Veritas Rex

Brain Banishment

When it comes to cultural issues, it's always a little scary to look at Canada and Europe because all-to-often the U.S. follows suit, eventually.  Here is an example of a Christian non-profit group who was ordered by the Canadian government to cease using an employment contract which has staff promise that they will not engage in "homosexual relationships," among other activities contrary to Christian principles.  Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently dismissed.  This story is striking in the blatant disregard for justice the "Human Rights Tribunal of Canada" shows in that the employee signed a contract vowing to stick within the moral guidelines of the organization (which she admitted to breaking), the law in question has a religious exemption that should have covered this organization (but didn't) and how this organization's ability to serve vulnerable populations according to it's faith-based mission has been compromised.

As I see different cases like these around the world, there seems to be a set pattern of homosexual activists pushing for "anti-discrimination" ordinances, eventually getting them passed through convincing elected officials that Christian organizations are covered under a religous exemption provision and then eventually attempting to target and gut Christian organizations with these ordinances by forcing them to recognize anti-Christian beliefs.  Indianapolis and several other cities already have similar ordinances.  I wonder how long it will take for homosexual activists in Indy to start attempting to stamp out those Christian organizations who disagree with them.  Politicos talk about Indiana's brain drain all the time.  It's more like brain banishment in places where homosexual activists dictate public policy.  Read the full story and the actual decision.  It's quite stunning.

UMC church upholds traditional marriage

As a follow up on last week's post regarding the UM church.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy
April 30, 2008                                                                              

United Methodists Vote to Uphold Traditional Marriage
“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church.”

—Executive Director of UMAction Mark Tooley

Ft. Worth, Texas–On Wednesday, April 30 around 5:30 p.m. the United Methodist General Conference delegates voted on what is considered one of the most controversial issues before the world-wide church body. The delegates voted down the committee report that would change The Book of Discipline to explicitly condone homosexual practice. The Minority Report that was passed by a vote of 501-417 affirms not only that marriage is between a man and a woman but that marriage is a “covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” The conference, United Methodism’s chief rulemaking body, is a denominational gathering that occurs every four years and brings together delegates from around the world.

Mark Tooley, Executive Director of IRD’s UMAction Committee, commented:

“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church. Those who demand acceptance of homosexual behavior maximized their campaign this year knowing it was their last chance to win in United Methodism.

“The African and other over-seas delegates represented the margin of victory for the current church stance on marriage and sex. This year they comprised almost 30 percent of the total delegates thanks to their church growth and membership decline in the U.S.  The internationals may comprise 40 percent in 2012.

“Africans and other international United Methodists in coalition with Evangelicals in the U.S. are working for a renewed denomination faithful to historic Christian teaching, and culturally transformative instead of culturally accommodating.”

Hearing Crickets

If the following story had been about a self-identified homosexual man being abducted and beaten by a heterosexual man, the cry from the media and homosexual activists would have been deafening.  However, you insert a young Amish man as the victim being sexually assaulted by a male sexual deviant and you can hear crickets (except for the small blurb in the South Bend Tribune below).  Granted, all violent crimes should be highlighted and addressed, but why should we care less about justice for victims when the victim is a religious heterosexual?

From the South Bent Tribune: 

An Amish man riding a bicycle on a LaGrange County road was abducted and sexually assaulted late Saturday, authorities said.

The 29-year-old from near Wolcottville was traveling on C.R. 600 South, near C.R. 675 West in the Topeka area, when a man driving a dark-colored vehicle forced him into a car at knifepoint, the LaGrange County Sheriff's Department said.

After he was wrestled into the car, the man was driven to a remote area and sexually assaulted. Police said he was then driven to another location and released.

The suspect is a white, middle-aged male of average build, possibly driving a dark-colored car.

"Day of Silence" should be Day of Sadness

It is with great sadness that I highlight the reality of several public high schools around the state recognizing the “Day of Silence” today, which was and is created and promoted by GLSEN (a particularly tricky gay rights group that I commented on earlier this week).  We discuss the cultural and public policy implications of these sorts of efforts by gay rights groups all the time.  However, what saddens me the most is the ultimate consequences of the GLSEN worldview on the hearts, minds and souls of individual high school students. 

What I see are vulnerable youth reaching out for answers.  Some have been sexually, emotionally or physically abused.  Some are merely confused about the role sexuality should play in their lives.  The reasons for their vulnerability and confusion abound.  Of course the gay activists would say the ultimate reason is a society that does not embrace them for who they are (“gay”, “lesbian”, “bisexual”, etc.).

However, what is really happening is that these youth who are often confused, vulnerable and looking for answers are given the wrong answers by groups like GLSEN.  What these young people need are friends, family and others who will help them address the true root causes behind their confusion and vulnerability and help them work towards healing.  Many times a good Christian counselor could help the young person explore and work through some of these issues.  Instead GLSEN and other enablers help youth mask the true roots of their confusion by giving them a simple explanation… “You were born gay.  You cannot change.  If you embrace this reality and help others embrace it you can be happy.” 

How tragic. Even if you don’t agree with my values and lens through which I look at the world, is it ever healthy to let your romantic and sexual feelings define you (regardless of who those feelings are directed towards)?  Take a look at GLSEN’s website (or any gay rights website for that matter).  It is undeniable that they want a person’s sexuality to be the center of who they are.  You don’t have to agree with my values to understand that that is not healthy.

Group behind homosexual "day of silence" could expose schools to legal trouble

I made mention of the group GLSEN in my last post (which I jokingly referred to as the Gay Lesbian and Straight MisEducation Network).  With their annual "day of silence" coming up this Friday, today seems like a good day to expose GLSEN's true intentions for Indiana's vulnerable youth.  The Citizens for Community Values (IFI's counterpart in Ohio) has put together an excellent document which highlights the dangerous agenda of GLSEN and the legal liability issues that GLSEN's miseducation campaign could have on schools.  I am posting an excerpt below, but I highly encourage anyone who works in the field of education or has school age children to read the entire document. 

As I studied GLSEN's website and the different materials they offer to students, I was particularly interested in the document explaining how students can develop, "youth-adult partnerships."  This document seems to make a concerted effort to help confuse students as to the distinctions between being a "youth" or an "adult."  They claim that GLSEN considers a youth to be a k-12 student, yet they proceed to call attention to other "cultures, traditions and situations" in which youth as young as 13 are considered to be adults.  This seems to fall right in line with the liability issues CCV highlights below:

Schools Exposed to Civil Liability

Implied approval of child-adult sexual relationships is a frequent and usually positive theme in resources recommended by GLSEN and PFLAG. Beyond the fact that these liaisons often constitute criminal activity for which the adults could be prosecuted, the civil lawsuits schools could face are daunting.

One has only to look to the numerous claims recently made against the Catholic Church for its various roles in sexual abuse scandals involving priests to see the liability schools could face in similar situations. Out-of-court settlements paid for past offenses have totaled in the multiple millions of dollars thus far. It should be noted that a major component of this litigation has focused on the negligent failure of the church hierarchy to protect children from known risks.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for school officials to know whether the adults who want access to the children on their campuses have criminal intentions. But if those adults state their intentions in writing up front – in books and brochures approving of child-adult sex – school officials have a responsibility to keep them at a distance. Failure to do so when the school is aware of the potential danger will very likely result in culpability.

Based on the critical review of the resources provided to young people by groups like GLSEN and PFLAG, Harvey states,

School officials should be aware that many homosexual support groups for teens and their parents believe that sex between a young person and an adult is just an expected part of the growing up process. Numerous stories and episodes of adult-teen homosexual sex are found within the resources of these groups. Incidents are treated at times in a neutral fashion, or too often, in a positive light, as if such abusive relationships are natural, normal, and even an advantageous ‘coming of age’ step in the lives of ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered’ youth.

Hat tip:  Patrick Mangan

Democrat Primary for Governor 2008: No choices for pro-family voters

We were forwarded this email from a friend about a month ago.  I don't think we were the target audience.

You are cordially invited to a cocktail reception for the Indiana Stonewall Democrats

featuring a joint appearance by Indiana’s Democratic candidates for Governor
Jim Schellinger and Jill Long Thompson

at the home of Jackie Nytes and Michael O’Brien
3444 Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis

Friday April 4, 2008, 7:00 pm
Please join us to raise funds for Indiana Democratic Candidates supportive of LGBT Hoosiers

Tickets: $75 General Reception Ticket

$150 Supporter Ticket (includes reception, picture with Schellinger/Thompson, and program acknowledgment).

Indiana Stonewall Democrats (ISD) is the state organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Democrats and their friends. ISD is committed to improving the record of the Democratic Party and educating voters about the vast difference that exists between the two major parties on issues of importance to our communities.

in·san·i·ty

in·san·i·ty [in-san-i-tee]- public schools ban coaches from praying with their teams, but allow GLSEN (Gay Lesbian and Straight MisEducation Network) to promote homosexuality and silence opposition. 

I don't want to say "I told you so"...but (part II)

Here is another interesting bit of news on the same-sex marriage topic from New York.  This is an excerpt from a New York Times article that strongly supports same-sex marriage [I know what you all are in disbelief that the New York Times shows a liberal bias (smile)]:

“…a New York State appeals court ruled Friday that same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.”

“The plaintiff in the case, Patricia Martinez, a word-processing supervisor at an upstate college, married her longtime partner, Lisa Ann Golden, in Canada in 2004. When Ms. Martinez applied for health care benefits for her spouse, the college denied the application on the grounds that New York did not recognize the marriage.

The court, by a 5-0 vote, declared that the college was wrong. Employers in the state must accord same-sex couples the same rights as other couples. (emphasis mine) To reach that result, it simply applied New York’s ‘marriage recognition rule.’ Under this century-old common-law rule, marriages validly contracted out of state must be accorded respect in New York, and parties to such unions treated as spouses, regardless of whether the marriage would be allowed in New York.”

In New York they are forcing employers to give benefits to homosexual partners.  For years we have pointed out that we need the second sentence of Indiana's marriage amendment so that a court cannot REQUIRE that employers must give domestic partner benefits.  New York goes even farther and recognizes Canadian law over their own!  As much as our opponents want to convince us to stick our heads in the sand, this is actually happening.   Employers are being forced to recognize and support homosexual marriages.  Do we want that for Indiana?

This a good example of the true intentions of the gay rights agenda.  Force others to approve of and even financially support the homosexual lifestyle.  Their agenda is not really about tolerance…it is about power. 

I don't want to say "I told you so"...but

For quite some time now I have made the point that if marriage rights are extended to couples of the same sex, then it will be very difficult to deny other couples and groups the privileges of marriage...polygamists for example. 

It just so happens that in Great Britain, where they have "civil partnerships," (basically gay marriage by another name) Muslim men will now be able to enjoy extra government benefits for the multiple wives in their "harem." 

It's like I have a crystal ball or something...lol.  When government starts recognizing relationships other than one man and one woman, you burst the floodgates wide open. 

Here is an excerpt from the full article in The Telegraph:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognized formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

P.S.  I told you so.

Statehouse Update

We promised to give updates of further developments in the Statehouse, so here you go.  First of all, here is a reminder of what has already happened recently.  Now on to the latest news on the pro-family front. 

Senator Bill 187 passed the Senate, since our last update, by a vote of 36-11.  This bill would require schools to teach students about human fetal development.  It is amazing how fairly recent break-throughs in technology have allowed us to learn so much about the development of babies within their mother's womb.  It is important for students to know, for example, that a baby's heart begins beating as early as 18 days after conception and brain waves are recorded as early as 42 days, along with other information and even photos that show that a child within the womb is not merely a blob of tissue.

House Bill 1076 died in the House.  This was the hate crimes bill that I commented on early this week.  It seems that proponents of the bill did not have the votes to pass the bill without amendments, so the bill's author, Rep. Porter, passed on his opportunity to call the bill down in front of all 100 members.  Representatives Thompson and Walorski should get a pat on the back for offering good amendments to the bill that may have led to it's demise.  Good riddance to this fundamentally flawed idea.

Stay tuned for more developments...

Dangers of Hate Crime Legislation

With hate crimes legislation moving to the full Indiana House, it is timely to look at the potential dangers of such a policy.  The potential abuse of such policies on individuals who disagree with homosexuality has been a problem in different places around the world.  Here is but one example from Wisconsin:

Additionally, hate crimes legislation promotes unequal justice under the law.  Under such a law, a criminal who assaults someone, simply because they hate their victim and feel pleasure in seeing him or her suffer, would be punished LESS severely then a criminal who assaults someone because of their sexual preference.

A more common sense approach to fighting crime would be to raise the penalties for the crime itself, across the board, not picking and choosing politically correct aggravating circumstances to reward certain groups and punish others.  However, it seems that some proponents of hate crimes legislation do not care about equal justice for all, just a select few.

Is there a Hemi in the Marriage Amendment?

Barely two weeks ago Veritas Rex hosted a robust discussion about the gay lobby's canard that passage of the Marriage Amendment (known in the Indiana General Assembly’s legi-speak as “SJR 7”) would injure Indiana's competitive standing for economic development. A favorite "Exhibit A" is the number of businesses lead by corporate giants like Eli Lilly of Indianapolis and Cummins Engine of Columbus, Indiana that testified against SJR 7 in 2007. These companies all read and re-read the same talking points about how such a development could poorly position Indiana for their choice of economic development and expansion in 2008 and beyond.

The GLBT community then gloated that Marriage Amendment supporters were ostensibly having a hard time finding sponsors in the House and Senate, though only two weeks later, we've found the Amendment offered in both houses.

Surely, such a move—indeed, in both houses!—would scare away any further economic development decisions. Evidently, Cummins Engine hasn’t been reading the papers, because despite the Hoosier intoleranati’s reintroduction of Marriage Amendment in both the House and Senate, the motor giant today announced that they will add 500 new professionals to its Columbus operation over the next two years, agreeing to lease an office building being built as part of the Commons Mall redevelopment project in order to meet expected growth.

Remember that Cummins explicitly warned us of the dire effects of doing things like recognizing that the sky is blue, water is wet, and marriage is between a man and a woman. Such legal recognition of the obvious might scare away economic development opportunities in the future. As well, such a legal recognition would make it difficult to attract and retain qualified professionals to staff that future development.

Today, we pause and salute Cummins for digging in their heals and getting done what 2% of Indiana’s population thought was impossible—economically expanding in state still noodling on legalizing blue skies, wet water, and traditional marriage.

Summary of links: Indiana Economic Development Corporation, "Cummins to Add 500 New Professionals To Its Columbus Operations" January 23, 2008.

Troubling Report Of 'Gay Superbug" Shades Of Early AIDS Crisis

     As the AIDS crisis emerged in the early 1980’s, I had the helpful perspective of serving on a Congressional staff and being at the nation’s nerve center, so to speak, of Capitol Hill as America sought answers about the unfolding health emergency. I see eerie similarities to that disquieting time and the news account reported below, provided by Reuters News, via the Drudge Report, regarding a new “super bug” infection centered in the gay communities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Boston about which we know very little.

      Back in the early 80s, Congress sought to understand and then respond to the AIDS crisis through many avenues.  Initially, as projections were made about the possible scope of the emerging epidemic, the epidemiological models assumed that 10 percent of the population was in fact homosexual – gay or lesbian.  This was based on the very flawed research of Indiana University sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey.  I later went to the Kinsey Institute to review the infamous research, only to see that a prominent disclaimer has been added at the beginning recognizing the sampling mistakes that Dr. Kinsey made in reaching his conclusion that 10 percent of the nation's men are homosexual.  But before these statistical sampling flaws were well understood, the nation, unfortunately, had a deadly epidemic underway confirming that the true percentage of gay men is three percent or less. 

     Congress also made other mistakes, including, chiefly, declaring AIDS the first disease in American history to have civil rights.  I fear tens of thousands died because of that political correctness that prevailed, principally pursued by then Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills.  If the news account below is accurate, more than 20,000 Americans have already died from this new "super bug."

      This has an eerie similarity to the initial reports of AIDS.  I hope and pray there is not another forthcoming 'super bug' disease anyone has to deal with, including gay men or lesbian women.  As a Christian, my compassion goes out to anyone who is ill, and I wouldn’t wish a debilitating or deadly disease on my worst enemy.  If we face a similar crisis, however, it is imperative that clear-headed medical science prevail as we respond to a sexually-transmitted disease, should that turn out to be the case. For those who might want to read the best analysis of the early days of the AIDs crisis, I recommend "Homosexuality and the Politics of AIDS" by Dr. Jeffery Satinover and "And The Band Played On" by now-deceased (of AIDS) San Fransisco Chronicle Reporter Gary Shilts.  Both are excellent, penetrating reads of the failures in the medical community (Satinover) and the gay activist and community health worlds (Shilts).

     Rueters news report as carried by the Drudge Report on Wednesday, Jan. 15

     SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

     They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

     Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

     "Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."

     According to chemical analyses, bacteria are spreading among the gay communities of San Francisco and Boston, the researchers said.

     "We think that it's spread through sexual activity," Diep said.

     This superbug can cause life-threatening and disfiguring infections and can often only be treated with expensive, intravenous antibiotics.

     It killed about 19,000 Americans in 2005, most of them in hospitals, according to a report published in October in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

     About 30 percent of all people carry ordinary staph chronically. It can be passed by touching other people or by depositing the bacteria on surfaces or objects.

     The bacteria can cause deep-tissue infections if they enter the body through a wound in the skin.

     Of those people who carry staph, most carry it in their noses but community-based MRSA also can live in and around the anus and is passed between sexual partners.

     Incidence of MRSA is rising along with the resurgence of syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections partly because of changes in beliefs about the severity of HIV and an increase in risky behaviors, such as illicit drug use and having sex that abrades the skin, Diep's team wrote.

    "Your likelihood of contracting each of these diseases increases with the number of sexual partners that you have," Diep said. "The same can probably be said for MRSA."

     Staph infections often look like raised red dots on the skin. Left untreated, the areas can swell and fill with pus.

     The best way to avoid infection is by washing the hands or genitals with soap and water, Diep said.

Ex-Gays? New book studies psychological issues re: ex-gay ministries

A thorough new study, entitled Ex-Gays? by Dr. Stanton Jones and Dr. Mark Yarhouse has been published.  It examined participants in Exodus Ministries' ex-gay programs and investigated any psychological effects resulting from them. 

I'll summarize briefly:  The authors attempt to basically answer this question: "Is it impossible for a homosexual to change to a heterosexual or become celibate without psychological harm?"  The book concludes that Exodus International's ministry has, on average, succeeded in doing just that.  This is a scientifically valid and thorough study that will cause problems for those who hold that reparative therapy is always bad medicine.

I'll let the authors speak for themselves.   There's plenty of video and other related content here.  This particular video speaks to their findings most extensively.

I also link to a pretty thorough debate here and here between the authors and Dr. Patrick Chapman, author of Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays.  Those links are the most helpful if you want to get into the issue in great detail.  You can see part 2 of the debate here and here and part 3 here and here.

Hopefully we can have some reasonable discussion about this issue, particularly with the inspiration provided by the example of excellent work and respectful debate demonstrated by the authors.  I understand that Exodus International and other ex-gay ministries are a hot point for some of our readers.  Personally, I haven't gotten through the entirety of the material linked to myself.  

Mohler takes on Conservative Christian Political Idolaters--and me too?

My good friend, Josh Harber, a fundraising executive for Wycliffe Bible Translators, brought to my attention an analysis of the Iowa election numbers by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler. The evangelical leader makes some good insights on the meaning behind the Iowa results, but I take issue with a too-frequent dig (the right word?) against conservative Christians who are involved in politics:

"The rhetoric of the race -- and the rhetoric of many evangelicals -- is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord -- and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office."

(emphasis mine)

I agree with Mohler's main point: The Christian’s home in the future, not the present, and the pastoral clarion reminder is helpful. But I often hear this point as a pretext -- or a subtext -- to a subsequent and more emphatic point to "keep the main man the main thing." It's like a reminder to eat our vegetables. For those of us with a mouthful of peas, we ask, with all due respect, “puh-lease….”

It would be helpful if Mr. Mohler would expand his prophetic role to pointing out specific examples of  excess; I'm aware of the need to "be careful" but would benefit from his insight on how to be careful.  He -- and the thousands of his colleague-pastors who faithfully preach the Word but demonstrate time and again how painfully uninformed they remain on important matters of federal, state and local public policy -- should provide specific examples of error. Who is he talking about? Tony Perkins? Tony Campolo? Jim Dobson? Don Wildmon? What might be an example of too much hope? Not enough hope? Just the right amount of hope?

Is any hope in American democracy for the relief of grievances amount to the equivalent of idolatry? I know he does not believe this, for he acknowledges that "the political sphere is important" and, besides, his participation in the public square is renown, and the country has been blessed by his contribution.

Still, Mr. Mohler and this curious, irregular but frequent, evangelical buzz reminder seems to blindly lump those of us who love the Lord of the labor on behalf of babies, marriage, and country with those who adore the strategy, metrics and blood of the political sport so much that they would privately weep if, in fact, we were to instantly win our issues today. Yes, those are political idolaters who need a prophetic reminder that "Jesus Christ will not return on Air Force One."

But, having been at the fight for twenty years now, as a campaign staffer and congressional staffer, most of the evangelicals I know are not political idolaters, and not addicted to the sport. They're simply reaching up to intercept the enemy's dagger, plunging straight down in the hearts of the images of God.

Mr. Mohler's warning is helpful, but without more specificity about how much is too much or how little is too little, he risks lumping all activists into a particular category and thus discouraging more people from coming alongside to help resist that dagger, especially at a moment in history when we seem so close to actually winning a major battle in the war on abortion. It's not that I think his prophetic pen needs to be sharpened, but that he put it down too soon.

Christopher Mann

Fort Wayne, IN

Summary of links:

1. Joshua Harber, “Iowa Reaction”, Generosity Encouraged blog, Friday January 4, 2008
2. Albert Mohler, “The Caucus, the Candidates, and the Dance of Democracy”, AlbertMohler.com, Friday, January 4, 2008
3. Albert Mohler, “Albert Mohler bio”, AlbertMohler.com

Could the Marriage Amendment scare investors into bringing more business to Indiana?

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial page reiterated its opposition to the Marriage Amendment in Thursday’s edition (“No time for pandering”) calling the amendment foolish and unnecessary legislation in light that Indiana already has a law establishing marriage between a man and woman, and that, in the Journal’s opinion, the legislation should focus exclusively on property tax reform.

The JG reasoning is specious, at best, but its final point really fails the smell test:

“It is foolish for Indiana, still lagging other states in economic recovery, to consider a measure that would alienate any potential investor. It’s even more foolish to consider such a measure when elected officials should be focused on tax restructuring.”

What’s really foolish is to warn of a drought in the middle of a downpour (and 3 years running). The federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 and the Indiana version was passed in 2002 after many such dire warnings about the economic fall out. Is there any evidence (any?) that such a statute has scared away investors, as the Journal Gazette feigns to fret?

Furthermore, the Indiana Economic Development Council just announced that 2007 marked the third straight record-breaking year for job creation:

“More than 150 companies from across the state, the country and around the world committed to create more than 22,600 new jobs in the Hoosier state this year, breaking the state’s previous job commitment record set just a year ago.”

I truly doubt that there is, in fact, such a tightly connected relationship between a state’s definition of marriage—whether it codifies same sex marriage or not—and its business-friendly perception. I truly doubt that Medco Health Solutions, Really Cool Foods, Interactive Intelligence, Arcadia Health care and the other some 500 companies investing $14.5 billion dollars and creating 60,000 new jobs in Indiana paused over this decision because, they pouted, “I like Indiana, but their DOMA laws—and this perennial Marriage Amendment! Ok, if we must….”

But, for those gay lobbyists enjoying a W-2 from the Journal Gazette editorial board who are so convinced that a Marriage Amendment will, in fact, injure the Hoosier economy just like DOMA, then I say we bank on (and hope for) history to repeat itself.

Links:

1. Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Thursday, January 3, 2008, “No time for Pandering."
2. Indiana Economic Development Corporation press release, 12/28/07, “More than 22,600 New Jobs Coming to Indiana; Indiana Economic Development Posts Third Consecutive Record-Breaking Year.”
3. National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, “State-by-state marriage protection update”

Should Marriage Be For Life?

I was all set on posting an article on stem-cell research this morning and I came across this article by Margo Howard in the Indianapolis Star.  Here is an excerpt:

Dear Margo: I find myself in a predicament that I never in a million years would have predicted. I am a 25-year-old man who is married to a beautiful, committed wife. Recently, I was chatting online and met a guy. He was funny and quick-witted.

You get the picture.  The reader ends up talking to this guy for two hours every night since and the reader ends up telling this guy that he loves him.  However, the reader believes that he is straight and that homosexuality is a sin and asks Margo what to do.

Here is part of Margo's response:

These things would not, could not happen to a straight man. You are gay, my friend, though heavily repressed because … it would be sinful. I believe you and this other chap are so closeted that you've been hiding from yourselves. Because of your religious convictions, I am pretty sure there's an element of self-loathing, if only at the subconscious level.

I would suggest you seek professional help and guidance. Get the national number for GLBT counseling referrals.  And perhaps take a break from "Matt" until your identity question is settled, one way or the other.

I will be interested to see the response of the those who are regular commenters on this topic.  Isn't marriage a committment for life?  Doesn't Margo have the responsibility to suggest that this guy go get counseling from someone who will actually help him resist extra-marital temptations of all stripes and reconcile with his wife?  (I think we can all agree that will not be the message from a GLBT counseling referral)  Is life all about what we feel at the moment or do we have greater responsibilities, not only to God, but to those who love us and are counting on us to honor our commitments and give them our best?

The real story: Even the left can't agree on a definition of transgender

Recently, the following guest post appeared on The Bilerico Project.

Apparently Kourt Osborn, a so-called transgendered student, has been denied student housing at Southern Utah University due to his status.

For over an hour, Kourt met with Neuman Duncan, the director of university housing, on his way to take a math placement exam this week.

“During our conversation,” Kourt said, “he told me that a sociology professor on campus believed I was ‘not truly a transsexual’ because I do not seek sexual reassignment surgery.”

Kourt said the university will only allow him housing in male residence halls after he provides:

    * a letter from the doctor that monitors his hormone treatment;
    * a letter from his therapist saying that he has gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria; and
    * official documentation that he has had sexual reassignment surgery.

Kourt had already provided the housing department with a letter from a doctor who monitors his hormone treatment. For personal reasons, Kourt does not seek to be diagnosed with “gender identity disorder” and does not want to seek sexual reassignment surgery.

What the post failed to mention, as is obvious from the article, is that Mr. Osborn wasn't denied access by some hate-filled, nasty Christian, but by a sociology professor that apparently has no issue with transgendered students.  He seems to just desire some sort of objective definition of transgender.  Transgender is some sort of state of mind I imagine, so I guess there is no definition.

But the guest blogger at The Bilerico Project writes this post as if there is some crusade against Mr. Osborn.  Another example of the vicious discrimination transgendered students deal with from our biased society.  But this rejection came not from the right, but from the left.

Indiana’s own Hannity and Colmes part three

Thanks to those of you who tuned into the Abdul in the Morning show yesterday morning!  I ended up battling two opponents of the Marriage Amendment, but Abdul made it up to me by offering Bil and I a chance to host his show on December 27th from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.  I don’t know if I can live up to the legacy of Superman, but I’ll try to produce some interesting radio.

Any suggestions on what you would like Bil and I to discuss when we make Indiana’s version of Hannity and Colmes a reality?  Topics?  Guests?  Give me your ideas and I will take them into consideration as Bil and I decide what we want to do.  Stay tuned and I will link up the Abdul podcast when it pops up on the WXNT website.

I promised to start a conversation on civil unions several days ago.  (This has nothing to do with the Marriage Amendment because it does not prohibit the legislature from creating civil unions)  When Bil and I did Republican Radio, the idea of the government ceasing to offer marriage licenses and offering a civil union to anyone who wants one was suggested. 

Of course, I think that is a horrible idea.  The government promotes marriage between one man and one woman for a number of reasons.  However, the most meaningful in my mind is the fact that it is more of a public good than any other foundation for the family.  When you remove that and offer civil unions, you have the government promoting alternative foundations for the family that should not receive promotion.  Homosexuality, polygamy, incest, etc.  If any couple or group can receive a civil union…any couple or group will.    

Do we want our government rejecting marriage and promoting alternative lifestyles?  I vote no.  What do you think? 

Indiana's own Hannity and Colmes Part 2

Bil Browning and I will once again do ideological battle over whether Indiana should forever enshrine the definition of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, within our constitution.  This time we will appear on the Abdul in the Morning show on News Talk 1430 AM (WXNT) at 9 a.m. this Thursday.  I invite you to listen in as we debate this important topic and then come back here at Veritas Rex to continue the discussion.

Indiana's own Hannity and Colmes

Well…not quite.  Josh Gillespie with Hoosier Access along with RepublicanRadio.com held a debate between Bil Browning of the Bilerico Project and I on Saturday.  We mostly debated the Marriage Amendment and hate crimes.  In true Alan Colmes fashion, Bill threw out quite a few red herrings. *smile* (pretty smart, really, when your opponent only has a fixed amount of time to respond).    However, I think our discussion made for pretty interesting radio.  Stay tuned for air times.

I must say that I was surprised at how many Republicans in the room were open to the idea of civil unions.  That’s why we are all about ideas and not party affiliation here at Veritas Rex.  It looks like some Republicans need some major Hannitization on this issue.  Look for more on this topic in the future.

Josh…you’re a great American!

"Support slipping for gay-wed ban"

This was the headline on the front page of the Indianapolis Star on Tuesday.  What is often missed is the sub-heading "But more Hoosiers than not still want constitutional amendment, poll finds."  However, the more important issue is:  What is the Star's motivation behind the poll and why won't they publish the details?  In the print article they say that you can go to www.indystar.com and find the details of the poll, including the wording of the question. 

However, when you go to their website or their polling company's website, Selzer and Co., no details are available.  This is not a new occurrence for the Star.  There have been several other polls in the past on this and other issues that matter to social conservatives.  When I email or call for details of the poll...shocker...no one responds.  What do they have to hide?

Here is an excerpt from the Indianapolis Star article, written by Bill Ruthhart:

Support among Hoosiers for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage appears to be on the decline, according to an Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.

The poll, based on the responses of 600 people statewide, found that 49 percent of Hoosiers supported the amendment. That number is down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey by The Star.

Of the respondents, 44 percent said they opposed a constitutional ban, up from 40 percent in 2005.

About the poll

The poll was conducted by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, from Nov. 13-16 and is based on interviews with 600 Indiana residents. Interviewers contacted households using randomly generated telephone numbers. Those age 18 and older were eligible to participate.

The poll is weighted to reflect the 8 percent of the Hoosier population who are 18 years and older and African-American, based on U.S. Census population estimates from the 2006 American Community Survey.

Percentages based on the full sample have a maximum margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points. Among voters who say they will definitely vote in the 2008 election, the margin of error is plus-or-minus 4.6 percentage points.

How was the question worded?  What was the make-up of the 600 people (isn't that a pretty small sample?)?  Where do they live?  What is the percentage Republican vs. Democrat?  Were they likely voters?  Did they ask how many of the respondents were homosexual themselves?  They could easily answer these and many more questions if they would just give the public access to the poll details. 

It would be pretty foolish to put much stock in any poll if we don't have the details.  At first blush it looks like the Star has an axe to grind.

I know many gay activists will jump in and want to get us mired in questions we have answered numerous times.  However, lets take a different tact in the comments this time.  If you support homosexual marriage, you should be able to explain how it would benefit our state.  There is ample scientific research that points to marriage, as it has always been defined, as incredibly positive to our society in a number of ways.  Please explain how homosexual marriage will benefit society and pull marriage out of the mess heterosexuals have put it in, as is often inferred by gay activists.   

Organization Day

Today is Organization Day at the Statehouse.  Legislators have come back to Indianapolis to take on the people's business.  Much will be made of the need for property tax reform.  This is a real need.  However, in a short session, some will be tempted to hide behind the property tax issue in order to duck other important issues. 

One such issue is the Marriage Amendment.  Given our constitutional amendment process in Indiana, if the Marriage Amendment does not pass this year it dies.  It takes a minimum of four years to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot.  Last session, House Speaker Pat Bauer sent the Marriage Amendment to the House Rules Committee to die.  However, he has made campaign promises to give the Marriage Amendment a fair up or down vote.  It will be interesting to see how things unfold this session.  Stay tuned...

For more information about the Marriage Amendment please visit our sister organization, Indiana Family Action, website:  www.idosupportmarriage.com

A new definition of marriage

I've been meaning to comment on this recent post for some time.  It's from Alex Blaze of The Bilerico Project (BTW, now the #2 LBGT blog on the net).  His post was in response to a recent post I wrote entitled, "The peculiar problem of the gay gene."

With this in mind, something on the Indiana Family Institute's website caught my eye:

If homosexuality is a genetic compulsion that individuals cannot resist, then how can we ask anyone with this "gene" to engage in any other behavior?

The problem with this thinking is that it reduces humanity to the level of animals. It's the gay equivelant of a husband saying to his wife, "Babe, I slept with my secretary because she's a good-looking woman. As a man, I just couldn't resist the urge. Get over it." As a husband, I understand that I'll sometimes find women other than my wife attractive. But this attraction, ingrained deep into me at creation, does not justify any adulterous behavior. Why? Because as a thinking human being, I'm more responsible for my behavior choices than the animals with nothing but instinct to rely upon.

The post goes on to point out that Focus on the Family's position on homosexuality has changed to incorporate the idea that sexual orientation is unchangeable, but gay people should put their happiness on hold to live the lives Dr. Dobson approves. Of course they've had to change their position; telling people that if they just pray hard enough that they'll turn straight would make showing that they have no idea what they're talking about too easy.

But this position, while at least physically possible, is a pretty darned sad way to look at the world. Homosexuality a "genetic compulsion"? I guess that's only possible if sexuality itself can be a "genetic compulsion". And what is sexuality if not the physical desire and means of experiencing love?

The idea that love - deep love of one's long-term partner, young, intoxicating love, making love, love of male or female bodies, love of humanity, love of oneself, all that love - can be described as a "genetic compulsion" to be overcome, a behavior to avoid no matter how much one's psyche, body, soul, mind, whatever tells them they need it, something only an unreasonable animal would indulge in, would depress me if I bought into it. (This might be why gays and lesbians who try participate in ex-gay programs have higher than average suicide rates.)

So when Kurt Luidhardt of the IFI says:

Despite our urges and imperfections, we can choose to make right decisions. As humans, we are accountable for our choices, despite emotional and/or physical compulsions that may lead us down wrong paths.

I would just hope that he's not trying to avoid the "emotional and/or physical compulsions" that lead him to love. For his sake.

But whether he accepts or denies his capacity to love (I'm guessing it's only the queers who have to live without love in his world), it doesn't change the fact that his organization is built around a war against love. And there's only one thing that can be in war with love, and it's hate.

Notwithstanding some other things that I'd like to respond to, I think that I finally got an honest answer to a question I've been asking here for weeks:  If society no longer defines marriage as one man and one woman, then how do we define it?

It seems that Alex Blaze has answered the question loud and clear in this post.  Marriage should be allowed for whoever claims love for one another.  That's the new moral definition for sex.  Unfortunately, it's a new moral code that removes all boundaries restricting deviant sexual behavior.

Is it OK for an unmarried man to sleep with a married woman?  Yes.  If they are in love.  How about mom and son.  Sure.  They could be in love, too.  How about the teacher and student?  Of course.  Who are we to tell two people that they can't be in love?  Two men?  Yes.  Three men?  Yes.  Three men and three women?  Yes. 

I'm glad that he's finally answered my question.  Despite asking it multiple times to gay marriage proponents on this blog I've not gotten a good answer.  I believe that it hasn't been answered when I've asked simply because I don't think that gay activists are very comfortable answering it.  Because when you throw out Judeo-Christian morality from the picture, we've suddenly walked into a world without the morality that provides order and reason.  The American people may be increasingly OK with gay marriage, but will they be OK with incest, prostitution, bigamy and polygamy?  I don't know, but if they let Mr. Blaze get his way, we may know soon enough.

Did Love Win Out?

For those of you who have not been following along at home, Bil Browning is a gay activist and the founder of www.bilerico.com. I am the Director of Operations and Public Policy at the Indiana Family Institute. A couple of months ago I invited Bil to the Love Won Out conference, which subsequently led to him inviting me to a screening of "Inlaws and Outlaws."

I have already commented on my experience attending Bil's event. So, now it is time to discuss the Love Won Out conference.  Unfortunately, Bil was only able to attend less than half of the conference (as the conference was on Saturday, Nov. 3rd and he was running Scott Keller's campaign for city-county council). However, he seemed to get a taste of what the Love Won Out Conference was all about.

It is amazing how two people can see the same thing and come to two completely different conclusions about it. As Bil and I talked about Love Won Out afterword, in some aspects it seemed that we had not been at the same conference.

Bil thought the first speaker, Joe Dallas, was attempting to literally, hypnotize the audience into believing his perspective on the causes of male homosexuality. I have to laugh at this…sorry Bil! I found Joe's presentation, detailing the complex reasons why some men struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction, quite compelling, especially since Joe used to be active within the gay community himself. However, I did not find his presentation compelling enough to slip into a trance or bark like a dog. J

Bil felt that the speakers spent too much time blaming their parents and that people should take responsibility for their own actions.  I heard the speakers repeatedly tell parents in the audience that it is not necessarily their fault if their son or daughter struggles with same-sex attraction.  As far as the stories of the speaker's parents, I had a hard time not blaming some of them more. For example, Joe Dallas' father physically abused Joe and his mother when Joe was just a little boy. This caused Joe to miss out on critical male bonding that boys need to have with their fathers. Joe later was molested by a man who took advantage of Joe's desire for the natural love his father would not give him. This led him into the gay lifestyle. However, Joe did take responsibility for his own actions through counseling and now is married with children and helps people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction to change their lives.

Even though Bil and I predictably disagreed on much of the content of Love Won Out, there were many positives to our attending the conference.

I thought Bil showed great courage in attending an event that many of his friends had probably demonized beforehand and that centered on an issue that strikes a very personal chord with him. Despite this, it seemed to me that he had come to learn what the conference was really all about. That impressed me.

Additionally, Bil said he felt welcomed by the staff of Traders Point and Love Won Out.  He "didn't think it was horrible." He was impressed that a church would even host an event like Love Won Out where an open discussion of homosexuality could take place. He was pleasantly surprised that Love Won Out wasn't telling parents to "throw their kids out of the house if they were gay."  He also stunned me by saying that, "The Christian Right has moved on to a little bit of love."

So, although we definitely processed the content differently, I guess love did win out after all. 

When the "victims" become the victimizers

Here is an interesting article by Michelle Malkin.  It's amazing how far some will go to make the American people feel sorry for certain groups and give them "victim" status. 

Punked: Faking the Hate, Manufacturing the News
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, November 7, 2007

You don't have to be a Harvard University researcher to figure out that the media is infected with liberal bias -- or to realize that some left-wing journalists will use any means necessary to create ideological narratives that fit their worldview. The Rathergate debacle at CBS News involving faked National Guard memos to smear President Bush was an extreme example. But if you look closely, you'll find everyday examples of Serious Journalists manufacturing the news and concocting social crises.

Amazingly, they always manage to make conservatives look racist, intolerant and evil. Funny how that works.

On Monday, the local Fox affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., blew the whistle on an ABC News sting operation intended to elicit bigoted responses from local residents. The national ABC News program "Primetime Live" hired actors to pose as same-sex couples and engage in public displays of affection on a park bench. Birmingham police department sources told the Fox affiliate about the social experiment; a local merchant spotted an RV where the ABC crew was stationed. The merchant was told "ABC was working on a week-long project to see how people would react . . . A FOX6 news reporter approached the RV and talked with an 'actor' who said, 'Yes, we are working for ABC News.'"

Welcome to Media Theatrics 101. Instead of simply interviewing folks in the South or staking out real gay couples, ABC News thinks it's fair and objective to stage-manage social experiments and call it journalism. Next thing you know, they'll hire celebrity prankster Ashton Kutcher to jump out and yell, "You just got Punk'd!" as passers-by get ensnared and -- ABC News hopes -- exhibit the signs of prejudice they are so sure exist in Southerners.

Does this politically correct set-up sound familiar? It should. Last spring, I exposed a similar news media production engineered by NBC's "Dateline," which recruited Muslim males to be sent to sports events and NASCAR races in the South and across the heartland to expose fans as anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigots. Yes, the same program and network that were humiliated for faking GM pick-up truck explosions attempted to manufacture another crisis to give "Dateline's" talking heads yet another opportunity to furrow their brows, shake their heads and win more Emmy awards.

My readers offered their own news sting ideas:

"I wonder if they would consider sending a professor wearing an 'I Love W' button and an American flag pin into the faculty lounge at Harvard or some other liberal ivory tower with a hidden camera. I would love to see that experiment."

"Perhaps when I get back from deployment, you can follow me around Seattle and see how I get treated wearing my Navy uniform . . . "

"Why don't you set up some white guy with hidden cameras, put a George Bush T-Shirt on him and have him walk down a street in Pakistan. Or, better yet, have him walk down a street in Detroit. I'll just bet you could get a lot of bigoted reactions . . . "

"Wear a pro-life T-shirt to a Women's Studies class." Or a "Marriage Is Between One Man, One Woman" T-shirt to The New York Times newsroom.

For many left-wing do-gooders in the media, the ideological end -- exposing America as an irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist nation -- justifies these manufactured means. That destructive philosophy has manifested itself on countless college campuses, where professors and students alike have been caught cooking up fake hate crimes to show how racist our society is.

On Monday, in a separate but rather related incident, a student journalist/College Democrat at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her own dorm room door. Sarah Marshak signed a confession, according to campus officials, after security cameras caught her in the act. Her campus publication, The Hatchet, said she told the staff that she "only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as GW's inaction."

It's a short leap from hoax crimes to hoax news. Marshak could get expelled, but there may yet be an opening for her at the stage production unit of ABC News, NBC News or CBS News.

The de facto dinosaur network news motto, after all, is "All the news that's fit to stage."

P.S.  Look for a post Tuesday on my experience attending the Love Won Out conference with gay activist Bil Browning. 

ENDA tramples religious rights, opens door to polygamy

From the AP article:

The House on Wednesday approved the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. That term covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance does not match their gender at birth.

The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military.

After the 235-184 vote, supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version.

A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate. The White House has cited constitutional concerns and said the proposal could trample religious rights.

Interestingly, proponents are quick to point to the religious exemption in the bill.  But the question that remains in my mind is this: If there is a presumption that it would be immoral to impose ENDA on religious bodies, why is it moral to impose it on everyone else?

Religious bodies are exempt from taxation, but this is not based on the idea that taxation per se is repugnant to the religion’s beliefs. Religion needs protection from Caesar, who could use the power to tax as a way to destroy conscience. ENDA, however, actually imposes a new moral order, with a religious opt-out—but not for everyone.

This is, of course, a great concern for us here at Veritas Rex.  However, there is another precedent that will be set if ENDA passes the Senate.  The bill elevates multiple-sex-partner relationships into a federally protected "right."

By including "bisexuality" in the definition of sexual orientations, the government would go on record supporting the practice of having sex with more than one person. This is a direct challenge to the intent behind the Defense of Marriage Act and other laws designed to protect marriage.

Along with our arguments that allowing same-sex marriage based on the idea that it involves consenting adults would eliminate any ability to restrict polygamy, the ENDA bill will also send the same message.

If we remain on this path, it won't be too long before marriage itself is a thing of the past.

The "don't we have more important things to discuss" fallacy

This is a blog post from Fletch for Freedom on Townhall.com.  This fellow is a liberterian.  I don't agree with him on everything, but find his insights on some of our opponent's biggest arguments persuasive.

Let’s first look at a couple of the more outrageous and frequently advanced arguments in favor of gay marriage (or against its opposition) and why I reject them.

First is the “shouldn’t-we-worrying-about-something-more-important?” non-argument. These days, it’s usually presented in terms like “3,000 servicemen have died in Iraq and all you want to talk about is gay marriage?” Nonsense. Some 650,000 people in this country die of heart disease every year. Do we drop everything else to confront this issue? Or do we recognize that several issues are worthy of consideration and the fact that some may deem one issue as being more important than another, doesn’t mean that lesser issues are unworthy of comment? The answer is obvious.

Another is the “marriage-is-already-undermined” canard. This one supposes that marriage cannot be defended because divorce and/or serial marriage have so undermined the institution that opening it up to homosexuals is nothing more than a step pre-ordained by earlier acts. This is presented as a point not subject to reasonable debate – an attempt to win a fait accompli, if you will. But, while divorce and serial marriage have impacted the permanency of the institution, they have not altered the nature of the joining of a man and a woman as it has existed in tradition, in consistent use of English and in American law. Even polygamy maintains the joining of the two sexes in the marriage bond.

And then there is the “it-doesn’t-harm-anyone-else” fallacy. And it is with regard to this and the last argument that my opposition to “gay marriage” lies. No, it’s neither tradition nor English usage that is at issue. Traditions and definitions change over time. One need only look at the perversion of the term “liberal” from meaning the unequivocal embrace of individual liberty to a modern justification for the most egregious interventions of the state imaginable to see the problem with basing an argument on static definitions. It is the fact that American law has codified the meaning of the term “marriage” and a retroactive redefinition of the term would undermine both the rule of law and the liberties of others.

Yes. I know. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, among others, has determined that the law says exactly the opposite. There’s no way to put this politely: They are lying. The judges in Massachusetts, and elsewhere, predetermined the outcome of the case and ruled in such a way as to achieve that outcome in the only way that they possibly could – by ignoring real legal precedent. The examples are legion and appear in essentially every adjudication of legal documents (in insurance, probate, etc.) that define or involve the spousal relationship. For that matter, the Massachusetts state constitution specifically reserves the power to define marriage to the state executive, not the judiciary – a passage that has not been subsequently altered by amendment - but that’s a side issue.

Every time an individual or organization has created a legally binding document using the term “marriage” as it, again, has been used without interruption in English, tradition and law, it has been done with the expectation that the definition would not be retroact