He said, “As a matter of fact, you can rest in my shade. I’ll be a shadow for you.” A bramble has no fruit, shade, or lumber. It rips, shreds, chokes, clings, and grows and is very hard to root out, but all of these people fled their responsibilities and let the bramble rule..."

We could go on ad infinitum citing examples to substantiate the argument that, already in America, it is the "bramble" that rules. We need only look at the decisions handed down by the highest courts within the United States, Texas, Massachusetts, and California, which have given legitimacy to abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, to know that we have already arrived at that place.

In recent times, our country has been deceived into believing that there is no place for Judeo-Christian principles — grounded largely in the existence of absolute truths, in which God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion — in the governing of our nation. In our new culture of "diversity" and "tolerance" we are moving progressively towards stripping the mere mention of God from every facet of public life to accommodate all that might be offended. But as Rogers exhorts us, while the First Amendment does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. As a nation, we were conceived in faith, founded on faith, and prospered through faith — the Judeo-Christian faith. Therefore, it is imperative that those who still subscribe to these values stand up for the "free exercise thereof" in America and look closely at the voting records of both John McCain and Barack Obama on the contemporary watershed issues to discern their true character, not listen to election promises and rabble-rousing rhetoric for "change." Eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosopher, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." And, sadly, too many voters still have not learned that lesson.

With respect to the issues surrounding marriage and abortion — areas of special interest to our publication — we find that it is Barack Obama that continues to display a hypocrite's masquerade of virtue. At the Saddleback Church Civil Forum, when Warren asked him candidly for his opinion on when life begins and the unborn should have its God given rights protected, Obama balked, claiming that "knowing when something" that is obviously living, "begins to live" was, "above his pay grade." Above his pay grade? Conservative columnist Kevin McCullough points out that, as a father, having gone through at least two pregnancies with his wife Michelle, Obama already knew that to be a lie. More likely, his response was calculated to deflect attention from the fact that he is radically "pro-choice," so much so, in fact, that he is the only elected official on record to vote in favor of denying life-saving medical care to babies that have survived an abortion attempt but are struggling for life.

Obama has also continued to spout belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, knowing fully well that he has promised homosexual lobby groups that, as President, he will support a complete repeal of both sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Essentially, the DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. So, he doesn’t want federal law to limit marriage to a man and a woman, and he doesn’t want federal law to protect the right of the states to decide for themselves. Is this the position of a man, especially one trained in Constitutional law at Harvard, who believes that marriage is “sanctified?”

Further, it is Obama that is being hypocritical when he stands before a black church on Father's Day admonishing black fathers for absconding their financial and parental responsibilities to children they have fathered, and extolling the virtues of intact families and the critical role that fathers play in maintaining the foundation of the family while, at the same time, giving support to lesbians that want to adopt children and create families, which by their very nature remove a father from the equation. At least, John McCain can articulate, albeit not very eloquently, that he respectfully disagrees with the homosexual lobby — Ellen DeGeneres included — that marriage is between one man and one woman, that he does not support adoptions by gays and lesbians, and has voted accordingly...consistently over the years. Obama's voting record, on the other hand, has been consistently against the Federal Marriage Amendment and laws that support the traditional family as the bedrock of society.

It can hardly be surprising, based on the editorial stance of The Real Proposal magazine, especially on such life issues as same-sex marriage and abortion, that we would be branded "conservative". However, that does not necessarily mean we supported John McCain's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In recent years, Congressional Republicans in general — and Senator John McCain in particular — have alienated many conservatives and, certainly, we had issues with him even after it became clear that he was the presumptive conservative candidate. But, as Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said recently, although many conservatives are lukewarm about Mr. McCain, most will vote for him in November simply because they find Mr. Obama unacceptable. “I’ll take a third-class fireman over a first-class arsonist,” said Mr. Land. Indeed, as Dennis Prager points out in his recent article, Why I Support John McCain, the bottom line for us, ultimately, boils down to this:

"... The gulf between John McCain and conservatives is miniscule compared to the gulf between John McCain and Barack Obama. This is true regarding virtually every issue of significance to America. The America that a President Barack Obama would shape, with the help of a Democratic Congress and a liberal Supreme Court, would be very dissimilar from the America shaped by a President John McCain. Conservatives who will not vote for McCain are well-intentioned utopians. They are comparing McCain to a consistently conservative candidate. The reality, however, is that McCain is not running against a consistently conservative candidate. He is running against a consistently left-wing candidate. And America cannot afford to have its first leftist president ever. It can afford liberal presidents — such as Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter (who governed as a liberal but became a leftist after leaving the White House), or John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, or Harry Truman — i.e., all the Democrats who have been president since World War II. But the Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism. And Barack Obama is at the left of that left-wing party..."

Perhaps, too, it is because of growing up in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic melting pot like the Caribbean and being accustomed to a black man ruling why we are not impressed at the sheer prospect of an "Obama" as Commander-in-Chief. What interests us is a prospective candidate's character, his ability and beliefs — not color...or gender for that matter. We have long learned that character isn't made in a crisis; it is revealed in a crisis, and that everybody has a worldview that has been shaped by his or her own belief system. What's more, Obama reminds us, too much for comfort actually, of Michael Manley, the Jamaican Prime Minister of the 1970s — same bi-racial ethnic mix (which was significant for a largely black Jamaican population, as is Obama for a largely white American population), same eloquence and charisma, same "change" campaign platform and rhetoric, same leftist leanings (which led to a serious flirtation with Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, and a strain in diplomatic relations with the United States), same nationalist view of the black man's condition, same arrogance. And, indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find many Jamaicans who would now disagree that, while Manley's views were aspirational and idealistic, ultimately, he had neither the substance nor the experience to back up his election promises. In fact, many still believe it was his policies — and, especially, his arrogance — that led to Jamaica's rapid economic and cultural decline as the middle-class migrated, en masse, upon his now infamous "there are 5 flights to Miami" exhortation to whomever didn't like the direction he believed he had been given the mandate to lead the people. Well, left they did, in droves, taking their money with them, and the financial coffers of the country have never recovered.

It's interesting too, if only to us, that the current economic climate in America, reflected mostly in the declining value of the US dollar and sky-rocketing energy costs, is eerily reminiscent of the dawn of Michael Manley's regime. Most Jamaicans, in their wildest dreams, could not have foreseen or even contemplated that the Jamaican dollar would plummet from a high of US$1: JS$0.50 in the early 1970s to its present non-value (US$1: J$75.00). Largely, they invested too much faith in the mistaken and simplistic notion that this single man (who envisioned himself as a "Joshua" deliverer, as has Obama) could effect the kind of macro economic change that would alter Jamaica's "Third World" status in the world arena, which, essentially, was determined by inequities in their trade balance with other nations and their debt.

Without a doubt, there are parallels regarding the present level of external debt currently owed by this country. Does America really own America any more? What's more, the sad reality is that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, for that matter, will single-handedly be able to turn around a depressed US economy whose strings continue to be pulled by a privately-held, unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank, which is as "Federal" as Federal Express. Unless it is stopped, this institution, with its elitist (often, unidentifiable) board and private agenda, will continue to manipulate and rape the economy of this country through its prime lending rates and the excess money it prints and pumps into circulation with no real backing in gold or other value.

Some may scoff at the analogy of Jamaica raised in this piece, thinking that such circumstances could never duplicate themselves in the United States by virtue of its sheer economic size and power compared to Jamaica. But George Orwell's political allegory, Animal Farm, ought to remind us that, ultimately, what unfolds even within the context of a tiny "farm" typically has broader global implications. Moreover, philosopher George Santayana once famously wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." Therefore, we would be wise to contemplate the cautions laid out by David R. Stokes in his recent article, The Barack Bubble:

"... It might be constructive, maybe even essential, to think of the whole Barack Obama phenomenon as a gigantic bubble. It has captured pan-cultural attention and transcends the humdrum of mere mortal politics. Expectations are inflated. Rational analysis has been muted. Look, up in the sky – it’s a bird, it’s a plane no, it’s Super Senator above the political fray soaring in his designer soap bubble. The value of Barack Obama’s stock is sky high these days. His most devoted followers assume this upward trend will continue. Happy days are just around the corner. Can’t you just feel the love and unity? Not to mention the change?

And back on earth, those who should be watching more closely, and asking tough questions, seem to have temporarily (we can only hope) suspended their capacity for serious investigation while following the bubble-beacon here, there, and everywhere. What does it say about legacy mainstream media outlets when it is left to the likes of Katie Couric to ask the man from Illinois an actual tough question with a measure of ferocity (at least for her)? Here is the problem, though. No one, not even Barack “The Man Promising Personalized Pieces of Blue Sky” Obama, can possibly sustain the level of near universal affection and acclaim indefinitely. Human glory tends to be a fleeting thing - especially the political variety. In fact, the issue is not if Obama’s bubble will burst, but rather – when. And when it does, there will be a lot of unhappy American campers.

There is a saying: “Motivation without implementation produces frustration.” In the political arena this means that when someone inspires people without eventually following through, the result is significant disenchantment. Barack Obama’s style over substance campaign is very much a bipolar candidacy. We are seeing the manic phase now. Stay tuned for the depressive future..."

The presidential elections are still almost three months away. But, contemporary economist and conservative pundit, Thomas Sowell, perhaps, best explains what already lies at the root of our "Obama fatigue":

"Many years ago, when I was a college student, I took a course from John Kenneth Galbraith. On the first day of class, Professor Galbraith gave a brilliant opening lecture, after which the students gave him a standing ovation. Galbraith kept on giving brilliant opening lectures the whole semester. But, instead of standing ovations, there were now dwindling numbers of students and some of them got up and walked out in the middle of his lectures. Galbraith never got beyond the glittering generalities that marked his first lecture. After a while, the students got tired of not getting any real substance..."

Despite even conservative prognosticators that it will be "President Obama" in 2009, can we really afford his Presidency? If nothing else, the Saddleback Church Civil Forum — video highlights of which are embedded below for your convenience — demonstrated clearly that John McCain has lived a much bigger life than Barack Obama. That’s not necessarily a slam at Obama; John McCain has lived a much bigger life than most people. But, still, McCain's experience made Obama look small in comparison. And at 3:00AM, even as his fellow Democrats have pointed out in their own campaigning, we would much rather it was not Obama who answered the call that could count for America's safety.

When all is said and done, we are no longer impressed with images of how our political leaders worship. Certainly, it is God that judges the heart of a man. But, for far too many politicians, such potential "photo ops" are for sheer political expediency. Too many of them are false prophets disguised in sheep's clothing. What's more, does being a Christian automatically deem one fit for the Presidency? Absolutely not. As Pastor Doug Giles rather irreverently points out, Obama may be on fire for Jesus, but his voting record substantiates it might just be the Jesus of his own imagination.

RELATED VIDEO: Obama Speaks to Churchgoers on Father's Day Posted by The Associated Press, YouTube.com, June 15, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Barack Obama: The 2004 “God Factor” Interview Transcript — Interview conducted by Cathleen Falsani ("God Girl"), Chicago-Sun Time religion columnist, April 30, 2008

RELATED VIDEO: Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

RELATED VIDEO: FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution

Greg Laurie's Tragic Loss: Where, O Death, is your sting?

2008-07-28T21:08:00.071-05:00

A few weeks ago on June 25, 2008, at our local church, my family and I had the pleasure of listening to mega-church pastor Greg Laurie as he gave his testimony of how he came to know Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. A close personal friend of our local pastor, Pedro Garcia, Greg obviously gave our church priority as he made the rounds, essentially to promote the national release of his autobiographical work, Lost Boy: My Story. To be sure, I was intrigued also in a professional capacity. His Bastard Hippie to Power Preacher story was already making the news wires, and I felt compelled to attend. His is an incredible story of God's grace and redemption, and I walked away from that service determined to highlight and chronicle the event, and his message, in one of the blogs for this magazine. Without a doubt, his childhood story of fatherlessness and chronic family dysfunction is riveting and contemporary, and falls within the scope of The Real Proposal magazine. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, I felt in my spirit the need to wait — that, perhaps, the "story" had not yet fully unfolded. Now, I understand why.

On Thursday, July 24, 2008, Greg Laurie suffered every parent's worst nightmare. His much-beloved son, Christopher, 33, was killed in a tragic motor vehicle accident on Riverside Freeway in Corona, California, when the station wagon being driven by Christopher collided with a Department of Transportation tractor in the car pool lane. Even more poignant is the fact that Christopher is survived not only by his loving parents, Greg and Cathe, but also his very pregnant wife, Brittany — who is due in November — and their infant daughter, Stella, who turned two on Saturday, just two days after the accident. As it turns out, Greg Laurie's Lost Boy story is destined to become only part of his testimony to the world. Indeed, the real story of Greg Laurie became abundantly clear on Sunday, July 27, 2008, three days after the devastating loss of his son, when he got up in front of his 15,000-member strong Harvest Christian Fellowship congregation to declare unequivocally and with great forbearance to the world, "I still believe." To be sure, the video above bears witness to what must be his finest moment as an evangelist, that defining hour — given, perhaps, only once in a lifetime — when the world looks on to see how personal tragedy and horrific circumstances challenge our faith in a loving God who has declared, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

On so many levels, and specifically through this tragedy whether he yet realizes it or not, Greg Laurie has already been elevated to a higher level of calling. It is our hope that he takes the time and space to do whatever is necessary to mourn the loss of his son. But there can be no doubt that he has now been given a broader platform to reach the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. And there can be no doubt that he has been equipped with an even greater capacity to present God's plan of salvation, which gives the world hope for eternity through the belief that death has been swallowed up in victory. What's more, there is also further opportunity to connect with countless others who have suffered significant loss but who find themselves not quite as able or equipped spiritually to navigate the minefield of recovery. Many parents, even those who know God in a personal way, are deeply challenged when a child dies. To be sure, not everyone has the strength, the capacity, or the wisdom to comprehend Job's cry — echoed by Greg Laurie — in the face of similar adversity, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away: may the name of the Lord be praised."

Inconceivable as it might be to even contemplate, how exactly does one survive the death of one's child? Indeed, how does one survive when life dictates the loss of several children to unrelated causes, as was the fate endured by Stephen R. Marsh and his wife, Winifred — the parents of five girls, Jessica, Heather, Courtney, Robin, and Rachel, three of whom have died in early childhood? Stephen writes, "The death of a child is a terrible loss that destroys many families. Often the fate of a family or some of its members hangs by a thread." And this is clearly a sentiment reiterated by Carol Staudacher in her BeliefNet article, The Journey Through Sorrow: When a Child Dies— Surviving the death of dreams, in which she articulates a parent's deep sense of loss:

"... As a parent, you're supposed to be the provider, the nurturer, the protector, the mentor, the guide. You invest love and hope and certain beliefs in your son or daughter. But most of all, you do not outlive your child. When tragedy strikes and you do bury a child, you're faced with reconstructing a life that has been suddenly robbed of its parental responsibilities and joys..."

What's more, the deep personal sense of loss in not limited to the parents whose child dies. As Donna Lamb, LSCSW writes in her article entitled, Surviving the Death of a Child:

"...Numerous secondary losses accompany the death of a child, including loss of the family as it existed prior to the death. Surviving children lose the emotional, and perhaps physical, availability of their parents, grandparents “lose” their children to parental grief and spouses lose the support of each other–each whose emotional plate is so full that they cannot be there for the other. The impact of a child’s death on a marital relationship cannot be underestimated. Neither parent will be the same person as they were before the death..."

Stephen R. Marsh indicates in his essay that, after such loss, it is only through loving and understanding, and by the pure knowledge of God — without hypocrisy and without guile — that families can be supported in their pain and aided on the path to healing. And, indeed, it is our profound belief as well that we are called into such places of adversity, not for our devastation, but to overcome the circumstances and, ultimately, show others the way out. The Bible declares that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Therefore, the difference has to be found in how, as Christians, we navigate the mud puddles as well as the storms of life.

To say, within the context of a national media blitz to promote his Lost Boy work, as well as his church's upcoming, world-renowned Harvest Crusades — which kick off at Angel Stadium this August 15-17 — that the eyes of the world have been focused on Greg Laurie would be an understatement. Which is all the more why we are grateful for the powerful images Greg and his family have presented so far of God's grace and sufficiency, which God Himself has declared is sufficient for the day. We pray for the Laurie family right now that they rise to the challenge that God has allowed to their door. May they rest in the assurance that Christopher was no Lost Boy in this life, and neither is he in the next. May they find healing and recovery through God's amazing grace and their commitment to finish the race that has been set before them.

In closing, I am reminded that, through the prophet Isaiah, God challenges us to remember, "The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find peace as they lie in death."

Rest in Peace, Christopher Laurie.

EDITOR'S NOTE (08-01-08): A private memorial service was held for Christopher Laurie on Friday, August 1, 2008 at 11 a.m., Pacific Time. You may watch the service by visiting Harvest.org, or clicking here. You may also pass along condolences and thoughts for the Laurie family by posting comments on Greg's blog.

RELATED SITE: The Christopher Laurie Memorial Fund

RELATED RESOURCE: Greg Laurie Archive World Net Daily

RELATED VIDEO (BELOW): Lost Boy: The Documentary Trailer.

(To order the 90-minute film version of Lost Boy: The Documentary on DVD, click here or visit The Real Proposal e-shop)

Gospel Music Responds to Same-Sex Marriage

2008-06-07T02:52:00.038-05:00

Our first reaction was, “This has to be a joke!” Our second, “A spoof, maybe?” For to be sure, this unbelievable video posted on You Tube, which was brought to our attention by one of our readers (Thank you, Trevor) could hardly be how the Church proselytizes to the homosexual community. Could it?

As can be imagined, this video has stirred up quite a bit of controversy since it was posted on May 13. And, as could only be expected, this nifty little jingle has evoked intense feelings of resentment and downright hatred from viewers sympathetic to the homosexual cause. “F***ing hicks,” postulated one commentator. “You make me wish every human was gay so that our species would stop producing the likes of you.” Hardly a convert.

Did gospel singers Lewis & Lewis truly intend this video to be a way of ministering the Bible’s message to gays and lesbians? If so, they missed the mark...by a long shot. Indeed, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that such “creativity” would have served only to anger the very community to which Christians ought to be reaching out. To be sure, it lacks any message of redemption or love, which brings to mind a favorite maxim of one of the elders at our local church: “If it doesn’t point to Jesus, what’s the point?” From pulpit sermons to street evangelism, if not done in the gracious and compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ, “…what’s the point?”

Indeed, our editorial stance on this particular issue — highlighted in our recent piece, Responding to Homosexuality & Gay Marriage: ‘Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin’ — underscores our clear belief that the Church has been called to demonstrate to the homosexual community a love that is clear, a love that is consistent, and a love that is compassionate, while proclaiming the uncompromising truth of the scriptures regarding homosexuality. In that piece, we featured a powerful address by Joe Dallas, a former homosexual and gay rights activist who, prior to renouncing his gay lifestyle, worked with the Metropolitan Community Church — a well known, well funded, pro-homosexual organization, largely staffed by openly gay and lesbian clergy. Dallas asserts that many Christians are afflicted with the “Jonah Syndrome,” meaning they hold homosexuals in contempt and resist demonstrating to them the love of Christ.

Quite correctly, Dallas calls upon the Church to repent of this sin while admonishing them not to be intimidated by the gay rights activist movement into silent submission. Many homosexuals are already suspicious of the Church, viewing Christians as pew-warming hypocrites with a self-righteous agenda, who can never truly love them or understand their struggle. In fact, many of them who have never darkened the door of a church look at the Fred Phelps “crazies” at Westboro Baptist Church, who choose every propitious moment to announce to the public, “God hates fags” and “AIDS cures fags,” and believe that this is an accurate reflection of the Church’s stance on homosexuality. Never mind the fact that there are many Christians themselves who are left wondering which Bible is being taught at that church! Indeed, we agree with Dallas; the Church is very adept at ringing its hands over the sins of our culture. Yet, within its very walls lurk evils that rival anything seen in Washington…or Hollywood, for that matter. Moreover, homosexuality is not the most heinous sin; it is only one of the myriad malpractices discussed in the Bible. Yet, people continue to rank homosexuality at the highest levels of their “worst-sin” hierarchy, perhaps because it is an affliction to which 97% of the population, typically, cannot relate.

The above notwithstanding, we should not mindlessly dismiss the message because of the messenger. A video like Come on Down to the Farm might not be the best form of ministry outreach. Nevertheless, it takes a direct stand on a truth that is self-evident, which is being silenced in the name of political correctness. Feminist Gloria Steinem once famoulsly declared, “The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off!” And the crux of the matter is that marriage, for several millennia and in every known culture and religious tradition, has constituted the union of one man and one woman, ultimately for the ordered purpose of procreation and the perpetuated existence of humanity. Even within polygamous societies, each marriage undertaken has still been within the confines of one man and one woman. Historically, marriage has been about uniting families for socioeconomic enhancement, empowering the economic and military success of kingdoms, and guaranteeing society the next generation. It is only within the past hundred years or so, and specifically within Western society, that love has become the prevailing criteria for marriage. And with a roughly 50% divorce rate, in which many of us have experienced firsthand the fallout of love growing cold, it is still open for discussion whether this has been an advantageous shift.

In any event, with battle lines drawn between gay rights activists and traditional marriage proponents, are we really surprised that such a response like this video has emerged from the “religious right”? Newton’s immutable third law surely applies to this blistering same-sex marriage controversy as much as it does to physics. For every action, there is bound to be an equal and opposite reaction, and this video is an unmistakable religious backlash against the media’s liberal leanings in favor of the LGBT agenda and their assault on traditional marriage. As discussed in our previous blog entries, the media has assumed a definitive and umistakable role in propagating and selling homosexuality to America. And as groups like Soulforce demonstrate, gay rights activists are becoming increasingly militant in their efforts to desensitize and convert the minds of the young and old alike in straight America into accepting what is clearly an unhealthy lifestyle. With a mission that states, “Cut off homophobia at its source — religious bigotry,” could gay rights activists really expect no reaction from the Church? With images of gay nuptials and portrayals of same-sex relationships bombarding the public at every turn, to the point where even in the privacy of home, conservative Christian heterosexuals can no longer turn on the television without being confronted by these issues, could they really expect no reaction from the Church? With having to explain to young children why “Adam” and “Steve” are kissing in a manner that, to them, surely constitutes inappropriate conduct, or how “two daddies” or “two mommies” came by the child they are raising, could they really expect no reaction from the Church?

In light of these times, it is only logical to expect that those in favor of traditional marriage would fight back, especially for our nation’s young, whom they believe are blindly accepting the gay culture as normal rather than an aberrant sexual lifestyle. A recent poll reports that, for the first time ever, a majority of California voters favor same-sex marriage — a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people. Again, are we really surprised? Generation X has been indoctrinated by postmodernist thought and fooled into believing that truth is only what can be perceived through the senses. In his column, Retreating to a defensible position on gay marriage, Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News explains this emerging shift:

“The course of Western history for the past 700 years has been toward the liberation of the individual and his desires. . . America is the modern nation par excellence. Here's the catch: Absent a binding source of authority, you can't pick and choose so easily where to draw freedom's line. The 1960s sexual revolution advanced the frontiers of liberty into the bedroom. Under the guise of privacy rights, contraception and abortion gained constitutional protection. When the California Supreme Court calls same-sex marriage a right because it is ‘integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy,’ it is only ratifying a deep cultural change that's already taken place. Is this why banning gay marriage doesn't make sense to young Americans? Yes, because they've grown up in a culture that presents sex and marriage principally as a matter of personal choice and individual fulfillment. This is a perfectly reasonable ethic for a sensate culture.”

Truth has seemingly lost all objectivity, and the concept of absolute truth seems a lie to most. But as George Orwell also famously declared, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” So what exactly is the truth?

The Real Proposal magazine impenitently adheres to the belief in an absolute moral truth grounded in Judeo-Christian principles. We have established a platform from which we intend to approach the issues in an intelligent and instructive manner, without compromising our message grounded in this truth for the sake of political correctness. Elizabeth Cady Stanton captures our philosophy when she wrote, “Reformers who are always compromising have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.”

Yet, in our efforts to expose and discredit the lies that are being packaged, perfumed, gift wrapped, and sold by the gay rights movement to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, we have determined not to lose sight of the collateral damage that ensues from this “culture war” within our nation. As Dallas declares,

“I must remember, when I am tempted towards real hostility towards lesbians and gays, who…say how hateful and bigoted we are, when I am tempted to pull out all the stops to steamroll them the way they are trying to steamroll us, I am reminded Jesus said Himself, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world.’ There are more important things than temporal victories. The eternal souls of the people we oppose are certainly more important that any sociological victories that we can attain.”

Therefore, in this raging mêlée for America’s soul, we cannot endorse inappropriate strategies on either side of this debate (this video included) for the sake of momentary gains if it means losing the ones we are trying to reach. And isn’t reaching “the lost” the challenge of the Great Commission with which the Church has been assigned?

(Contributing Writer: L. A. Levy, Intern)

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): How Should We Respond to Homosexuality- Part 1 By Joe Dallas, March 18, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): How Should We Respond to Homosexuality- Part 2 By Joe Dallas, March 18, 2008

School’s in (especially for John McCain): A “conservative” defense of Marriage

2008-05-28T21:15:00.022-05:00

Anyone who saw the live Ellen DeGeneres interview with John McCain after the California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, who has some kind of rudimentary understanding of the real underlying issues surrounding same-sex marriage, and who truly understands how high the stakes are in this on-going battle, would have been hard pressed to restrain themselves from "laying hands" on Mr. McCain with far less than religious intent. This is the “conservative” candidate for the presidency of the United States, who cannot, when asked, give a clearly articulated argument in favor of his foundational beliefs in the institution of marriage? He is an embarrassment. And so are his handlers, who allowed him to wander into "Ellen" territory ill-prepared. Indeed, did they expect that he would make an appearance on a television talk show hosted by a widely popular, openly lesbian comedienne one week after a landmark California Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in that state and the issue would not be raised?

Columnist Paul Edwards analyzes the embarrassing spectacle Mr. McCain made of himself and makes the arguments Mr. McCain should have been, and needs to be, apprised of before contemplating another trek into gay rights territory:

". . . Rather than defend marriage on moral principle as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, the establishment of the home as the basis of a civil society, and as a union entered 'before God' in accordance with His laws, McCain offered a compromise, emphasizing that, 'people should be able to enter into legal agreements' for the purpose of sharing insurance and decision-making. He pointed out that same-sex couples are not denied such legal benefits and should be content with the legal status of civil unions. Such a position leaves unstated all of the conservative principles relative to the defense of traditional marriage, the first principle being that marriage is not primarily a legal contract, but is fundamentally about reproduction, valued by the state because it provides a context for the rearing of children who have been birthed as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman, thus securing the future for a stable and free society.

Ellen denies these fundamental principles of marriage, arguing for same-sex marriage on the basis of erotic love, grounding her argument in the mistaken idea that marriage is a civil right denied to gays and lesbians in the same way this country denied the freedom of slaves and the suffrage of blacks and women: 'I think that it is looked at—and some people are saying the same—that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870, and it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people—all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same.'

There is absolutely no correlation between the equality denied blacks and women and marriage being denied to gays and lesbians. All humans, regardless of ethnic or gender differences, have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights on the basis of their common humanity. When Ellen argues that 'we are all the same people' she is absolutely correct that, in terms of our humanity, we are all equal. But she misapplies the equality standard to sexuality, insisting that there is no difference between the erotic love and relational commitment of homosexual persons versus that of heterosexual persons. She couldn’t be more wrong.

Love-making for same-sex couples results only in physical and emotional satisfaction while the same cannot be said of heterosexual love-making, which carries with it the possibility of procreation. No such possibility exists in a homosexual union.

Ellen is equal to me in terms of personhood and the individual human rights that accompany personhood. It is a fundamental denial of the human person to deny blacks and women equal status. But no one is denying Ellen and her lover status as persons or the rights that inure to them as human persons by denying a right to marriage. The rights of marriage are granted to those who can meet the biological standard necessary for entering a physical union that, all things being equal, can produce offspring. This is the fundamental nature of marriage. Any other benefits of marriage are subordinate.

To say that because we share the same rights as human persons we are the same in nature, physicality and even sexuality is to deny reality. I am not the same as Ellen in terms of human biology. She is a female and I am a male, and as such there are fundamental differences between us that are naturally innate which, even with radical surgery, cannot be changed. As Michael Medved has said, ''Sex change' procedures do nothing to alter the most important distinctions between males and females, and blur only a few external characteristics.' Even advances in biotechnology have not succeeded in changing the basic fact that the female body is capable of carrying and bringing to life the seeds of reproduction, a feat the male body cannot accomplish. To argue that marriage for those of same-sex attraction is a fundamental human right in the same way as suffrage is nothing more than changing the subject. John McCain allowed Ellen to change the subject and in doing so demonstrated that he is a poor apologist for conservatism on one of the key issues that really, really matters. . ."

In previous blog entries, we have highlighted how gay rights activists have mastered the art of the ad hominem argument, which obfuscates the substantive issues at hand by effectively changing the subject. Essentially, such tactics further the real, self-serving agenda of the LGBT movement. But the intrinsic issue of gay marriage is ultimately about whether or not we, as a society, will confer the moral equivalence of heterosexual relationships to homosexual unions. As one of the posters to our last blog entry — Anais65 — declared,

"Same-sex marriage, as Ellen brought the debate between herself and McCain down to, is not about 'my relationship' versus 'your relationship.' Public policy is not about specific individuals. Likewise, public policy regarding marriage is not about any couple in particular. Marriage is about future generations, and about the ideal setting in which future generations are raised. Sure, some same-sex couples can do a half-decent job at raising kids, while some heterosexual couples screw-up their kids royally. But again, public policy is broader than any specific couples, and should be based on noble ideals that transcend all of us—you, me...even Ellen and John McCain."

Anais65 gets it. So what's Mr. McCain's excuse?

California gay marriage decision: The battle is on for our freedoms!

2008-05-22T06:02:00.034-05:00

The May 15, 2008 California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the nation's most populous state almost certainly means same-sex marriage will be an issue in this fall's presidential campaign. We can't say that pleases us, but the California court leaves the political culture little choice. When all is said and done, the decision handed down is outrageous, not just because it redefines marriage and, therefore, ultimately, the definition of what has constituted “family” in this nation since inception, not to mention thousands of years of western culture. It is outrageous because four unelected robes effectively rescinded the ban on gay marriage and, thereby, overturned the will of 61% of the California electorate — 4,618,673 of them to be precise — who voted in 2000 to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. The essence of any democracy rests, ultimately, upon the right of people to decide for themselves the moral rules that govern the nature of the society in which they live. Without that power, they are living under an oligarchy, which this scenario amply demonstrates can be wrought in this country through judicial tyranny. What’s more, anyone who thinks that the watershed issue of same-sex marriage is ultimately about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms or a fundamental constitutional right to marry whomever we fall in love or want to form a family with, regardless of their gender, is being either naive, misinformed, misled...or, simply, disingenuous.

We have no Catholic affiliation, but we urge you to view this special AirMaria report regarding the status of religious liberty in America, relative to the ongoing push by activist homosexual lobby groups for full same-sex marriage rights in America. For indeed, anyone who does not recognize or understand the inherent conflicts between same-sex marriage rights being entrenched into law and our religious liberty — and, yes, even our free speech rights — had best wake up and smell the stench of what's festering right under our noses. Moreover, do not expect to be objectively informed on the issues by a largely liberal media that keep us distracted with trivial pursuits and inane drivel disguised as entertainment. As we argued in our last few blog entries, much of the media are now so closely aligned with the LGBT agenda, or involved in heretic pursuits that there is no longer a discernible difference in their apparent cohesive mission with respect to normalizing and legitimizing homosexual behavior.

The video references a March 26, 2007 debate within the Connecticut Senate regarding raised House Bill 7395: An Act Concerning Marriage Equality. It highlights the testimony of Brian Brown, Executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, who was grilled by the Senate Committee on the question of whether same-sex marriage constitutes a civil right and, unbelievably, even the propriety of his own religious convictions. Mr. Brown, quite rightly, stood his ground and defended both traditional marriage and his religious liberties in a very eloquent and courageous way. But, as the decision by the California Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional the state ban on same-sex marriage so clearly demonstrates, the kind of orchestrated assault to which Mr. Brown was subjected has not stopped at the Connecticut state line. Indeed, this video presents a good synthesis on what likely happened in the California Supreme Court debate and decision-making process and, indeed, what is happening — and is likely to happen — in state legislatures and judicial branches all over the country.

Moreover, there can no longer be any question that our religious liberties are, indeed, under fire. Just ask Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., whose Hope Christian Church is targeted for an unsolicited visit on May 25 by Soulforce, an activist homosexual lobby group, whose stated mission is to “cut off homophobia at its source — religious bigotry.” In their attempt to encourage the inclusion of gay families in churches, Soulforce has targeted for similar visits Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church (May 11), T.D. Jakes’ Potter’s House (May 18), Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (June 1), Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church (June 9), and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church (Father’s Day, June 16). To which we say, categorically, that homosexuals should always be welcomed within our churches. Christians are called to love the sinner — every kind — not the sin. What remains unclear, however, is whether, by their presence, Soulforce expects the gospel message will be tailored — censored, if you will — to exclude any discussions of, or references to, their lifestyle. But more importantly, when did preaching gospel morality for all people become a form of oppression?

The saying is that “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Therefore, those of us who understand what’s really at stake in the battle for marriage as “the union of one man, one woman” had best arm ourselves with a full understanding of the causal issues, and what the arguments on each side are ultimately about. Our opponents are well organized and seriously vested in their game plan. Typically, they oppose any due process that allows the electorate to decide on the definition of marriage, and claim that the Federal Marriage Amendment Bill or a state marriage amendment is unnecessary. But this argument is not just hypocritical and devious; it is outright absurd, especially in light of what has now taken place in California, not to mention Massachusetts in 2003. The “unnecessary” argument, we now know, is a thinly veiled ploy to leave marriage vulnerable to judicial and legislative attack, exactly as several social scientists and conservative think tanks had warned several years ago. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, judicial tyranny can spread to other states. Unlike the Massachusetts ruling, there is no residency requirement for same-sex marriage within California, which could effectively force gay marriages to be legally recognized with the full benefits of marriage in states like New York that do not yet expressly have a constitutional amendment banning such unions. In fact, New York's highest court handed same-sex marriage advocates a recent victory by refusing to hear an appeal on an appellate court's groundbreaking ruling that recognized a same-sex couple's Canadian marriage. “If a marriage is valid in the state or county in which the marriage took place, New York law generally requires the recognition of that marriage,” said Arthur Eisenberg, the NYCLU's legal director. “This case involved a straightforward application of that principle.” By letting the earlier ruling stand, valid out-of-state same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of New York.

Ultimately, every state without a constitutional amendment faces the exact same threat as California. Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil unions, twenty-five states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs).

As revolutionary — or conservative, depending on your worldview — as one might deem it by today’s standards, The Real Proposal magazine endorses neither same-sex marriage, nor civil unions or domestic partnership agreements for either same-sex or heterosexual couples as a matter of basic "fairness" for the very reasons that the California Supreme Court handed down its ruling. Essentially, the court put no stock in the state's argument that same-sex and opposite-sex couples already have equivalent rights under California law. In fact, the 4-3 majority found that the Legislature's decision to treat gay relationships as worthy of marriage-like benefits actually bolstered the plaintiffs' argument that domestic partnerships are discriminatory. Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a "mark of second-class citizenship." Ironically, the court suggested that it might have reached a more moderate conclusion — such as requiring the Legislature to institute domestic partnerships, rather than to redefine marriage — if lawmakers had not already given substantial benefits to gay couples.

Once “compromise” and “fairness” become the moral standard on which laws are based, as opposed to what’s right, there will always be a slippery slope that descends into the kind of ideological morass that we now find ourselves embroiled. Those who have been around the block a few times know this only too well. Compromise in integrity and righteousness always leads to more of the same. And, today, many of us who love this country look on in disbelief at the current cultural landscape — rife with divorce, cohabitation, promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, single moms, ill-mannered children, failing public schools, substance abuse, domestic violence, abortions, pornography and incivility — and don’t seem to be able to connect the dots regarding how America fell this far this fast.

The gold standard for marriage has always been and should always be “the union of one man, one woman, for life.” Period. No good can result from repeatedly lowering the bar. And, any deviation that society places a stamp of approval on will ultimately lead to familial and societal chaos. Indeed, the court found that California's domestic partnership law, which constitutes marriage in all but name, violates the civil rights of gay citizens. "Separate but equal" in the matter of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, they ruled. Never mind that the "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions, or that laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of behavior or actions. Which sane person could deny the importance of discriminating against certain types of actions? No one is making a ruckus that we have laws that “discriminate” against murderers, thieves, child molesters, cheaters, liars, etc. because their behavior is unacceptable for civilized society. And until Lawrence v. Texas, homosexuality in every state was deemed unacceptable behavior for a host of very valid reasons, including public health.

Moreover, the argument that homosexuals have not been allowed to marry is simply not true. The truth is that, up until the Massachusetts ruling in 2003, which was effected in like manner through judicial decree, everyone in America has had the right to marry…just not someone of the same sex! And if they want marriage, homosexuals should be expected to follow the same rules everyone else does, not have special interest privileges — compromises, essentially — entrenched into law. Furthermore, analogies with bans against interracial marriage are, in a word, bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system, or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority the way it did for blacks in this country. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining — including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

People in favor of homosexual unions and gay marriage typically argue that if gays are allowed to marry, it will not hurt their own marriage. Therefore, why should they care about gay marriage? They also argue that society should not dictate whom we should love. Both of these, however, are ad hominem arguments that obfuscate the real issue by changing the subject. The issue of gay marriage is ultimately about whether or not we, as a society, will confer the moral equivalence of heterosexual relationships to homosexual unions. And those of us who disagree with such liberal — and, some would argue, even immoral — thought have as much right as anyone else to dissent privately, or in the public square without censorship, fear of harassment, or reprisals. In any event, the faulty, underlying premise of these arguments is that gay marriages and relationships do not intrinsically affect anyone else’s marriage or relationships at a personal level. But we are certain that the spouses that have lost their marriages by the “coming out” of their closeted counterparts previously on the "down low", and those children that are devastated by a change in the sexual orientation of a parent would beg to differ. Moreover, such arguments are logically flawed. If we only cared about laws that affected us directly in a radical individualistic way, as opposed to those that affect families, societies, and nations, then we shouldn’t oppose child molesters, drug abusers, wife beaters, or a host of other gross violations that don’t directly affect us. Furthermore, it is the institution of marriage and, therefore, the fundamental essence of marriage as the union between one man and one woman that is being challenged and overturned. And it is only by being disingenuous and self-serving that anyone could argue in any reasonable debate that there are no psychological and developmental consequences for the offspring produced by, or engineered for such unions. Men and women — regardless of what feminists preach — are not social constructs with different genitalia. Neither are they interchangeable parts in a family equation.

What makes the California ruling so remarkable — and suspect — is the fact that it is the first court since Massachusetts in 2003 to rule that prevailing marriage laws constitute unconstitutional discrimination. Courts in Maryland, New York, and Washington as well as three international courts have since rejected that argument and upheld marriage laws against claims of discrimination. Now, however, every state without a constitutional amendment faces the exact same threat as California of having un-elected judges trample the will of the people. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California. California voters will. And that’s a good thing, considering the fact that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stance on this judicial ruling is a disgraceful betrayal of public trust. Imagine the hubris, which leads him to believe that the majority of his constituents have no idea what's best for them, or that his allegiance is better served at the altar of the Supreme Court than those who put him in office and made clear their will through Proposition 22. The truth of the matter is that, by this ruling, 61 percent of Californians — his constituents — have been deemed bigots. And, as the AirMaria video so forcefully highlights, there are consequences for such “bigotry” if this ruling stands without a constitutional amendment from either the federal or state legislature.

Without question, the California Supreme Court decision to strike down that state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional is playing with fire. It will radically change society as we have known it in ways that are still unimaginable to most people. And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of the millions who support this decision — let alone the four "compassionate" justices — acknowledge this. Ultimately, the definition of marriage is not a judge's decision. It's not a politician's decision. God help us to do not what is politically expedient but what will preserve what our founding fathers intended as a legacy for our progeny. God help us also to win this battle for our freedoms, and America’s soul.

More Than a "Gay Gene" Controlling the Media: It's New Age Heresy.

2008-04-12T15:03:00.053-05:00

Check out the video link that was brought to our attention by one of our readers in response to our previous posting, The 'gay gene' controlling the media. Without a doubt, it lends credence to our skepticism and justifies not just our own bewilderment but also that of several readers who posted comments about the media's blatantly false editorial positioning in the illusory farce concerning Thomas Beatie, a seriously confused "transgendered" woman, who is being heralded—and, thereby, validated—not only by Oprah but also by such publications as People magazine as the world's first "pregnant man". Now the fundamental issues raised by this unseemly event weren't particularly difficult to grasp. In fact, one poster to The Telegraph’s coverage of the Beatie affair— “Dom”— summarized the entire fiasco best:

"It's absurd the extent to which western society has its notions of gender and sex confused. Come on, surely no one in their right mind really thinks this person is a man. Genetically she is a woman, and she can take hormones as much as she wants but it doesn't change a thing. Only the most superficial of societies would kid itself that removing your breasts and taking hormones stopped you being a woman. It's what's inside that counts, in the nucleus of every cell in her body. Do women who have breasts removed because of cancer become men? Of course not - it's a horribly offensive idea. Is a man an elephant because deep inside he feels mentally and emotionally like an elephant? Of course not - every one of the billions of cells in his body has human DNA, and XY chromosomes. He's a man! This individual is a woman.”

So why couldn’t the media see this issue as clearly? In our last essay, we argued that, perhaps, it is because the media has an entirely different agenda in perpetuating these kinds of falsehoods—an agenda that is now almost inseparable from the LBGT agenda to desensitize and convert straight America into believing that their issues have a genetic basis and arise from anything but deviant behavior. But, as this You Tube video shows, the truth appears to have even more sinister implications. We can no longer listen to people like Oprah or swallow the media's increasingly ambivalent moral stance on such important issues like homosexuality and gay marriage and not realize there is another agenda afoot. Increasingly, we are being asked, if not legislated, to accept the kind of “tolerance” and “cultural diversity” that effectively renders us amoral as a society and to set aside as inferior or, at the very least, outdated and irrelevant those foundational Judeo-Christian teachings, which declare the existence of absolute truths and God as the source of moral values. For, indeed, in Oprah's mind and those of her ilk, they have surely evolved to what they have deemed a "higher plane of consciousness" that denies even the existence of sin! Seriously.

And so, we are thankful for pragmatic people like columnist Frank Pastore who defined in his recent article, Questions that Bother Oprah and Today's New Age Thinkers, that the real issue, ultimately, is not about whether Oprah Winfrey, Eckhart Tolle or Marianne Williamson are good, smart, nice, well-intentioned, or even sincere people. The concern is about the ideas they hold— since good, smart, nice, well-intentioned, sincere people can hold false beliefs and be sincerely wrong about all kinds of things. Sometimes, even the most important things. And the real misfortune arises when people like these have unlimited access to a microphone and a virtual platform that can reach the entire world. Indeed, Pastore writes:

". . . I have questions about their worldview. A worldview is made up of the answers we give to life’s most fundamental and profound questions. It includes the answers we give to questions of philosophy, religion, ethics and theology. And they are questions that have been asked and answered by every culture in world history. When comparing and contrasting religions, worldview categories are the most basic level of inquiry. If you know a person’s worldview, you know a whole lot about them. Oftentimes, you even know more about their thinking processes than they do.

Right now, Oprah is co-teaching an online class with author Eckhart Tolle, based upon her current Book of the Month, his “A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose.” And, Oprah’s promoting a daily radio show on her XM channel featuring Marianne Williamson teaching from “A Course in Miracles.” Both Tolle and Williamson are New Age thinkers. Oprah says she’s a Christian—arguing that she can reconcile “her” Christianity with what they’re teaching. If she’s a Christian, she’s an ignorant one, because Christianity is incompatible with New Age thought. . . "

Pastore goes on to compare and contrast New Age thought with traditional Judeo-Christian principles and it is important that we acquaint ourselves fully with the differences. To be sure, such an exercise cleans the filter through which we ought to be examining the real issues behind many of the critical sociopolitical and moral debates taking place in our world today. Even more importantly, it ought to give us insight regarding the consequences of our spiritual and moral apathy as well as our inaction with respect to taking a decisive stand on the evils permeating our culture through skillful marketing techniques.

Through his article, Moral Absolutes: Judeo-Christian Values Dennis Prager reminds us:

"Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality — what is good or evil — is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?

In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. . . "

Indeed, what Oprah is proposing through her New Age teachings goes well beyond editorial positioning or a relativist stance on moral issues. Pastore writes that the New Age Movement is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt, yet it is making Tolle and Williamson—and especially Oprah—a whole bunch of money. But, in our minds, what Oprah and her media friends are proposing is sheer heresy!

RELATED ARTICLE: The 'Church' of Oprah The Good News in South Florida- BP News, By James A. Smith, Sr., May 1, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Oprah's Book Club: "A New Earth- Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" By Eckhart Tolle Oprah.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Church of Oprah? By Randy Young, Thomasville Times-Enterprise, April 8, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: A “Gay Man” Trapped in a Woman’s Body and Other Nonsense Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, December 26, 2007

The "Gay Gene" Controlling The Media

2008-04-01T00:14:00.136-05:00

We have been waiting to see whether this was an April fool's joke. Or, perhaps, this was some contrived plan masterminded by actor and veteran media prankster, Ashton Kutcher, in yet another mocked-up, embarrassing ruse on the media. But, without some kind of retraction from The Advocate, which first reported the story, and amid fresh reports that Oprah, in conjunction with People magazine, has scored the first exclusive interview regarding the tumult, we now feel compelled to respond to the rather astounding, "News of the World” type, freakish claim that a man is now pregnant... with a baby. No, seriously. In their report, headlined Labor of Love, The Advocate reputedly gives the first-person account of Thomas Beatie (pictured above), a married man who used to be a woman that now says he is pregnant and will give birth to a baby girl in July. This is not the first time, it would appear, that a transgendered man would have given birth, nor is it the first time that a regular Joe has claimed to be pregnant. Several years ago, Lee Mingwei was touted on the website MalePregnancy.com as the first man to actually become pregnant. Curiously though, that website has been up since 1999, and Mingwei is still apparently pregnant! Therefore, either the poor unsuspecting man has been in seriously traumatic labor for nearly a decade, or the story is a fake. Closer scrutiny of that web site does, in fact, reveal that this story is a fake. It was reportedly created as "performance art" by artist Virgil Wong as "an exploration of a very likely scenario that may one day result from new advances in biotechnology and infertility treatments." All of which sounds rather ominous, indeed. And, although doubts have been cast regarding the validity of this latest "pregnant man" report, Oprah's claim of having her "cameras capture it all—the ultrasound, inside the nursery and more" would make it appear as if that day is now here.

Either way, the mere fact that we are even contemplating this as a possible scenario is a sure-fire indication that, if ever as a society, we were waiting for that defining moment in which we ought to reconsider the primrose path along which gay rights activists are leading us, it would be now. To be sure, The Advocate has its own agenda in reporting this particular story, and it is not just because it is newsworthy or because a story like this will elicit compassion in many quarters for their cause. Ultimately, their real aim is to further the LGBT agenda in desensitizing the public to these types of shocking, lurid developments that could only occur in their world, and to appeal to our sensibilities and sense of fairness towards the plight of poor LGBT "victims" who are surely as entitled as straight folk to the same marriage and parental rights and adoption privileges that the vast majority of Americans still frown upon for this demographic. And, indeed, The Advocate is entitled to spin this story however it wishes. However, our deep, disquieting gut reaction to their article and to the untenable arguments this imbroglio is already generating is that, in any true sense of the word, this is hardly a “labor of love.” For, when all is said and done, there would have been scant consideration for the child that is being brought into world through garish scientific machinations and this kind of study in gender confusion. And, quite rightly, several doctors — nine of them, to be precise — refused to get involved in furthering Beatie in this cause. For, indeed, this scenario raises serious ethical issues, and is more a sign of the mounting evidence of the emerging global clash between adult rights and children's needs and how technology and social progress are turning procreation into self-actualization. We live in an age when parental “rights” trump that of the offspring being conceived, and there is a very distorted perception that children added into an already compromised circumstance will somehow “complete” us. Thank you, Jerry McGuire.

And, please get it straight here. We are not talking solely about homosexual or transgender households like the Beatie’s wanting to conceive and raise children by whatever means they deem necessary to satisfy their own "pursuit of happiness". We’re also making reference to those adults who have determined that a father is nothing more than a sperm donor— a mere blip on their biological timeline and agenda, those that make up their own rules of cohabitation with their latest "partner," birthing children that will likely see a string of “uncles” and “aunts” flit into and out of their lives before they’re grown and unleashed on society, and even those married folk who think that having more babies will fix whatever ails their current marriage. The celebrities that perpetuate and glamorize this "whatever-floats-your-boat" culture shall go nameless here. We already know their names… well. And we also know neighbors, and friends, and even church members that subscribe to it.

In any event, despite the ethical considerations that this Advocate report raises, it is some of the posted comments on the various sites already reporting the Beatie case that reveal how vacant we have become in this new liberal age of moral relativism. On so many levels, this is what demonstrates so clearly that the strategic phase of the gay rights activist movement to desensitize the public to their lifestyle is now nearly complete, and that they are par for the course with respect to their anticipated "conversion" of straight America... and, indeed, the world. Consider also, in this same regard, what is clearly the persistent, self-serving quest of some in the mainstream media— Oprah included — to sell the generally unsuspecting public a cleverly disguised bill of goods with respect to homosexuality and the gay rights agenda. For why else would they continue to propagate widespread confusion on issues that science has repeatedly debunked regarding whether or not there is a "gay gene"?

Take this latest report by ABC’s 20/20 news magazine, which purports to answer the increasingly urgent question: Is There a 'Gay Gene'? Scientists Hope to Demonstrate Genetic Link to Sexuality. Make no mistake; this was a propaganda piece for the gay rights activist movement. And, fortunately, columnist Robert Knight pegged it correctly in his recent article, ABC Follows 'Born Gay' Script to a T:

“. . . [The] story follows the script proposed in the gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to “overhaul straight America,” which was the title of an article out of which After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989.

The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are proponents of traditional morality – especially Christians — who are to be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no exception.

Host Diane Sawyer begins the Good Morning America segment by proclaiming the advent of a “truly landmark study” (whose results won’t come out until later this year) about biology and being gay. And of course, what about the people who still believe that homosexuality is a choice? Wink, wink. These are the same folks who still believe in a flat earth.

The report is framed around a boy named Zack, who, along with his parents, believes he was “born gay.” The lone dissenter, Dr. Stanton Jones, is introduced as “a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian.” No one else’s religious beliefs are mentioned. The message: Pay no attention to this man. His views are religious, not scientific. . ."

In our previous essay, Responding to homosexuality and gay marriage: Lover the Sinner. Hate the Sin, we argued that the gay rights movement has mastered obfuscation techniques, including the ad hominem argument, which subversively deflects attention from the real facts in any valid debate on homosexuality and redirects attention to the character or characteristics of the person making a legitimate claim that detracts from their agenda. To be sure, this strategy was used covertly against Dr. Stanton in the ABC 20/20 piece. Essentially, instead of addressing his factual claims appropriately, what ABC did was to call his testimony into disrepute because, of course, he's an "evangelical Christian," which in today's parlance effectively translates to being part of that "vast right wing conspiracy" to keep America in moral bondage. Where were the interviews with former homosexuals and former gay rights activists like Joe Dallas, Charlene E. Cothran, Michael Galtze and countless others who likely also believed at one time that they too were “born gay”? Surely, it is important for the public to hear their testimonies. And it is not as if these former homosexuals cannot be easily identified through such organizations as NARTH — the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality — or Exodus International, which is headed by Alan Chambers, himself a former gay man who has been interviewed by numerous television, radio and print outlets across North America including ABC’s 20/20. And so, why didn't they? Because ignoring the existence of former homosexuals — as well as sound scientific articles and books that address this substantiated fact — would effectively rebut their “gay gene” theory! And isn't the whole point of the ad hominem strategy to effectively to change the subject? You may well ask, why are they doing this? Well, because part of their well-documented goal is to reduce dissenting voices to the homosexual lifestyle and agenda to the level of "homophobic bigots" and "haters," which could then be silenced through "hate crime" legislation. All of which would mean that the real issues affecting us negatively as a society through the ascendancy of the homosexual lifestyle would ultimately be moot.

Did you notice that the first results of this study are not even available until the end of the year? Yet, to listen to the dialogue of ABC personalities Diane Sawyer and Lynn Sherr, one gets the impression that the results are already locked in and they are already in spin control mode! Surely, in the name of “tolerance,” dissenters should just get over themselves already. In the Oprah-fication of America to redefine "normal" for her brave new world, we should just accept that homosexuals are simply born that way, and embrace predicaments like the Beatie's as "cultural diversity," instead of recognizing them as a true reflection of our social nadir. Surely, in the name of "good conscience," this tolerance of which they speak is the next level in our no-holds-barred social and moral evolution that frees us from any absolute truths, which recognize the final authority of God… especially the One that “Jesus freaks” worship!

In her article, Don’t be manipulated by the master marketers, Rebecca Hagelin put it very succinctly:

". . . The plain truth is, within the space of our lifetimes, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil. . . ”

When all is said and done in this LBGT debate, it would appear that there is none more fundamental a consideration than whether homosexuality is hardwired in our DNA. But the truth, as Robert Knight points out, is that, since 1991, the media has periodically reported scientific claims of a genetic component to homosexuality — often as front-page news of such luminaries as The New York Times — and none of them have held up under scrutiny. And none of them have been replicated, which, as he rightly indicates, is a necessary element for scientific validity. Yet, the media continues to perpetuate this "gay gene" myth.

We urge you to read Robert Knight's very compelling supporting article, Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic, which demonstrates clearly how the media continues to distort public understanding of a complex issue and why gay rights strategy architects Kirk and Madsen — wherever they are today — must, as Knight says, “be smiling.” For to be sure, their After the Ball "handbook of gay rights activism," which dictates that any efforts to explain homosexual behavior as anything but deviant must be stymied and silenced, is accomplishing the purpose for which it was written.

But, that aside, reason with us a little further. What if the many psychiatrists and mental health professionals like Dr. Stanton L. Jones, Dr. Mark A. Yarhouse, and Dr. Charles W. Socarides, who still that attest homosexuality is anything but hardwired in DNA, are actually correct? And what if the psychiatrists and mental health professional as well as the scientists are all looking in the wrong area? What if homosexuality is not a DNA or a mental health issue at all but is, indeed, a spiritual issue as so many religious factions claim with supported scripture references from the books of Romans and 1 Corinthians and Leviticus? As human beings, aren’t we generally understood to be holistic beings with mind, body and spirit components?

Indeed, if homosexuality has little or nothing to do with our DNA and our genes (a “body” issue), which is why the science is still not convincing, but is, indeed, a mind issue, would anyone really have been served by the politically motivated maneuverings on the part of activists within the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their list of treatable mental disorders? To be sure, a great many kids manifest — and are fully aware from very early ages that they are affected by — a variety of mental disorders, including Bipolar and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders. Yet, many either find a cure or grow up learning how to successfully manage their treatment regimen. Which is why ABC's bringing of kids to the fore attesting that they knew they had homosexual tendencies from a very early age is hypocritical and, essentially, proof of nothing. Except, of course, that there are many in the media with their own "gay gene" bias who are losing their objectivity, and who are becoming the instruments of gay colleagues and peers, as well as family members and friends wanting to further the LGBT agenda. This is already the case in our legislature and judiciary. Furthermore, what if homosexuality really is a spiritual issue? Wouldn't this mean that the solution can only be found in that dimension... with God and, ultimately, what He has to say about this issue? To be sure, this latter option would create even more of a dilemma for many, many people since it would require a change of heart (a “spirit” issue) beginning, perhaps, with the recognition that it is pride — which manifests itself sometimes as the justification of illicit behavior as everything but sin — that is preventing them from a cure.

All of which to say, we may be barking entirely up the wrong tree looking for DNA evidence as the only rationale for homosexual pathos. Such an outcome would appease homosexuals, to be sure. But looking for other solutions when the science just isn't there to support that particular hypothesis is, truly, the only responsible thing to do. Moreover, in the final analysis, there is nothing to be gained by kow-towing to the gay rights agenda. There is too much at stake in this debate. Our progeny depend on us discovering and discerning the truths in this issue. Unlike what many liberals profess, kids don't know enough to make informed choices regarding what's best for them, or what might be at the root of their behaviors and peculiarities. And, to be sure, they are never born knowing the difference between right and wrong. That's why they have parents who are supposed to teach them. The unfortunate reality, however, is that, if we leave our job as parents to the media, it will no longer be the "hand that rocks the cradle" that rules the world. It will be "he" who controls the media.

EDITOR'S NOTE (04-03-08): Turns out the Beatie story is, in fact, true. The Oprah interview with the Beatie's aired today and not all of Oprah's fans are happy she's delving into "Jerry Springer" territory!

RELATED ARTICLE: Surgical Sex By Paul McHugh, FirstThings.com — The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, November 2004
Mental health professionals like Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University believe that all the social, medical and psychiatric resources employed in turning men into women are “a misdirection of psychiatry” and, partly at the his urging, Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex reassignment surgery. He is convinced that to provide a surgical alteration for people who think their bodies and sexual identities are at variance is to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.

RELATED ARTICLE: How America Went Gay By Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Leadership U,

RELATED ARTICLE: Review Of 'Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study Of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation' By George A. Rekers, Ph.D., N.A.R.T.H.

RELATED SITE: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

RELATED SITE: Exodus International- The largest information and referral ministry in the world addressing homosexual issues

Responding to Homosexuality & Gay Marriage: “Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin”

2008-03-21T03:48:00.171-05:00

Over the years, according to gay activists who know him, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial ex-pastor in Chicago, has largely supported gay rights and welcomed gays into his 8,000-member congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ. Now that he has been thrust into the limelight regarding controversial statements made in the past on several issues of race and the African American experience in America, it seems that all aspects of his past conduct within that church are being called into question. With respect to gay rights, however, it appears, quite rightly, that Wright had the reputation of being supportive of gay rights, but not “open and affirming” of homosexual relationships. Indeed, while 80 percent of the church’s General Synod voted to approve a same-sex marriage resolution, giving all United Church of Christ congregations authority to perform same-sex marriages — with the resolution explicitly allowing each church to decide on its own whether or not to endorse or perform such unions — it appears that Wright spoke out against the Synod’s position, which prompted several LGBTQ parishioners to leave the church. Clearly, Wright understood the concept of "Love the sinner. Hate the sin," which must translate to serving others without compromising one's Christian values and spiritual integrity.

In another scenario, just prior to the Eliot Spitzer prostitution mess, Oklahoma Congresswoman, Rep. Sally Kern became the target of a "seek and destroy" mission, seemingly activated by over zealous gay rights activists seeking her head. The Washington D.C. based political action committee, The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, claimed responsibility for releasing a secretly recorded address made by Kern, which documented some of her ramblings and concerns regarding homosexuality. "The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact," Kern is heard saying, among other things. "I'm not anti... I'm not gay bashing, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences.... Homosexuality is more of a threat to the United States than terrorism..."

It is not clear whether the congresswoman's comments were made in an official capacity— not that it should matter either way. But what is clear is that there are several gay rights factions within this country that, through sheer political bullying, are becoming more and more aggressive in their attempts to intimidate and silence anyone voicing opposition to their beliefs, and their agenda. "While this speech is remarkable in its statements, it is not unique," The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund declared on its web site upon releasing the recording of Kern to YouTube. "For every bit of hateful rhetoric we hear, scores of other anti-gay statements go unchallenged." True to form, by virtue of the pack mentality pervading the American media today, just about every media outlet moved in for the anticipated kill. Over several days, we witnessed a virtual onslaught that threatened to drown Kern in political morass, even as Ellen DeGeneres, perhaps the most highly visible lesbian comedian entertainer in the U.S. today, used the national platform of her eponymous talk show to get in on the fray.

To be sure, Rep. Kern's statements were neither the most sensitive nor the most politically correct in our day. But "hateful rhetoric"? Hardly. There was no subtext of hatred aimed at the homosexual population, or any incitement to riot or harm anyone. Quite simply, Mrs. Kern was exercising her constitutional right to free speech in expressing what she believes is a very real "internal threat" to the stability of our nation. Whether or not we agree with her, it is her right to voice her opinion and to stimulate discussion in the public square on matters she deems relevant, especially in her capacity as a lawmaker who can affect public policy. If her constituents do not believe she represents their interests accurately then, surely, they too have the right to exercise their vote to remove her from office at the next election! The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has accused Rep. Kern for making her remarks "when they think we're not listening," which, in and of itself, sounds rather ominous and would be even more foreboding were this a police state. Regardless, it is irrelevant whether, in her recorded address, Kern was addressing 50, or 50,000, people. This country still celebrates freedom of speech, even insofar as some of our, well, more intellectually challenged calling our president a "F*****g Idiot in Chief". Moreover, since when did talking to 50 people, privy to opinions and remarks that are already a matter of public record, constitute a private conversation?

Indeed, closer scrutiny of this Sally Kern incident is more likely to reveal a portentous, well-orchestrated, well-funded campaign by over reaching gay rights activists to further their cause in having opinions that speak against their lifestyle criminalized as "hate speech" and, thereafter, silenced by law. For, to be sure, the gay rights movement has mastered obfuscation techniques, including the ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"), which consists, essentially, of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument, or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works effectively to change the subject. Hence, dissenting voices to the homosexual lifestyle and agenda are reduced to "homophobic bigots" and "haters" and the real issues at hand fall by the wayside, including the well documented facts, even by our own national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that homosexual activity is unhealthy and ultimately generates health risks for the rest of the population.

Quite likely, we would not have commented on this teacup tempest were it not for other, more recent reports regarding the attempted smack-down of yet another American's religious beliefs and moral convictions— this time, those of a private citizen. Accounts indicate that San Diego developer Doug Manchester and other prominent San Diego County businessmen have recently given significant financial support to an initiative that aims to ban same-sex marriage, which is targeted for the November 2008 statewide election ballot. Manchester said he was motivated to become involved in the gay rights debate by his strong Catholic faith, and decided to donate because he had come to realize that schools that teach that marriage is between a man and a woman could be sued for discriminating against gays and lesbians. “I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don't want to offend anybody. But when they say that we cannot say that a marriage is between a man and a woman, that's where I draw the line.”

Does it matter to gay rights activists that they have their own "money men" with clout, including such luminaries as Quark Inc. Founder Tim Gill, billionaire Pat Stryker, former Colorado state Board of Education member Jared Polis, and software entrepreneur Rutt Bridges who have all, unapologetically, funneled millions into independent political gay rights groups? Apparently not. Consider the fact that Manchester's "paltry" $125,000 donation to the ballot initiative, which, by the way, would rightly take the matter before the electorate in due democratic process, has now prompted gay-rights activists to urge a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the Manchester-owned San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina despite the fact that Manchester has made it clear that his hotels and restaurants have welcomed gays and lesbians as both employees and as customers. Quite likely, targeted recriminations and chastisements will follow the other identifiable businessmen, who, like Manchester, have made significant donations to the ballot initiative. But, is there also a covert plan of action to marginalize the other private San Diego residents whose donations make up a significant part of the $1 million raised for the initiative?

All of which begs the more fundamental question: How can Christians and conservatives in America today — those desperately trying to walk the tightrope cliché to "Love the sinner. Hate the sin" — find balance in this homosexuality/gay marriage debate? To be sure, we don't have all the answers. However, we believe there is much wisdom to be garnered from a powerful address given by Joe Dallas, Founder of Genesis Counseling at a Love Won out conference in Orlando, Florida. A former homosexual and gay rights activist with the Metropolitan Community Church,** a well known, well funded pro-homosexual organization, largely staffed by openly gay and lesbian clergy, Dallas has authored three books on homosexuality. He has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. Dallas says many Christians are afflicted with the "Jonah Syndrome," meaning they hold homosexuals in contempt and resist demonstrating to them the love of Christ. Indeed, says Dallas:

". . . When we talk as though homosexuality is the preeminent, most heinous sin in the scripture, and while it is clear that both Testaments unequivocally condemn homosexuality in any form — and any attempt to get around that is wildly self-serving and deceptive — it is also true that you will find more about pride, idolatry and gossip in the Bible than you'll find about homosexuality. . . "

Dallas, correctly, calls upon the Church to repent of this sin and to reach out to the gay community with "bold love" and a message of grace that is compassionate, consistent and clear. He points out that, unfortunately, many homosexuals feel that evangelicals hate them as people because of their sexual preferences. "The gay and lesbian community is looking to the church for some verifiable evidence that we love them as we say that we do... that we value them as people, not just as objects to be converted," Dallas declares. How, specifically, has the church failed in responding correctly to the gay community? Dallas cites several examples. He also describes how Christians can achieve the proper, balanced approach of showing Christ's love to gays and lesbians, while still declaring the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin. At the same time, however, Dallas also admonishes the Church:

". . . I believe that, if we are to respond effectively to this issue, the Church must repent of being intimidated by the gay rights movement. . . . Martin Luther King said, "The Church must be reminded that it is neither the master of the state nor the servant of the state, but rather it is the conscience of the state.

"Perhaps, the only thing more frightening than the concept of a man without a conscience is a state without a conscience— a sociopathic state that will do whatever is expedient. A state that will, if it is expedient, murder its young, euthanize its elderly, do whatever is expedient for the "welfare of the state." A sociopathic state. A state without a conscience. That's a real Orwellian nightmare. . . . . And if the conscience of the state can be silenced, which it can, then the prospect of a sociopathic state is not just terrifying, it's inevitable. Which brings up a two-fold problem, the first being that there are forces within the gay rights movement seeking to silence the conscience of the state, which brings us to the second problem, which is perhaps larger in that much of the Church has been all too willing to accommodate those forces by consenting to being silenced.

"Listen to Kirk and Madsen, the two gay authors that were being quoted earlier in Dr. Carpenter's address on the promotion of gay ideology in the schools. From their book, After The Ball they have this to say, "In regard to those (you and me) who feel compelled to adhere to an authoritarian belief structure that condemns homosexuality, our primary objective is to silence them. We know exactly what we want. And we'll do whatever must be done to secure it. . ."

Dallas challenges us to examine what has happened in any county, state, or nation, where gay ideology — the normalization of homosexuality — has come into ascendancy. He advocates that, wherever gay ideology has become prominent one will likewise see, simultaneously, more and more restrictions imposed on freedoms of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. Indeed, where gay ascendancy exists, he articulates, one will also see intolerance for all opposing viewpoints:

". . . Look at the "slash and burn" tactics that are used in America against anyone who takes a public, conservative position on homosexuality— Dr. Laura Schlessinger, The Boys Scouts of America, any group or individual that takes the traditional position in the public arena. Look at what becomes of them, their careers and reputation and you will see something that you don't want to believe but that you are going to have to acknowledge, and that is that the gay rights movement is no longer just seeking freedom. It is seeking tyranny— the tyranny of levering any means to silence the conscience of the state! "We know exactly what we want. And we'll do whatever is necessary to secure it." Terrifying. And that is, to me, the scary part of the gay rights movement— not the normalization of homosexuality, but the almost rabid intolerance for anyone who opposes that normalization. . . ."

We urge you to listen to both MP3 broadcasts by Joe Dallas in their entirety, and to read another of his articles that we have posted below. They are well worth the time spent since they give an unadulterated view, not just from a formerly practicing homosexual — who provides living proof that one can successfully leave the gay lifestyle, as many did in biblical times — but from one who was an insider within the gay rights activist community. Without doubt, they can help hone our responses to issues that are shaping themselves into the next civil rights frontier in America, and which are fundamental to our freedoms. Moreover, it is the time to answer the unmistakable call— the compelling call that is righteous in its truest sense: Love the sinner. Hate the sin.

EDITOR'S NOTE: (03-26-2008): Here's an alert from Mission: America regarding a national Day of Silence to celebrate homosexuality in our public schools that you may find relevant to our discussion. The Day of Silence is scheduled this year on April 25, 2008. Is your child's school on the list?

** Correction made (03-31-08): Joe Dallas is no longer a member of the Metropolitan Community Church. He and his family are currently members of Newport Mesa Church, a local Assemblies of God congregation in Orange County, CA. (See his comment posted for more. . .)

RELATED MP3 BROADCAST: How Should We Respond to Homosexuality? Part 1 Speaker: Joe Dallas, Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008
Full pdf transcript- Part 1

RELATED MP3 BROADCAST: How Should We Respond to Homosexuality? Part 2 Speaker: Joe Dallas, Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008
Full pdf transcript- Part 2

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology By Joes Dallas, Leadership U,
This three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments— or tenets —into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. Joe Dallas, Founder of Genesis Counseling, is the author of three books on homosexuality: Desires in Conflict, Unforgiven Sins, and A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement.

RELATED SITE: Love Won Out

Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal: A Public And A Private Betrayal

2008-03-11T21:56:00.112-05:00

It is not just a "private matter" at all! Contrary to the assertions in his brief statement shortly after The New York Times broke the scandal of his involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring, New York state governor Eliot Spitzer's actions affect all of us as public citizens. Indeed, his dealings with the Emperor’s Club V.I.P escort service, over several years it would seem, constitute not just a reprehensible betrayal of the private trust endowed him by virtue of the marriage vows he made to his wife, Silda. They also represent a flagrant and spectacular breach of the public trust conferred upon him by the electorate. Mr. Spitzer acknowledged that he "acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family." "I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself," he said. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family." Mr. Spitzer apologized to his family and the people of New York to whom he had promised better, and claimed to accept full responsibility for "actions," upon which he was clearly not ready to elaborate. He reaffirmed his commitment to his constituents, and then suggested that the controversy surrounding him was a private matter having nothing to do with his public life. "I do not believe that politics, in the long run, is about individuals," Mr. Spitzer declared. "It is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is good for the state of New York."

But how can that be? Ultimately, it is individuals that have the task of executing ideas that are destined for the public good. And Mr. Spitzer has been caught in a pernicious lie that has exposed him as one of the worst kinds of self-righteous hypocrites we could have as a public official, especially considering the fact that, as state attorney general in 2004, he had oversight of a strategic task force that vigorously pursued and busted several prostitution rings, including one that involved the arrest of 18 people on Staten Island. Personal conduct — in public, or otherwise — is the true hallmark of one’s character, and it cannot be overlooked in persons presenting themselves for public office. The truth of the matter is that public policy typically intersects with questions of morality. Therefore, it cannot be unreasonable for us to look with serious scrutiny on the character of our political representatives — potential, or standing — to see whether they are capable of maintaining the utmost integrity, or are conducting themselves in a manner worthy of emulation while serving our best interests. Joseph C. Phillips posed and definitively answered this very question recently in his article entitled, Should a Candidate's Private Indiscretions Matter as He Seeks the Public Trust? Absolutely. Mr. Phillips writes:

In America, we do not anoint royalty infallible, but public servants, with “servants” being the operative word. Our elected officials serve at the pleasure of the people. We rightly expect that those entrusted with the nation’s security and purse strings will exercise their obligations with prudence and clarity. It is not scandal mongering that sparks our interest in the private lives of public servants, but the fact that public indiscretion calls into question one’s decision making skills. Or at least it should. Trust is essential to public service. In truth, though, if a man would break a sacred vow he makes to the mother of his children, why should we believe for one moment that he holds the promises he made to nameless faceless citizens in any higher esteem? I struggle with the idea that any man bent on fulfilling his own personal desires, even at the expense of the best interests of his children, can be trusted to oversee the interests of the general public.

Inasmuch as we could continue to rant and pontificate on the political ramifications and fallout that this travesty has created, the sad reality is that this kind of outrage has become something of a cliché in our cultural landscape. By now, many of the more publicized escapades have become embedded in political lore, from President Bill Clinton's encounters with Monica Lewinsky to Sen. Bob Packwood and his unwanted advances on women, to Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd e-mails to male Congressional pages. Moreover, the sexual missteps among politicians are not peculiar to the United States, having firm grounding in England, for instance, and turning up with good regularity throughout the world. Regardless, things seem to have escalated to more absurd proportions in this country. Indeed, it has become the norm to watch at some news conference a disgraced male public official rendered politically emasculate by the sheer embarrassment of some newly unearthed sexual indiscretion, while his humiliated yet officially supportive wife stands quietly at his side, struggling to put a public face on the conflicted emotions that surely must be churning beneath the outwardly calm exterior. Is the wife really always the last to know? And what's up with making the wife a public spectacle, anyway? In Spitzer, Stop Torturing The Wife, Maggie Gallagher writes:

But can we at least end this barbaric practice of dragging your wife before the cameras while you confess your shameful guilt? If she wasn't there in the hotel room when you did your crime, don't ask her to do your time. The practice began relatively innocently as something an accused man might do when he denied the allegations . A man's wife at his side showed that she, at least, believed the guy when he said he did not do it. It was former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, I believe, who began the modern practice (Can we ban it along with waterboarding?) of parading the little wife before the cameras to hold your hand as you confess your guilt. The goal is to get the shell-shocked wife to demonstrate to the public that the offense is forgiveable. If his wife forgives him, how mad can you be?

We believe it was Bill McCartney, founder of the Promise Keepers organization and former head coach of the University of Colorado national championship football team, who once heard a visiting preacher say that the real mark of a man's character — and the depth of his walk with God — is generally reflected in the countenance of his wife's face. And, to be sure, there can be no question regarding the piteous and broken demeanor reflected on Silda Wall Spitzer's face as she stood bravely, despite shame and humiliation, at her husband's side at his news conference Monday. Her face spoke volumes. And our hearts went out to her. Therefore, we shall leave the Monday-morning quarterbacking on Mr. Spitzer's political prospects to the pundits that have followed his career more closely and turn our focus to the “political wife" (in fact, any wife) whose life is typically left in shambles by these kinds of public revelations of betrayal.

In that regard, here's the burning question that enquiring minds typically want to know: Why do so many wives of these political miscreants stand by their man, especially after such flagrant infidelity comes to light? Indeed, why not skip the news conference and file for D-I-V-O-R-C-E, some ask. Well, for one thing, it is clear that many of them like Dina Matos-McGreevy — the, now, ex-wife of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy, who was publicly outed for a homosexual affair with a subordinate state employee — are bullied into attending these conferences to present a show of solidarity. But, for another, and to their eternal credit, these political wives must also have a deep sacrificial sense of trying to keep everything together for the sake of the family unit and any children that may be affected by the scandal. In the Spitzer scenario, there are three teenage daughters that are certain to be deeply affected emotionally by the revelations about their father. And, for a third, good is typically never served through hasty decisions.

To err is human, but to forgive divine, some may also say. However, it is important for us to acknowledge that forgiveness does not mean staying in a marriage in which there has been repeated unrepentant behavior, or the vows of fidelity continually violated. Forgiveness also does not mean absolving an offending spouse from the consequences of his or her behavior, which, ultimately, could teach wisdom. And, to be sure, forgiveness does not mean leaving oneself in harm’s way, which, as in the Spitzer scenario, would include leaving oneself exposed to the great risks associated with unprotected sexual activity, which was seemingly Mr. Spitzer's preference with his trollops.

What is a private matter is the question of whether the Spitzer’s marriage will survive the present scandal. And, indeed, it could, as Bill and Hillary Clinton have so far demonstrated. Perhaps, there is too much vested financially and emotionally to just walk away. Regardless, the quality of the marriage, or the divorce, that could emerge from this kind of emotional rubble is dependent solely on the quality of work, courage, and commitment that both spouses are prepared to invest in repairing the extensive, multifaceted damage created by this kind of implosion. There are no easy fixes here; no band-aids that will ease the pain, and no divorce that will fix the issues... on both sides.

Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain, a famous proverb declares. And, in the long run, the collapse of the Spitzer's marriage could be viewed as an opportunity, a turning point if you will, to rebuild a new marriage based on more meaningful spiritual principles and values. What were the foundational elements missing from their current relationship? Clearly, truth. And honor. But what, also, about love? The true love that never falters. And what about commitment? And forgiveness? And God? To be sure, we can determine to walk away from such life opportunities and what we have accomplished for better, or for worse. Or, we can swallow our pride and determine to do the work, all the while remembering that pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. All of which might be just too much for Mr. Spitzer, especially, to grasp in this now moment, since it was his own imperial mien, after all, that has made this fall from grace particularly bruising.

EDITOR'S NOTE (03-12-08): Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned on Wednesday, March 12, 2008, becoming the first New York governor to leave office amid scandal in nearly a century. He said he wanted to turn his attention to healing his family. We pray for them God's eternal grace.

We also want to bring your attention to the article below by Dina Matos-McGreevy. Like Silda Wall Spitzer, she also endured public humiliation when her husband, former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy, was ousted from public office in disgrace:

RELATED ARTICLE: Stand by Yourself New York Times, By Dina Matos-McGreevy, March 12, 2008

Lindsay Lohan: Perhaps, Momma doesn't always know best!

2008-02-26T17:36:00.129-05:00

Perhaps, we just don't get it. But, for the life of us, we cannot fathom why people continue to idolize Marilyn Monroe. Arguably, she was, perhaps, the most celebrated of all actresses. But what exactly was she celebrated for? From everything we have read and seen of this dead icon, she led anything but an exemplary life! In fact, she was the archetype of all we ought to strive not to be. She was a pathetic figure actually, one with the sexual promiscuity of an alley cat, who allowed herself to used and discarded, ultimately, by our famously philandering 60's President, John F. Kennedy, and his erstwhile brother, Robert. Shortly thereafter, she succumbed to a rather undignified death from a drug overdose under what continues, to this day, to be questionable circumstances.

By anyone's standards, Marilyn Monroe was beautiful. However, she was the epitome of the Hollywood "bad girl", the dumb blonde prototype on which Hollywood continues to capitalize through the likes of a Paris Hilton. More importantly, however, and what many still refuse to acknowledge fully, is that Marilyn's spirit continues to invoke a demonic curse, if you will, upon the lives of those who become entrapped into channeling her persona. This is not some paltry euphemism either. For people do channel spirits. In fact, many do it as a profession, promising advantage and personal gain to all who pay for services rendered. More often than not, however, people get drawn rather unwittingly into the rituals that delve them further and further into occult practices. But, don't be fooled. These practices are nothing new; we have been warned against them from time immemorial. Indeed, any "gifted" tarot-card, palm, or tea-leaf reader, or medium worth their salt knows exactly what is speaking to them about your future, and your prospects... and it isn't God, or His angels. Moreover, the unspoken element in your vicarious thrill – and what you are not told explicitly by your trusty medium – is that you have also opened a portal to and made a pact with evil; you have unleashed a "piper" – often, several of them. And, ultimately, this piper will demand "payment in full". Typically, it is untimely death, destruction, and mayhem that is unleashed into your unsuspecting life. More Anna-Nicole-Smith-train-wreck-of-a-life anyone?

And so, it is with much concern, as parents, that we saw the recent nude pictorial done by Lindsay Lohan for New York magazine. Recreating Monroe's legendary 1962 final photo shoot for Bert Stern, Lohan posed for the spread with the veteran lensman himself on Feb. 5 at the Hotel Bel-Air. The idea for shooting Lohan as Monroe came, according to the New York magazine article accompanying the photo spread, from Stern himself. Stern claims his interest in Lohan stems from the fact that "she had a lot more depth to her" than one might suspect from watching her movies. But such a rationale, according to Yona Zeldis McDonough in her commentary for Newsday, "seems just a tad disingenuous." Writes McDonough:

". . . Why Lohan, why Monroe, and why now? Consider the timing: The resonant strains of the 1960s seem to be echoing through the zeitgeist. Barack Obama is being hailed as a latter-day John F. Kennedy (who just happens to have been linked romantically to Monroe); key members of the Kennedy clan have offered their public endorsement. The legacies of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson have been a prominent topic of dispute in the Democratic primary. Fidel Castro, whose ascendancy coincided with Kennedy's, is in the news again, this time for surrendering his stronghold on Cuba's leadership.

Is the Lohan-Monroe spread yet another of these parallels? If so, what are these pictures telling us? Are we to understand Lohan's artifice as ironic, a kind of sly, tongue-in-cheek parody of Monroe and all that she represented? Or are the New York Magazine pictures hopeful and, in some goofy way, optimistic, as if the idealistic dreams of that long-ago decade can be re-created along with the studio lighting and the hair?. . . "

". . . there is something unsettling, even creepy, about watching Lindsay, not just playing Marilyn, but playing this Marilyn, the one whose life was spinning quietly but inexorably of control. . . . "

There is, indeed, something unnerving about that photo shoot. To be sure, there's no avoiding the parallels between Monroe's tragic fate – death from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs – and that, recently, of Anna Nicole Smith, who idolized and wanted to become Marilyn, and, now, that of Lindsay. In the past two years or so, Lindsay's life has seemingly spiraled out of control. She's just 21 years old but, already, she's had three stints in rehab for alcohol and drug abuse, been convicted on several counts of D.U.I., and does not appear to have any discretion whatsoever with respect to how she, shall we say, dispenses her sexual favors. But the most troubling to us is the fact that, in all her naked splendor for New York magazine, Lindsay had the full stamp of approval of her manager-mom, Dina! In an interview with People magazine, Dina comments:

"It was very tastefully done. I respect the photographer as an artist, so I look at them artistically. For him to call Lindsay 46 years later and to say can you recreate these photos is an honor. I looked at it as art, and as Lindsay doing a character. So I don't look at them like it's Playboy; she was being a character. So if you look at it that way, you can look at it as a mother. Trust me, I wouldn't have sent my 14-year-old to the set [if the shoot was in bad taste]. And obviously Lindsay wouldn't do anything with her sister there, that was risqué."

"If you look at it that way, you can look at it as a mother"? What about those who wont "look at it that way"? Perhaps, she should've asked for advice beforehand from Lindsay's father, Michael, who, having spent time in prison for a long list of criminal charges and a D.U.I., could have told them both what some inmates do with this kind of "tasteful art". That is Dina's most damning statement, we think, for it is an indictment and recognition of her compromise in personal integrity. Moreover, is this really the kind of example that Dina wants for Lindsay's 14 year-old sibling, Ali, who for most of her life has looked up to her older sister because of her career, the fans, the fame and now wants all of those things for her herself? Really?

Can we, please, just dispense with the inane sycophancy and drivel that passes nowadays as celebrity journalism and call a spade, a spade? Lindsay's pictorial is not just risqué. It is downright pornography. And it is destined for the voyeur market regardless of the fact that the pictorial spread was commissioned by, and appears in, what some would otherwise consider a reputable publication. Just ask any frat-boy on any college campus across America, whose sensibilities aren't as "refined" as Dina's, and he'll tell you. And so, to feign disguise of degenerate behavior through sleights of hand (and scarves, and bed sheets, and PR articles in People magazine that surely serve only to appease Dina's conscience) doesn't change what this debacle ultimately is. I think it was Julia Roberts in her role as the prostitute "Vivian" in the movie Pretty Woman that so artfully made the observation that transferring her profession and craft to another, more tasteful, location only changed her geography.

It is one thing for a clearly disturbed, misguided young woman like Lindsay to have lapses in good judgment. But what's her mother's excuse? Has she lost her personal grip on reality? What is her motivation for pimping out her daughter in such a shameless display? More money? More fame, despite the fact that this kind of depraved behavior has already sullied her daughter's reputation? Or, does it have more to do with the vicarious expression of an unfulfilled dream that Dina herself craved yet failed to attain in her own life? Whatever the reason, it is almost criminal for this woman – this mother – to aid and abet her troubled daughter on the path to self-destruction.

Where are the lessons on virtue here? What about the noble character and integrity that we all should be trying as parents to inculcate in our children, who are our future? What good could possibly come out of this? Judith Newman, in her November 2007 indictment piece for Vanity Fair entitled Celebrity: Moms Gone Wild, pegs it correctly when she contends that a look at the women behind not just Lindsay, but also Paris and Britney, reveals quite clearly that, if your child is your meal ticket and career booster, it's hard to be the parent she needs. Perhaps, momma doesn't always know best!

EDITOR'S NOTE (02-29-08): According to The Daily Mail- UK, a week after posing in her nude photo spread as Marilyn Monroe, Lindsay Lohan remains in "seductress mode."

Abortion: An "inconvenient truth" within Marriage

2008-01-26T22:43:00.003-05:00

There is a proverb that says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Indeed, the human heart can be deceptively wicked, and it is amazing the kinds of compromises in integrity and moral character that seared consciences can justify, and even "bond" over. In his column dated January 23, 2008 entitled "Alison: Your Aim Is True," Professor Mike S. Adams brings to the fore a recent essay by Alison Piepmeier, Director of Women's & Gender Studies/Department of English at the College of Charleston, S.C., entitled "Choosing Us, " in which Ms. Piepmeier outlines how she and her husband Walter came to the unfortunate decision to abort an unplanned pregnancy. This was not a case of rape. Or a case of detriment to her health. Or a lack of finances to properly care for the child. No, Ms. Piepmeier and her husband made the decision to abort their child -- a decision that, in most cases, is psychologically and emotionally agonizing for those inadvertent couples involved in deciding the fate of their unborn -- simply because the pregnancy was, in its worst case scenario, an "inconvenient truth" within their marriage. Professor Adams writes:

...What is odd about her quick decision to abort is that she was no teenager. She was 31 years old when she got pregnant and was in a “stable relationship.” In fact, the man who got her pregnant was “Walter,” her husband of five years. She had kept several hundred dollars tucked away in case she ever needed to terminate an unplanned pregnancy - a habit she did not terminate even after years of marriage. Alison confessed in her essay that she was part of a happily married couple, that she and her husband were in good physical health, and that they both had jobs and health insurance. She even said, “Walter and I were pretty good candidates for parenthood”...

Professor Adams affirms that Ms. Piepmeier's arguments in support of her decision provide "some of the best examples of the cruelty, heartlessness, and utter self-absorption embodied in the modern feminist movement." But, quite frankly, he is being polite; he didn't go so far as to denounce this woman's reasoning as that of a crackpot! For to be sure, it could be argued that it is only a mind that is "twisted and devoid of humanity" that could view willful termination of the unborn in the context of a "love story." Ms. Piepmeier writes:

...There are other stories that go along with our abortion—the story of telling my family, of my brothers’ conflicted yet supportive reactions. There are the stories of the other women having abortions that day, women whose insurance (like mine) wouldn’t cover the procedure. There are the stories of other children these women will later have. There’s the story of Walter’s lonely couple of hours in the clinic lobby, scanning the faces of the other men waiting for their partners, some crying, some relieved, all totally left out.

But the story I most want to tell—and one I have never heard—is of abortion as an intimate part of a couple’s life together. Our abortion was a love story. I’d worried that Walter and I were rejecting a gift from the universe. What I discovered, though, was that when we stripped away the distractions of everyday life so that we could make this difficult decision together, it bound us together as surely as if our choice had been different—and as it turns out, that was the gift...

Read Ms. Piepmeier's account of the events leading up to her abortion for yourself, and it will become clear that she and Walter found themselves caught in moral quicksand. It will also become clear that the ultimate decision to abort their baby for the sheer inconvenience left them with no option other than to justify and rationalize what they already knew very clearly in their consciences was WRONG. Indeed, if they dig deep enough, they could come to the rather disturbing conclusion that the special "bond" they now share could be likened to that of co-conspirators in a regular murder. They have a bond alright. But it is not based on anything noble.

Our hope for them is that they look back one day at this outrage and recognize how far into depravity they descended...and the need for God's forgiveness! Perhaps, after viewing the content of the sites, related articles, and video we have highlighted below, Ms. Piepmeier and her husband, as well as others in favor of abortion on demand will, at the very least, acknowledge that, at six weeks, Ms. Piepmeier's aborted fetus was, indeed, and quite visibly, a HUMAN being, not the "potential person," nor the "marble-sized blob" she describes after viewing her ultrasound at the abortion clinic. Ms. Piepmeier's utterances are reflective of the kind of person that the Bible describes as one who is wise in their own eyes-- for, certainly, she appears educated beyond her intelligence, yet is still fundamentally lacking in true wisdom.

Like Professor Adams, we, too, wonder what Alison Piepmeier, in her capacity as Director of Women’s and Gender Studies at The College of Charleston, will say to the next co-ed who asks her advice on the issue of abortion. Like him, we also wonder, "what advice she will give to a young girl having marital problems. Perhaps, that she and her husband should get pregnant, have an abortion, and experience true emotional intimacy"? God help us.

EDITOR'S NOTE (02-29-08): It is amazing how perspectives on this issue of abortion can be polar opposites. At one end of the spectrum are the Alison Piepmeier's. At the other are the Emma Beck's, a young English artist who killed herself recently after aborting her eight-week pregnancy with twins from the sheer weight of guilt.

RELATED BIO: Alison Piepmeier Director, Women's & Gender Studies/Department of English- College of Charleston, S.C.

RELATED ARTICLE: The SLED Test – Four Top Arguments By Steve Wagner, Healthlink.org
We all agree that toddlers are valuable human beings with rights. Yet the unborn differ from toddlers in only four ways, and the first letters of each of these differences spell an easy-to-remember acronym, SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency).

RELATED ARTICLE: What Do You Know About Roe v. Wade? By Shana Schutte, Family.org
Like many Americans, you know Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, but you may know little else.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans Life Education And Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N), By Tanya L. Green
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and "purity"," particularly of the "Aryan" race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the "fit" to reproduce and the "unfit" to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the "inferior" races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

RELATED SITE: THE CASE FOR LIFE: Like You Have Never Heard It Before
Only One Issue: The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It’s not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn?

RELATED SITE: Abort73.com: The Case Against Abortion

RELATED VIDEO: This is Abortion RATED: MA (Mature Audiences Only)
WARNING: Contains graphic post-abortion pictures. Be Warned! The Visual Evidence is Disturbing.

Battling the New Year's Blues?

2007-01-11T13:36:00.003-05:00

Anyone who knows me well will attest to the fact that for many, many years, New Year's and birthdays were not my favorite times of year. Perhaps, it was simply personality dysfunction, or my coming to the unfortunate conclusion that these days are just way overrated with far too many expectations regarding their outcome. More likely, it was because these two days represented milestones, and for a very long time, despite what many would have deemed overwhelming professional and financial success, they constituted a reminder, a gnawing awareness that I had neither made it to that seemingly elusive "happy" place, nor yet hit that definitive mark in my personal landscape of expectations that surely spelled joy. Over and over again, these two times of year constituted a bitter reality check, which ostensibly demanded that my life be placed on the scales of life and weighed…and, ultimately, be found wanting.

Was this just symptomatic of years of depression? Maybe. But I am thankful, today, to have discovered that those dark days truly had purpose. The birth of this magazine project and our plans to launch The Real Proposal™ mega brand are certainly testimony in this regard. They are a constant reminder to me that, in God's economy, nothing is ever wasted when you surrender to His call. If nothing else, dark days ought to remind us that there is still work to be done in finding our center. In proper perspective, these days really are a gift. Seemingly, they have been ordained by the Creator to make us—His created things—"lie down" in that place where we are forced to assess and evaluate whether our lives are on track to our “green pastures.” Many of us are willing to humble ourselves and do the spiritual work that, ultimately, will reengineer our lives and bring real fulfillment; sadly, others will miss the point of these seasons in life and continue in cycles of despair until their eureka-moment.

That said, I was pleased to find an article from Joseph C. Phillips on BlackAmericaWeb.com entitled If You’re Battling the New Year’s Blues, Remember Your Many Blessings – and Be Grateful, which, I believe, you will enjoy. To be sure, it places so many of my previous introspections and judgments passed at New Year’s into proper perspective. And I for one am grateful to have the means to be able to share it now with all of you.

Like Mr. Phillips, I, too, am grateful to be of the age where being one of the "beautiful" and being at the "right party" on New Year’s Eve no longer interests me.

At the beginning of this New Year, I am grateful for family and friends who have demonstrated so clearly that they love me. My two daughters and I are healthy, and I am proud of whom they are becoming. My older daughter, a high school senior, will graduate this year as one of the top ten in her graduating class and, to be sure, I am proud of her accomplishments in so many areas. But, more importantly, I am grateful to have had precious time to be her mother, and to have grown so much in my spirit that I am able to impart to her and, now, to her little sister who has just turned twelve, the kind of wisdom that comes from the fountain of God… and they are developing into rare beauties.

I am grateful, also, to have more time with the wonderful man I have called husband for the past two and a half years. Another time—quite likely, within the pages of The Real Proposal™ magazine—I will share with you our true love story, but suffice it now to say that he was my college sweetheart and we lost track of each other for 22 years. Within a couple months of our marriage, he was diagnosed with cancer and, despite recent reports that the cancer is back, I am grateful that God is giving us the strength to continue the battle with this dreaded disease, and to just stand. I am grateful for the revelation that my joy has little to do with my changing circumstances, and the realization that, given the choice, I would choose to be in this particular foxhole with no one else.

I am also grateful to have my mother living with me, and that, at seventy-two, she is still healthy and vital after losing her husband and life partner of forty seven years—my father—on Christmas Day 2001. In so many ways, she is the glue that holds everything together when the hectic pace of our lives could make our household descend into chaos. I am grateful just to recognize her worth, for I know through many of the visits in which my daughter volunteers at a nursing home in our community that this isn’t always the case.

And, finally, I am grateful that, after many years of struggle, I have regained my balance and perspective, and my sense of humor. God’s grace has restored to me a lovely home that is filled with the kind of real joy—and laughter—that transcends circumstance. There is, within our home, this New Year, a true afterglow of Christmas past, and our hearts are filled with hope for the future. Without a doubt, we have hope for the physical healing of my husband, hope for the right placement of college for our daughter, hope that our younger will continue to grow in her full richness for she is truly "bonus," and that this year we will see the fulfillment of at least some of God’s long-awaited promises regarding our collective destiny. Assuredly, we also look forward to seeing The Real Proposal™ magazine on the national newsstands. But regardless what transpires this year, I am, perhaps, the most grateful that we have learned how to be content in the knowledge that it is God who controls ALL outcomes, that His grace is truly sufficient for the day, and that ALL things are working together for our good.

So a toast to you, then, for blessings in abundance, friends. May the Year 2007 be filled with the realizations of your every good wish. May you never fail to recognize the wealth of blessings that arise from life's simple pleasures.

Donna Kassin

President & Founder

Brangelina Triangle Tragedy: Marriage Vows Don't Count

2006-12-22T20:47:00.000-05:00

One of the things we know for sure in life is that nothing just happens. Science bears out this point with a well-established, immutable law of cause and effect. So, to hear Angelina Jolie play the "it-just-happened” card in a recent interview for the January 2007 issue of Vogue magazine to explain how her relationship with Brad Pitt evolved on the movie set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while he was still married to "best friend," Jennifer Aniston, was very disappointing. Ms. Jolie's moral and ethical conscience appears, at times, to be otherwise alive and well, as witnessed by her stance on several global sociopolitical issues. Therefore, as difficult as it might have been for Ms. Jolie to speak truth on this matter, we would have had a lot more respect for her honesty—and thought her interview less disingenuous—to hear her readily admit, without excuses, that she coveted Ms. Aniston's husband, and that they both suffered moral failure in doing the honorable thing, which would have been to walk away from each other—for good—with their integrity in tact. But then again, her later comments during a press junket for her most recent movie, The Good Shepherd, make it obvious that Ms. Jolie is still in denial (or believes we are) with respect to her actions. Moreover, with a “best friend” like Mr. Pitt, who needs enemies?

Indeed, it is one thing for Mr. Pitt to walk out on his marriage to “best friend” Aniston, leaving her for another woman. But it has to be quite another for him to do so, while publicly declaring, “The idea that marriage has to be for all time—that I don’t understand.” One would have reasoned intelligently that this issue was settled at the “till death us do part” portion of their wedding vows. But, why stop there? To add insult to injury, Pitt, whether through his tacit or explicit agreement, effectively enabled his live-in lover, Jolie—who gave birth to their love child before the ink had dried appropriately on his divorce decree from "best friend," Aniston—to grant the interview and photo spread to Vogue to extol the virtues of their domestic bliss, plus throw out a public offer to Aniston for a truce, in such a manner that dared Aniston to look less than magnanimous if she refused. What a guy... sorry, “best friend”!

No one ever rightly promised that our choices in life were going to be easy. But, isn't the real mark of a person's character displayed in the choices made at those times when he or she is most tempted to pursue less-than-honorable acts? Too often today in our culture, “it-just-happened” is expected to explain away and justify ill-conceived behaviors and their oft disastrous consequences, as if we were impotent bystanders in our lives, and the consequences of our choices just crept up and overwhelmed us. However, we maintain that part of maturity—and integrity—is learning to accept the fact that we are equally responsible for the good things in life that "happen" to us, as much as we are for the bad. And the truth is, we are enticed into action by our own desires.

In this same regard, then, it would be entirely unfair to say that we believe this sorry state of affairs "just happened" to Ms. Aniston. No doubt, there were choices made on both sides that ultimately precipitated the sad sequence of events. But, please, let us not miss the real issue in this unfolding saga…and it’s not about Pitt, Aniston, or Jolie, and whatever demons they did or did not struggle with. Ultimately, this sordid affair—and how the public has responded to the unfolding saga—is symptomatic of how we, as a culture, have come to value or devalue marriage. Betsy Hart’s recent commentary on the Jolie Vogue interview is right on the money, and we are glad this syndicated columnist had the courage to speak up about what’s really at stake. Indeed, Ms. Hart urges us to consider what these players reveal about our culture's current perpective on marriage: Marriage has largely become an "as long as I'm happy in the moment" idea.

To be sure, couples ought, rightfully, contemplate the point of making the promise "to love and to cherish as long as we both shall live," especially if it is being made without considered regard to its real cost. Marriage is a lifetime commitment. And, this has always been, and will continue to be, the watershed issue within marriage. But more importantly, what is to become of us as a society when we have become so shallow, and so twisted in our belief system, that adultery, cohabitation, and illegitimate pregnancy are simply par for the course, and we glorify and deem those who indulge in these illicit pursuits among the most beautiful people and, yes, even the most beautiful family in the world?

Ms. Hart is right. What a tragedy.

Can it be any wonder then, why, through sheer organics, there appears to be a changing of the guard within the bastions of the media? Recently, the UK’s Guardian's Observer Magazine published an expose on Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post, entitled Hurricane Arianna, and we urge you to read it. Author Paul Harris describes Ms. Huffington as “the Blackberry-toting, Bush-baiting Queen of the Blogosphere who has made her two-year-old website the most potent force in American politics." But more noteworthy than the awe-struck sycophancy afforded Ms. Huffington in the piece, is the growing recognition being given to the shifting balance of power within the media landscape. To be sure, the cost of setting up digital space now makes it more attainable for just about anyone to have a voice. Setting up The Huffington Post was cited to cost just $2 million, compared to a magazine, which might cost a publishing company like Time Inc. 20 times that to start up, yet reach a mere fraction of the audience currently logging on to the Post. But, there is no doubting its influence. What’s more, until the advent of the Internet, the mainstream media largely represented the "good 'ole boys club," and political cronyism at its worst, and the fact is a mere few—typically, those with money—controlled public opinion. Much worse, however, was the fact that the general public failed to grasp just how much these privileged few influenced their perception of truth. And, without a doubt, Time magazine's choice for Person of the Year: You (Yes, you. You, who control the Information Age) is a sign of the times.

Blogs are really what made this award possible. They may not be as well edited, researched, or even as well written as print journalism, but, ultimately, they could serve democracy—and the pursuit of truth—better...and, to be sure, you don't have to haul them down to the recycling bin when you're done! Sites like The Huffington Post, featuring up-to-the-minute news and blogs from a vast array of world-class writers, are making newspapers and weekly news magazines like Time and Newsweek obsolete. In like manner, celebrity Internet sites like PerezHilton, pushing the limits of decency and what is considered ethical in our society today, are challenging the very existence of their equivalent print rivals. But, we have little sympathy for the old media. Why? Because they created the monster that made ordinary people rise up and demand to speak for themselves. For too long, they have monopolized the airwaves and newsstands with viewpoints that demonstrate we can be educated beyond our intelligence, yet still fundamentally lacking in wisdom. For too long, they have stalked celebrity "victims" as if they were prey, unwilling to pull in the reins of decency regarding what enquiring minds needed to know. For too long, they have damaged the public perception of truth. And, indeed, much of the old media needs to be challenged with respect to what it now purveys as journalism…or be knocked from its pedestal.

So, congratulations to you too, then, on being Time’s Person of the Year. This is great. Now, even sexual predators can tell the Monsignor in their next job interview that they were Time magazine's Person of the Year.

Hollywood Unhooked (Un-Glued, more precise)

2006-12-11T20:26:00.001-05:00

This past week, with all the drama surrounding Eddie Murphy questioning the paternity of Mel B.'s baby, it would appear that Hollywood has sunk to a new low with respect to relationships. In a December 4 television interview with Dutch magazine program RTL Boulevard to promote his new film, Dreamgirls (see clip, dated 04-12), Murphy, 45, was asked by an interviewer on the show: "So, are you happy with her? Because she is pregnant from your child." He answered, rather scoffingly we thought, "You're being presumptuous, because we're not together any more, and I don't know whose child that is until it comes out and has a blood test. You shouldn't jump to conclusions, sir." What a difference a couple of months make. Place Mr. Murphy's comments within the backdrop of the subsequent announcement that he and Tracey Edmonds, a film producer and the ex-wife of singer Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds, are now dating, and the allegation that Mr. Murphy seemingly forgot to tell Ms. Brown that their relationship was over, and it becomes clear that fame and wealth have nothing to do with class, or a sense of decency. Some could liken Mr. Murphy's new relationship with Ms. Edmonds to a bold "career move," similar to that made by Kevin Federline when he dumped his then 7-months-pregnant girlfriend, Shar Jackson, for Britney Spears. But, at least, as far as we know, Mr. Federline never added insult to injury by publicly questioning the paternity of Ms. Jackson's baby.

To be sure, it would be wise for Ms. Edmonds to take a step back from this situation, at least until the dust clears. Of course, we are being very presumptuous, also, in believing that she would care either way. But, if Ms. Brown’s story is straight, and Mr. Murphy is, indeed, her baby’s father, then we cannot imagine how Ms. Edmonds (or any decent woman, for that matter) would be able to build a lasting relationship with Mr. Murphy at this point in time—certainly not one based on trust. Without question, her new beau’s character, and his integrity, is at stake in this unfolding saga. In the glow and promise of new romance, couples tend to view the objects of their affection through rose-colored spectacles, never fully grasping that what they’re seeing is what they'll actually get...even more so as time progresses. More often than not, they reason that they’ve got the “goods” to beat the odds, and that they'll be the exception. However, we can bet our bottom dollar that Britney Spears is learning these life principles the hard way: What goes around comes around, and no matter how great the sex is, ultimately, what looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

In any event, we believe there’s a more fundamental issue at hand. Why are strong, balanced, principled men seemingly so rare today—even viewed as oddities? Why are there so few men of the same stature and uncompromising strength as in past generations? Likewise, traditional, virtuous women constitute a dying breed, as scarce today, it would appear, as rain in the Sudan. What has happened to our culture? M. Wayne Icenhower attempts to answer these questions in an essay entitled The Way We Were… and Now, which was recently republished by Real Truth magazine (and posted on The Real Proposal™ magazine’s Marriage In The News web page on December 7, 2006). Icenhower postulates that one of the perplexing ironies of history is that there are many difficulties that accompany the material prosperity and power of a dominant culture such as that of the United States. People become governed by human nature and moral relativism, typically becoming much more selfish and self-centered. Associated with this change in human behavior are all forms of corruption and evil, which never fail to turn the social landscape upside down. In our day, we are witnessing gender roles being blurred, homosexuality considered normal, and marriage redefined. Traditional roles and values, once clearly defined and understood, are now being dismantled and reshaped. But this "new" way of thinking, Icenhower points out, is not new at all. Indeed, history demonstrates that, prior to total economic and military collapse, prosperous and dominant cultures always produced a final generation of weakened and softer men.

Be that as it may, in light of this real-life Murphy-Brown saga, and such increasingly common Hollywood spectacles as the Britney Spears-K-Fed divorce drama, we believe it is propitious to spotlight a newly published book by Dawn Eden, a New York Daily News editor and blogger with an eclectic background, entitled The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On. What we love about this book is its counter-culture, revolutionary stance. For sure, it turns upside down the pervasive sex-in-the-city message that the way to make a man fall in love with a woman is for her to have sex with him... by any means, and in any which way, necessary. In fact, Ms. Eden points to an undeniable truth that she had avoided acknowledging for so many years—that all the sex she'd ever experienced hadn’t brought her any closer to marriage. Eventually, she came to the astonishing and truly life-altering conclusion that engaging in premarital sex had actually prevented her from gaining the emotional maturity necessary to sustain a marriage.

Revolutionary, indeed. Perhaps, we’ll mail a copy to Us magazine, because we were startled recently—even shocked—by their wanton disregard for any sense of propriety in posing the following question at the end of a recent report on the Jennifer Anniston-Vince Vaughn real life break up: Who should Jen date next? Now while we recognize that perpetuating such inane drivel solidifies their position in the pop culture of the absurd, here's a revolutionary thought: Perhaps, Jen should not date anybody for a while and try to figure out her life... without any more sex in the city!

EDITOR'S NOTE: Eddie Murphy, Tracey Edmonds Suddenly Split People magazine, January 16, 2008
Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds have called it quits just two weeks after their intimate wedding in Bora, Bora on New Year's Day.

The REAL Proposal For Marriage

2006-11-28T21:27:00.000-05:00

Thanks to a comment from 'Charles,' in response to our first blog post on November 19, 2006 Finally, The Real Proposal™ magazine BlogSpot! we decided it was important to point towards the disclaimer that we place prominently at the top of all The Real Proposal™ magazine Marriage In The News web pages:

"Marriage In The News is NOT a representation of The Real Proposal™ magazine. The news articles and features presented below are simply an indication of how topical, controversial, and all-encompassing the issues surrounding marriage are throughout our society—and the world—today. Some of the views and opinions expressed, and their respective web sites, do NOT reflect the views or opinions of The Real Proposal™ magazine. Many are highlighted largely to reiterate that the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family"—outlined in A Mere Glimpse—will continue unabated without a fundamental grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH on the issues."

As we said in Finally, The Real Proposal™ magazine BlogSpot!, as best as we can prior to the actual launch of The Real Proposal™ on to the national newsstands, we will continue to present the issues in ways that stimulate thought, and point towards truth. Therefore, next to a news item link such as Little Miss Diddys' Pretty in Pink baby shower—to which “Charles” quite likely referred—and its related link No Ordinary Love: Sean "Diddy" Combs and Kim Porter, which we posted on November 22, 2006 on Marriage In The News, we will also post alternate news items and articles that point, perhaps more accurately, towards our true editorial orientation. Which is exactly why, beneath these two articles, we also posted:

It's a pity for a man to be a Diddy By Katti Gray, Newsday.com, November 20, 2006
Black Teens Disheartened Toward Marriage: Poor examples are making marriage elusive in their eyes Eurweb.com- Agape Press, September 11, 2006
The ‘Seven R’s Pledge’ Reminds Us What Kind of Men We Should Be By Joseph C. Phillips, BlackAmericaWeb.com, February 28, 2006

We feel obligated to make this log entry today, precisely because it is important that we give clear indication, again, regarding what drives our agenda—what will distinguish our editorials from other lifestyle publications, especially those that chase after some of these ridiculous, present day icons—they call them, "celebrities." Many of these publications are, in our opinion, poor examples of journalistic integrity that mirror us at our contemporary worst. Others do little except aid and abet the dumbing down of America in the name of "entertainment." To be sure, we have no interest in glorifying depravity and perversion, or less-than-exemplary morals between the pages of our magazine, or on our covers. What we propose for “celebrity” stories are intelligent, in-depth articles that articulate the interpersonal issues surrounding marriage, not the kind of gossipy, ingratiating, celebrity journalism that is already rife on the newsstands, which seemingly serve no other purpose than to expose the inner demons of some pretentious, self-serving millionaire...and, of course, to publicize their latest projects and products.

Hard as it may be to imagine sometimes, there are celebrities and other icons, who have successful marriages and personal love stories that are inspiring. Many of them will welcome the opportunity on the newsstands to set the tabloid records straight, present a viewpoint, or share an experience or up-lifting story in a tasteful, responsible, socially-conscious forum, dedicated to the issues surrounding marriage. And this is not to say that we will not also feature the magnificent, uplifting stories of ordinary people, whose lives reflect an appreciation and understanding of the significance of commitment, and the vows they took before God and man, pledging, “…till death do us part.”

Have you taken a look yet at what we mean by TRUTH, or at our Home page for a peek at our developing The Real Proposal™ magazine covers? To be sure, they bear witness to the fact that we aim to present The Real Proposal™ for Marriage... Beyond White Lace & Promises.

For your convenience, we have placed links to The Real Proposal™ Home and MARRIAGE In The News web pages on this blog under the At a Glance and Extra! Extra!! links. So keep reading! We appreciate your interest, and your support.

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

2006-11-23T14:32:00.000-05:00

Click Here to View this Special Greeting from The Real Proposal magazine

Finally, The Real Proposal™ magazine BlogSpot!

2006-11-19T01:04:00.000-05:00

We simply cannot thank you enough! The overwhelming response to our Pre-Subscription Mailers and outpouring of support for this magazine project continue to amaze—and humble—us. So many of you have confirmed what was deposited within our spirits from the very inception of this project, that there's unequivocal need for a publication like The Real Proposal™ on the national newsstands! We are continually encouraged by your constructive comments, and the tremendous ideas for articles and features so graciously submitted. Without doubt, you are the kind of lively audience with whom we seek interaction. In fact, some of you will remember that it was because of your clamor for more now that we decided to present our interim web site offerings, A Mere Glimpse and MARRIAGE In The News. So, we hope you're continuing to enjoy the articles we search the web to feature each month.

These offerings chronicle recently published news articles, opinions, and human-interest stories highlighting the critical elements and interpersonal relations that arise and ought to be rightfully considered when contemplating marriage, and within marriage. Some of our postings feature many of the issues surrounding parenting and divorce—issues, which subsequently and, seemingly, inevitably arise once we choose “marriage,” or any of the counterfeit living arrangements that promise a “test drive.” Others reveal the extent to which currently raging socio-political debates on issues like same-sex marriage are affecting our every-day lives, and our choices. Have you looked yet at the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family" in the United States today? Scary, aren’t they? Largely, the statistics reiterate that many of these trends will continue unabated without a rudimentary grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH in the media on the issues. As best as we can prior to our launch, we will continue to present the issues in ways that stimulate thought and point towards TRUTH. We believe it is important to present upfront what drives our agenda—what will distinguish our editorials. Simply, we believe in moral absolutes, and that there is a moral plumb line, which represents the gold standard to which we are called in life, especially within our personal relationships.

We recognize it is no small task to topple erroneous, entrenched concepts, notions, and outright myths about dating, marriage, parenting, divorce, and, yes, even sex that have taken root in our society today. We believe such relationship "bibles" as Cosmopolitan and Glamour magazines (or worse, the "beer and babes" titles for men like Playboy, Maxim, and FHM) have aided and abetted our declining morals. For truth be told, if the loose—and, sometimes, downright lewd—propositions heralded each month across the checkout counters by their latest "how to..." do work, why then have so many of us not experienced the levels of fulfillment in our personal relationships that they claim we ought to achieve with their "quick, simple, easy steps to...”?

The fact is we need to get back to the basics. Quite likely, this will mean examining—and, more likely, challenging—what we have been taught (and taken as gospel) about such matters as how to choose a life partner. Moreover, isn't it just demented how, as a society, we have prepared our children to get married, but have never resolutely taught them how to stay married, or find real happiness in the process? The good news is there is truth on such issues, truth that needs to be examined carefully, and taught diligently to Generation X...and the next.

We hope you'll continue to enjoy our interim web site offerings, and that you'll watch for postings on this, our recently created The Real Proposal™ magazine BlogSpot. Here, you'll be able to post comments and opinions on topical issues, and witness our actual countdown to launch. Finally, please continue to spread the word about The Real Proposal™ magazine. We have placed several "Send Page to a Friend" links and Email Registers throughout our site, which are quick and easy to use. Ultimately, your efforts will benefit all of us as we promise to deliver The REAL Proposal for Marriage... Beyond White Lace & Promises.