The recent Supreme Court decision not to review cases from the Court of Appeals has made homosexual marriage legal in over 30 states. It is unbelievable that only 11 years ago many states banned the homosexual lifestyle Now many of those same states have been forced to accept homosexual marriage.
Freedom's Defenders has opposed Homosexual marriage for the simple reason that God designed marriage to be one man for one woman for life. Even without this biblical reason, it is illogical to accept homosexual marriage so fast. Firstly, no one is being discriminated against by leaving the law as it is. Non-homosexuals can no more marry someone of the same sex than a homosexual can.
One may argue that this is similar to the bans on inter-racial marriage. This is very different from the bans on inter-racial marriage. The definition of marriage was not altered by lifting those bans. The definition was still one man for one woman. We are discussing not just lifting a ban based upon something like skin color, we are discussing changing the definition of a marriage itself. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed this in their 19721 decision Baker vs. Nelson; "Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Unfortunately only four circuit courts are left to rule on this matter: 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th. Several States within these circuits have appeals pending. We will see what the future holds regarding the definition of marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage is Not Like Interracial Marriage - Family Research Council
Judge Strikes Down Utah Traditional Marriage Laws, Calls Them 'Irrational' - Family Research Council
"I'm seriously considering voting for [insert name of Democratic candidate here] because we need to teach [insert name of Republican candidate here] a lesson."
If you're not voting for a Republican because they don't line up with your values, how can you justify voting for a Democrat, who will be more liberal than the Republican 99% of the time? Even if you do find a Democratic candidate who happens to be slightly less liberal then the Republican in the race, voting for the Democrat is supporting the Democratic platform, which is simply unacceptable.
The statement at in the opening of this post is one I've heard echoed many times among the conservative grassroots. I understand their frustration. However, this mindset assumes the end goal is a better Republican party. They seek to "teach the GOP a lesson" by voting Democrat. However, a conservative GOP will not fix our problems. The Republican party cannot save our nation. A principled, conservative Republican Party is simply a means to the end, a tool. The end goal is returning our nation to our founding principles and faith in God, which is the only way America can truly be restored. If voting for the lesser of two evils is unacceptable, certainly voting for the worse of two evils must be far more unacceptable.
Am I saying that we need to abandon the effort of building a conservative Republican party? No! I've actively engaged in this fight and will continue to do so. However, electing Democrats is not the way to save America. To once again become "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all", we must turn to Jesus Christ, the only One who can can truly restore America.
Stay focused, remember the end goal, and pray for our nation.
Note: I put principle before party. Sometime, somewhere, I suppose it's possible that I may end up in a position where I have a choice between a stellar conservative candidate who is a Democrat, while the Republican candidate is liberal through and through. In that case, I would probably vote for the conservative who happens to be a Democrat. However, such cases are extremely rare.
This post was written by Peter B, and is also posted on his blog at www.peterformichigan.com/2014/08/30/end-goal.
In just over two weeks, Michigan Republicans will head to the polls to pick their candidates for the November general election.
State Representative Tom McMillin is a conservative Republican running to replace retiring Congressman Mike Rogers in Michigan's Eighth District. He'll face former State Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop on August 5th. Both are running on their conservative credentials, but Tom McMillin has a clear record of standing up for Michigan taxpayers that Mike Bishop can't quite match.
McMillin is strong constitutional conservative, a champion of religious freedom, and a strong defender of the right to life and traditional marriage. He has been the leader of the fight against Common Core in Michigan's state legislature and strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Learn more about how Tom McMillin is Standing Up.
We encourage Republican voters in the Eighth District to vote for Tom McMillin on August 5th.
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the owners of Hobby Lobby to practice their religion. Hobby Lobby was threatened with millions of dollars of fines if they did not pay for abortions, but the Supreme Court struck down the HHS mandate. This was a victory for religious freedom and we are all thankful that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby.
However, this battle is not over. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last Tuesday, "The one thing we’re going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men, this Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we’re going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think they’re going to be treated unfavorably come November with the elections." Then, Senator Pat Murray (D) of Washington introduced S.B. 2578 to "repeal" Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Inc.
Please note that the Supreme Court would UPHOLD this law. The Hobby Lobby decision was decided under a 1993 law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law was enacted after the Supreme Court decision in Employment Div vs. Smith. In this decision, the court stopped using the compelling interest test for religious freedom cases involving a neutral law of general applicability. Because the Hobby Lobby decision was made based on a federal law and not the first amendment, the US Congress is ALLOWED to change the law to ensure that there is no exemption for Hobby Lobby.
We must fight S.B. 2578 to the very end. While it may be unlikely that five republican senators will vote to allow this bill to go up for a vote in the Senate, we must remember that republicans have voted to allow other bills to go up for a vote. And while we would not expect the House to pass this bill we must watch them carefully. Remember, this is an election year and politicians are often more likely to cave to demands in an attempt to gain more votes.
Ten years ago today the Fortieth President of The United States of America passed way.
President Ronald W. Reagan was a great man, a great president and a great American. He once said that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same."
In a five to four decision the Supreme Court upheld a city council's right to pray before a meeting. The first amendment challenge argued that the Town of Greece was establishing a religion by merely recognizing the divine hand of God prior to meetings. The fact that no religion was forced on anyone by the city council recognizing the hand of the Almighty did not seem to make a difference to those opposing the town of Greece. Thankfully the Court sided with Greece. This case along with the other cases in recent years have shown a trend towards a reversal in Court precedent, from the doctrine of separation toward a more traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The traditional and correct interpretation holds that the First Amendment does allow members of the Government to engage in religious activity - it just does not allow the Government to force a religious belief on the entire nation.
This decision is a blow to those who wish to see religion compartmentalized and taken out of the public eye. Ben Sharipo in his excellent article explains why the break down of religion in public is so important to the left; "The greatest bulwark against an overreaching government, as tyrants know, is a religious population. That is because religious people form communities of interest adverse to government control of their lives; religious communities rely on their families and each other rather than an overarching government utilizing force. The greatest obstacle to the welfare state is not greed but private charity that makes the welfare state irrelevant; the greatest obstacle to re-education of children in the name of the collective is allegiance to a higher power. More than that, the greatest obstacle to the state as god is an actual God above the state."
Ben Sasse is a fifth-generation Nebraskan, a constitutional conservative, a homeschool dad, and an outspoken opponent of Obamacare. He's running for Nebraska's open United States Senate seat, and has the support of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Sarah Palin, the Family Research Council Action PAC, and many more.
We are proud to support Ben Sasse for U.S. Senate. As President of Midland University in Nebraska, Sasse was one of the youngest university presidents in the history of American higher education and turned around a university on the verge of closing down. Because of his leadership, for the past four years Midland University has been the fastest-growing school in the state.
Ben Sasse recognizes that it is not enough to stop bad ideas -- we must put forward free-market solutions and conservatives must shape the Republican party into the party of ideas. His leadership, conservative values, and real-world experience are much-needed in Washington.
Learn more about Ben Sasse:
The Senate Conservatives Fund has released a new ad highlighting Chris McDaniel, running for Senate against 40+ year incumbent Senator Thad Cochran in the Republican primary on June 3rd.
Get involved and support constitutional conservative Chris McDaniel at www.mcdaniel2014.com!
Remember Chick-Fil-A Day?
Well it's back -- but this time, it's for Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain that could face fines of up the $1.3 million per day if its Christian owners don't comply with the federal "HHS Mandate" to provide contraception to employees in their health coverage. (Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby still covers, and would continue to cover, 16 out of 20 contraceptives.)
Their case was argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 25.
Now, you can join Americans across the nation in supporting Hobby Lobby by shopping in-store or online tomorrow, March 29!
Please RSVP to this Facebook event hosted by Family Research Council Action as another way to show that you stand with Hobby Lobby!
You can show your support for Hobby Lobby by using this photo for your Facebook cover! Right-click, save the graphic, and then upload it as your Facebook cover photo.
We've endorsed two candidates in today's Illinois primaries: Doug Truax for US Senate and Erika Harold for Congress (IL-13).