Veritas Rex

Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

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.”

Heritage Foundation: How families bolster early education outcomes

From FamilyFacts.org.

1.  Kindergartners in intact families have higher average reading scores than peers in stepfamilies or cohabiting families. full details

2.  First-graders whose mothers were married when they were born are less likely to engage in disruptive behavior with peers and teachers than those whose mothers were single or cohabiting. full details

3. Children aged three to twelve who live in intact families have higher average math scores than peers whose mothers are in cohabiting relationships. full details

4.  Children aged seven to ten who live in continuously intact families tend to score higher on reading achievement tests than peers who have lived in other family structures at some time. full details

5. Children aged six to eleven who live in intact families tend to be more engaged in their schoolwork than peers in other family structures.  full details   

6.  Eighth-graders in two-parent families perform, on average, better on math and science achievement tests than peers in single-parent or stepparent families. full details   

7.  Ninth-graders whose mothers were married when they were born are more likely to complete an algebra course than peers whose mothers were single. full details

8.  Children of mothers raised in married families show, on average, greater gains in math achievement than peers whose mothers were raised in non-intact families. full details   

9.  The association between family structure and nine-year-olds’ science and math achievement appears to be cross-national. full details 

10.  The predominant family structure of a school’s student population appears to be linked to the individual science and math achievement scores of eighth-graders. full details

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.

The Letter "A," Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism

I thought this was a very interesting article in response to the "sexual freedom should know no bounds" crowd.  I urge you to read the full article...I'm just posting a snippet below.  Additionally, for those interested in a real history of the Puritans, rather than the liberal demagoguery we usually get from the media, "Puritan Christianity in America: Religion and Life in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts" by Allen Carden is a good resource.

The Letter “A,” Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism
By Mary Grabar
Sunday, March 30, 2008

As predictable as a college freshman telling me that the “A” sewn on Hester Prynne’s dress symbolizes Puritanical hypocrisy were the commentaries about the Puritanical hypocrisy of the prosecution of men (like Eliot Spitzer) for engaging the services of a prostitute. 

The charges of “Puritanism” echo those made during the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, and feature such notables as Huffington Post’s Chris Weignet asking us to “get beyond our Puritanical roots” in a commentary titled “In Defense of Hookers.”  The Economist saw the Spitzer affair as the latest example in American history of “Puritanism deranging the law.”  Legal and ethical scholar Martha Nussbaum, whose feminist “caring” ethic fills college anthologies, begins an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial, “Eliot Spitzer, one of the nation’s most gifted and dedicated politicians, was hounded into resignation by a Puritanism and mean-spiritedness that are quintessentially American.”  She then expresses her “caring” for “sex workers”—the latest group of the oppressed in the Marxist universe of the American university.  Our more prestigious campuses now host an annual sex workers show.  “Sex workers,” unlike us “word workers” who toil at grading papers, were paid good money for their performances. 

Click Here to Continue Reading

Hat tip: Townhall.com

Another cop-out for adultry

From CitizenLink.com 3/18/08

Is Faithfulness in Marriage a Fantasy?
by Jennifer Mesko, managing editor

New York Times tries to make the case that sexual promiscuity is only natural.  The news features one disgraced official after another — all caught in infidelity.

More than 8 in 10 Americans believe adultery is a sin, according to a recent study. And 9 in 10 say faithfulness is the key to a successful marriage. But The New York Times says adultery is only natural.

"It’s been done by many other creatures, tens of thousands of other species, by male and female representatives of every taxonomic twig on the great tree of life," the newspaper reports. "Sexual promiscuity is rampant throughout nature, and true faithfulness a fond fantasy."

Dr. Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, said there's a difference between humans and the "tens of thousands of other species."

"The Times article makes a huge philosophical assumption," he said, "that human beings are simply another animal species, and therefore it should be no surprise when they engage in behavior common to other members of the animal kingdom. But the Christian worldview offers a radically different perspective — that humans are made in the very image of God, actually reflecting aspects of His character and nature.

"Unlike rodents and flatworms, we are capable of rational thought and moral decision-making."

See more at why marriage matters.

Family Facts: Top ten influences to the quality and sustainability of marriage

The Heritage Foundation has a new website (at least it's news to me) called Family Facts.  This website is a great resource for all sorts of findings related to marriage, family, children's issues, religion and faith.

Worth checking out are their top ten lists.  This month's list, answering the question, "What Influences the Quality and Stability of Marriage?" is particularly good.  You can find it on the front page.

Also, check out the video they produced on the topic.

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.

Hoosiers Strongly Favor Marriage Amendment: Poll

     A new public opinion poll conducted by the House Republican Campaign Committee confirms continued strong Hoosier support for traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment to remove the issue from judicial activism.  The poll was conducted by American Viewpoint (n=800), and here is the precise question on this topic -- which was the mostly strongly supported measure among several issues included in the poll results made available to Veritas Rex today:

     "As you know, the General Assembly has reconvened in Indianapolis and will consider a number of pieces of legislation over the next several months. I would now like to describe for you several of the topics the General Assembly might consider and have you tell me if you favor or oppose each one. The first issue: (RANDOMIZE)

     "An amendment to the State Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

72% TOTAL FAVOR
23% TOTAL OPPOSE

     We hope this prods the House leadership into allowing a vote and not thwarting the people's will in this critical issue.

Update from the Statehouse

The General Assembly has been moving along at a fast pace, and it's hard to keep up-to-date on the status of legislation.  So here is a brief report on some of the activity that has happened so far today in the Senate.

Senate Bill 146 passed the Senate today 39-9. The bill requires that pregnant women considering an abortion be given information about the possibility of fetal pain and when life begins. 

The Senate also passed a constitutional amendment to cap property taxes. The amendment must be passed now by the House, and then again by both the Senate and House that are elected in this November's general election.

To no one's surprise, the Senate also voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, more commonly known as SJR 7. To become part of the Indiana constitution, the proposed amendment must be passed by the House this year, and then approved by voters in the November general election.

To many people's surprise, 6 Senators changed their vote on Senate Bill 3, a bill that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medicines against their conscience if they believe the medicines will lead to abortion or assisted suicide. The bill stalled last week with a tie vote of 24-24 but today the vote was  30-18 in favor.  Senator Drozda has been working to get this legislation passed for years, and we congratulate him for leading this effort in the Senate.

Stay tuned for more developments...

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.

How can we strengthen marriage between a husband and a wife?

Tomorrow at 9 a.m. the Senate Judiciary committee will meet and hear the Covenant Marriage bill (Senate Bill 172).  The bill is meant to strengthen the marriages and families of Hoosiers.  It would be a separate marriage option (when a couple would go to the courthouse to get a marriage license they could choose the regular marriage license or the covenant marriage license).  Couples who are currently married would not be left out; they would have the option of switching to a Covenant Marriage.  Covenant Marriage is different in that it would require couples to go through pre-marital counseling before they would be eligible to apply for the Covenant Marriage license.  They would also have to agree that they will go through marital counseling if problems arise within the marriage.  Also, if the couple chose to divorce, a judge could order the couple to go through additional counseling.

Why the focus on pre-marital, marital and crisis marriage counseling?  The research shows that counseling helps to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce.  In years past, the bill also contained a clause mandating that covenant marriage couples must prove fault (adultery, abuse, abandonment, etc.) before they would be granted a divorce.  We were forced to take this provision out in order to make the concept politically feasable, so hopefully this pro-family idea will make it's way out of committee tomorrow.

Many commenters on this blog have overlooked the ways in which IFI has and continues to focus on strengthening the institution of marriage, as it is currently defined.  This is but one example of our efforts.

Burton and Ellsworth Win Awards

This week two of our Indiana Congressmen received awards of note:

Burton is "True Blue" for the family

Congressman Dan Burton was recognized as a “True Blue” Member of Congress by Family Research Council (FRC) Action and Focus on the Family Action for his unwavering commitment to the family.  The award honors Members of Congress who have exhibited extraordinary leadership and commitment to the defense of family, faith, and freedom, according to FRC Action’s new scorecard covering House and Senate votes during the 1st session of the 110th Congress.

Recipients of the "True Blue" award are chosen for their consistent voting record on pro-life and pro-family issues such as defending restrictions on funding international abortion groups, human cloning prohibition, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Thought Crimes Act, protecting abstinence program for HIV/AIDS prevention, funding the D.C. Needle Exchange Program and the D.C. Gay Marriage Amendment, Restricting Funding Planned Parenthood Amendment, prohibiting implementing the “Fairness Doctrine” and the pseudo-children’s health bill.

"Golden Mouse" for Ellsworth and Burton

Constituent services and being accessible cross party lines - something we all appreciate in our elected representatives.  Two of Indiana's own, Congressman Brad Ellsworth and Congressman Dan Burton, recently received the coveted "Golden Mouse" award for their service.   

Only 26 House members’ Web sites were commended in The 2007 Gold Mouse Report: Lessons from the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill.  To identify the awards, CMF analyzed 618 congressional Web sites, including those of all Senate and House Members, committees (both majority and minority sites), and official leadership sites.  In 2007, CMF awarded 36 Gold, 34 Silver, and 34 Bronze Mouse Awards.

The 2007 Gold Mouse Report and Awards are part of the “Connecting to Congress” research project, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.  For this project CMF partnered with researchers from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, University of California-Riverside and Ohio State University to study how Members of Congress can use the Internet to improve communications with their constituents and to promote greater participation in the legislative process.

    

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

Ask Veritas Rex: Get married

Ms. Barnes:  We here at Veritas Rex think that you ought to get married vs. living together.  It shouldn't be a financial question.  Marriage is a wonderful thing, and your financial concerns shouldn't get in the way.

From Smart Money Magazine's Ask SmartMoney column.

QUESTION: What are the financial pros and cons of being married versus living together? We're in our 50s and have two grown children each, as well as our own investments.
— Emilou Barnes, Germantown, Wis.

ANSWER: As with most questions relating to family and finances, the decision is as dependent on your priorities and emotions as it is on your unique financial state. Marrying can have either a positive or negative effect on your tax situation, Social Security and pension benefits, but the bigger issues are tied to your health and your estate.

Assuming you each want the bulk of your assets to be left to your kids upon your death, marrying will require some estate planning. Otherwise, assets could pass to your spouse and ultimately, to your spouse's kids. At the very least you'll need a will explicitly stating how you want your assets divided and a careful review of the beneficiaries on all your accounts. Not marrying simplifies some issues but raises others. If you want your partner to make medical decisions on your behalf if you're unable, you'll need a health care proxy. For financial decisions, sign a durable power of attorney.

Trusts can be a helpful tool in either scenario, says estate-planning attorney Alan Rothschild of Columbus, Ga. Bottom line? Follow your heart, but add a good financial planner and an estate-planning attorney to your new life together.

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?

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.

Divorce is bad for the environment

Couples used to stay together for the kids.  Today, they should stay together to help the environment, an easy conclusion made from a new study by an ecologist at Michigan State University. 

Yesterday's Indianapolis Star reported the AP story, "Study:  Divorce Stresses Planet".  The researcher, Jianguo Liu, created an environmental impact analysis of divorce:  the extra households use an extra $3.6 billion annually on water and $6.9 billion in extra utility costs per year, among others. 

Liu looked at the U.S. and eleven other countries from 1998 to 2002.  One conclusion was that if divorced households had combined to have the same average size as married households, there could have been a million fewer households using energy and water.  This study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Think these groups will partner with IFI to discourage divorce?  Maybe we'll get a sweet grant to outline the (well documented) emotional, educational, financial and other benefits that marriage brings - all God-designed and time-tested benefits of marriage.  We should celebrate this report!  We're getting closer to finally marrying the moral and the environmental, the values and the behavior.

Watch for IFI's new marketing campaign - we're going green!

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.

Is Divorce the Answer?

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article by Chris L. Stollar on divorce.  Many people believe that couples who are in unhappy marriages should just get divorced so that they can be happy.  However, is divorce really the bridge to happiness?

A person stuck in an unpleasant marriage faces only two options: stay married and miserable, or get divorced and become happy.

Sound logical? Well, reality differs.

Divorce often creates additional problems and pain that had formerly not existed, such as child custody, support payments, and heartbreak.

"While temporary happiness may be found," said Lysa Terkeurst, President of Proverbs 31 ministry and author of Who Holds the Key to Your Heart, "divorce causes death — it harms not only the spouses involved but also their children and friends."

Recently, a report by the Institute for American Values, a private, nonpartisan family think tank, challenged the divorce presupposition.

"In popular discussion and in scholarly literature, the assumption has always been that if a marriage is unhappy, if you get a divorce, it is likely you will be happier than if you stayed married," said David Blankenhorn of the Institute. "This is the first time this has been tested empirically, and [the tests show that] there is no evidence to support this assumption."

The research concludes that divorce may not be the road to happiness that some troubled couples believe it to be.  Given this fact, perhaps the legislature should support divorce reform and policy ideas that incentivize couples to prepare themselves for marriage.  Covenant Marriage is one such policy option that IFI continues to promote in hopes of reducing divorce in Indiana. 

Property Taxes and Surprising Election results

It has been very interesting to examine the election results and view the comments of political pontificators trying to make sense of it all.  Citizens of Marion County voted for change, but what kind of change and why?  Many point to the property tax debacle and rising crime rates as the primary reasons and they are probably right.  However, there seems to be an underlying feeling that things in Indianapolis have been going in the wrong direction.  Perhaps the real reason isn't rising property taxes or rising crime, but their root causes. 

When the family unit deteriorates, the need for government services increases as crime and many other social maladies increase.  In other words, when little Timmy's mom and dad "fall out of love" with one another and decide to get divorced, neither mom nor dad nor Timmy are probably going to be better off.  Timmy is more likely to get into drugs and other criminal behavior and to eventually drop out of school.  It is going to cost your government more as Timmy works his way through the criminal justice system.  Mom and dad are more likely to be either the perpetrators or victims of crime.  They also are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.  The need for government services are going to increase (and have) because of family deterioration. 

We should look to promote the ideal for the family and discourage all forfeits as one piece of this great change that voters have called for.  We will find that lowering property taxes and reducing crime are easier, the more we encourage people to choose and work hard to keep the ideal heart of family life:  one man joined in marriage with one woman for life. 

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 retroactively altered by judicial fiat. In other words, they assumed that the rule of law would be adhered to – an assumption that is essential to the preservation of liberty.

I found this post most interesting because of his perspective on the "isn't there more important things to discuss?" argument.  This is one of the most ridiculous arguments made by our opponents.  First of all, it assumes that Congress (or the Indiana legislature) can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  In contrast, I think that it's entirely possible that they consider more than one major issue at a time.

It's also a ridiculous argument because its hypocritical.  Our opponents will make this argument when we propose pro-family legislation, but they conveniently forget it when it comes to so-called "hate crimes" legislation.

The Poor Among Us

     We are told in the Bible we will always have the poor among us (Mark 14:7, John 12:8 and Matthew 26:11).  History and our own experiences in contemporary life certainly confirm this sad fact. And properly addressing this challenge at a policy level is one of the grandest failures in American public life, for compassionate conservatives and bleeding heart liberals alike.

      But efforts to improve poverty and the lives of the poor among us must begin with a clear-eyed understanding of who are the poor in America and what are their circumstances.  Fascinating new research from The Heritage Foundation shows us we may have some stereotypes to undo before we can address this issue with any hope of success.  If you're like many Americans, you think the poor are hungry, homeless and hopeless. Not so.

     At the macro-level, US Census data reports 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005.  Over the past 20 years, the poverty rate has ranged from a high of 15.1 percent to a low of 11.3 percent, according to Heritage's Robert Rector.  But Rector goes deeper by exploring the living standards of those 37 million Americans so designated poor. The results are eye-opening, and show in some respects we've made more progress toward economic justice (whatever that subjective phrase means) than we sometimes give ourselves credit for as a nation.

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two cars.
• 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color TVs.
• 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• More than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
• 10 percent of the poor among us are in the country illegally.
• A third of the "poor" have both a land line and a cell telephone.

     Only two percent of the poor (less than 750,000 residents out of a nation of more than 300 million) say they "often" do not have enough to eat.  A full 89 percent of the poor as defined by the Census Bureau report they and their families have "enough" to eat.  Do not misunderstand me -- everyone of those hungry people needs our care, help, assistance and, yes, food!  That's why when someone approaches me in downtown Indy and says they're hungry, I always buy them food.  I have paid for food that was then thrown away while I watched.  And our family gives money to help support food banks and soup kitchens serving the poor among us.  The church where we worship and tithe also gives away more than $100,000 per year to help the poor in Central Indiana alone.

     There are many ways to process Rector's research.  By his research, I grew up in a poor household, although my neighborhood was a solidly middle class enclave in Indianapolis in the 60s and 70s and remains so today.  Living standards were very different in those days.

     But hopefully this research helps us focus on the two clear, undisputed major causes of poverty. They are 1.) lack of work by parents, and 2.) father absence.  With the so-called welfare reform act of 1996 (formally known as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Act), we have made significant progress as a nation toward tackling those twin issues.  But much remains to be done, obviously. A key area for progress is in family formation, a task the Indiana Family Institute is gearing up to direct a major national demonstration project for the State of Indiana and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

     It is in this issue-cluster (family formation) that Rector sees the biggest impact:  "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty."

     And the real truth is that those children without fathers suffer a poverty that goes beyond physical needs as well.

Cross-Dressing Candidate Gives A Halloween Scare

     The Halloween scare being served up by Jill Long-Thompson, a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination to run for Indiana Governor in 2008, is a form of political cross-dressing that uses pro-family rhetoric but takes anything but pro-family policy positions.

      Consider the scary views for families from Long-Thompson, a former three-term Member of Congress and Assistant Secretary in the Department of Agriculture in the Clinton Administration, as announced at a recent forum I attended for political junkies:

     "My position is that Roe. V. Wade should not be overturned."

     "I do support civil unions."

 These positions are shocking in and of themselves, but especially coming from a leader of a political party that claims to work for working families.  Her anti-family positions on the sanctity of life