Veritas Rex

Murder is Murder

As has been reported by WIBC and Taking Down Words, State Representative Mike Murphy and Senator Jim Merritt plan to introduce a bill in the 2009 legislative session to eliminate the viability standard from the state statute, elevating the murder of an unborn child to the crime of murder. The push for such legislation comes as a result of the shooting of Huntington Bank teller Katherin Shuffield. She was wounded during a bank robbery and later lost her five month old twins.

Here is what Taking Down Words (blog closely tied to the State Democratic Party) has to say:

Did Eric Miller take a vaycay? It certainly seems like this would have prompted him to crawl out of the woodwork. For those of you living under a rock, mom-to-be Katherin Shuffield was shot in the stomach while she was simply doing her job as a bank teller on April 22. Days later, her twins died at five months gestation, two months shy of the point required by Indiana law to bring forth a murder charge.

Where's the love??  Come on Taking Down Words, you must not have attended many committee hearings on pro-life bills lately.  I'm always there.  What am I, chopped liver?  :)

Taking Down Words goes on to say:

So, how many legislators do you think will file similar bills criminalizing the murder of an unborn fetus in any circumstance?

It's interesting to me that they admit that killing an unborn "fetus" is murder, yet they are still supportive of it as long as a doctor does the dirty work with a scalpel rather than a gun. 

Voter ID law is good for families

Last week I had the opportunity to interview Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law and what that might mean for Indiana families.  We had a frank and open discussion that merits mentioning.

When I asked Secretary of State Rokita what he had to say to families who may have had their votes offset by others voting illegally in past elections, he told me that the "Photo ID law protects the family from being disenfranchised."  He went on to say that thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the voter ID law, "Their vote won't be stolen by someone who cheats the system."

Common sense.  Show your ID to vote.  If you are doing things the right way you have nothing to fear.

Secretary of State Rokita called voting the "most sacred civil transaction."  He also went on to say that those who claim racism on this issue may be showing some racist tendencies of their own.  Some of the critics of the voter ID law are inferring that minority groups do not have the ability to participate in mainstream, modern society.  Secretary of State Rokita rejects this notion and showed faith in the minority community's ability to obtain an ID and bring it to vote with them.  These sorts of opponents of voter ID remind me of a George W. Bush line, with their "sutle bigotry of lowered expectations."

The myth of evangelical political engagement

There is a great post on The Evangelical Outpost talking about "the myth of evangelical political engagement."

From the post.

Yesterday Phil Johnson, of the aptly named Pyromanics blog, threw gasoline on the flames of the debate about Christian involvement in politics with his provocatively titled post, "How Evangelicals Traded Their Spiritual Authority for a Mess of Political Pottage." Near the conclusion Phil writes:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

I'm a fan of Phil's work so it's with some reticence that I criticize his argument. But it's worth debating because it contains a commonly held erroneous view. Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

Veritas Rex welcomes Craig Ladwig

Veritas Rex extends a warm welcome to new contributor, Craig Ladwig, from the Indiana Policy Review Foundation.

Craig Ladwig is the founder of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, Inc. The foundation, which began commissioning academic research in 1988 with $250, now is regularly quoted on state issues by such national publications as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. Its essays and columns are cited weekly in one or more of the 20 Indiana daily newspapers that are members of its Indiana Writers Group. The foundation's membership includes many of the major political figures and policy makers in Indiana. Its quarterly journal is considered among the most influential of its type in the nation.

Never fear, Veritas Rex is here

Newspapers are struggling to pay the bills with dropping ad revenues, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 -- the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.

The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.

Total advertising revenue in 2007 -- including online revenue -- decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.

But don't fear, fair readers.  Veritas Rex is here to deliver you the truth, unfiltered.

Shocking news...Bil Browning joins Veritas Rex

In shocking news Bil Browning, gay activist and founder of the Bilerico Project, has become a social conservative.  Following an intense lunch at the Elbow Room in downtown Indianapolis (pictured below) Bil realized that I am, in fact, right about all social issues.  Given this epiphany, he decided to jump ship from gay activism.  Bil will now be leading the charge against the homosexual agenda in the Indiana Statehouse and elsewhere across the Hoosier state. 

Bil had this to say:

"I am honored to join the ranks of Ryan McCann and the Indiana Family Institute.  Ryan is right...a social conservative perspective on life really does make more sense." 

Welcome to the religious right, Bil!

APRIL FOOLS!

More on post-modern infiltration

Revolution in Jesusland has a great post up (and a link to) about a new book called "Why We're Not Emergent."  The free chapter on the book's website is a great read.

For those of you who don't regularly bask in matters of theological controversy, the Emergent Church is well-defined here.  I've followed their movement closely (well, as close as you could get without being emergent).

I think that Dinesh D-Souza put things best in his book, What's So Great About Christianity?.  He talks about folks who've been acting as the world's evangelists to the church, not the other way around.  He may not have been speaking directly about the Emergent movement, but he's right on.

The theology displayed by Emergents is very similar to what we've discussed in previous posts about post-modern world views impacting the church.  I've grabbed a great section from the book that speaks to this new emergent view- that one cannot know God.  It's a view that ultimately undermines the foundations upon which Christianity stands, but is somehow embraced by the Emergent movement.

The first problem with the emergent view of journey is that it undermines the knowability  of God. Theologians have long held to God’s knowability along with His immensity. That is, Christian theologians of every stripe have understood that we can’t understand everything about God. God’s knowledge of Himself is called archetypal; our knowledge of Him is called ectypal. God knows Himself exhaustively; we see through a glass dimly. God is infinite; our knowledge of Him is finite. All that to say, no Christian that I have ever known or read has ever claimed to have God figured out. And emerging Christians certainly won’t be the first.

But emergent leaders are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real, accurate knowledge about God in the first place. Brian McLaren, in noting his agreement with Tony Campolo, argues that in one sense all theologies are heresies because we can’t truly speak of God using our human formulation. What is needed is “not absolute and arrogant certainty about our theologies, but a proper and humble confidence in God.”

Fair enough. Who wants to be arrogantly certain about anything? But McLaren posits a false antithesis, suggesting that we can know God personally but can’t confidently know things about Him. The former kind of knowing is “personal knowledge.” The latter is “abstract, rational, impersonal certitude.”

I encourage you to check out their book and learn more about the Emergent church.  The theological exercise is worth the investigation.

VR welcomes Clark Vandeventer

As we promised last month, Veritas Rex is adding to our list of contributors.  Today, we welcome Clark Vandeventer to our fold.  Clark hails from Santa Barbara, California, where he has just finished a stint working for Young America's Foundation at the Reagan Ranch.

Several authors can vouch for Clark's passion and tenacious work to better his world.  His bio:

Clark Vandeventer is the founder and CEO of World Changers, Inc.  He is a graduate and former student body president of Indiana Wesleyan University, whose mission is to develop world changers.  As a student, he was inspired by this mission, and the lasting impression of his time there created the vision for World Changers.

World Changers aids non profit entrepreneurs and acts as philanthropic advisors to both organizations and individual donors. Providing challenging, strategic, and visionary thinking for non-profit organizations through staff recruitment and training, coaching for boards, and other specialized services, World Changers equips organizations for new levels of success.  In addition to providing training for organizations, World Changers acts as a philanthropic advisor to individuals who seek the maximum impact of their charitable gifts.  Drawing on the experience of more than 1,000 meetings with philanthropists, Vandeventer is uniquely positioned to help an organization understand the heart of a donor and help the donor identify his/her true passions. 

World Changers is also dedicated to the development of kingdom building businesses.  Vandeventer and his wife Monica are intimately involved in the prototype for this concept,  Finestra Cafe. Located in downtown Santa Barbara, Finestra is uniquely positioned where business meets lifestyle and provides a connection to things bigger and more lasting than this world.  The purpose of kingdom building businesses is to move the ministry out of the church and into every day life--it is taking common things and making them sacred.

Additionally, World Changers provides representation for New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza (Illiberal Education, What’s So Great About America, What’s So Great About Christianity, etc.) through the One Man Movement Project.  The One Man Movement Project provides institutional momentum to world changing individuals.

Formerly, Vandeventer served Young America’s Foundation, the nations leading Conservative Movement youth outreach organization as Deputy Director of the Reagan Ranch.  He devoted nearly a decade of his life to Young America’s Foundation and the preservation of the Reagan Ranch, first as one of the Foundation’s top campus activists, then as an entry level staffer, then director of development and supporter relations before being appointed deputy director.  He played a key key role in the campaign to open the $20 million Reagan Ranch Center in downtown Santa Barbara and establishing the Reagan Ranch brand and the “Reagan Ranch Experience”.  During his tenure at Young America’s Foundation, the Foundation’s annual budget and fundraising revenue nearly doubled--moving from just more than $10 million to just short of $20 million.  He hosted more than 500 tours of President Reagan’s home and Western White House, including visits with United States Senators and Congressmen, Governors, and leaders as diverse as actors Charlton Heston and Joseph Phillips, to Judge Ken Starr, 75th Attorney General Ed Meese, and James Dobson.

He is the chairman of the President’s Advisory Council for Excellence at Indiana Wesleyan University where he works closely with both President Henry Smith on special projects. He and his wife Monica are active in their church, Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara, and reside in Goleta, California with their son Jackson.

Louis Farrakhan hypocrisy

On Monday of last week, the Indianapolis Star posted an article on Andre Carson.  Although the Carson article focused mostly on his religion, I was more interested in the first couple of paragraphs.

Andre Carson's greatest political asset may be his grandmother's name, but one of his biggest liabilities is proving to be her funeral.

That's because his family gave a spot in the parade of dignitaries who eulogized Congresswoman Julia Carson to Louis Farrakhan, whom Jewish leaders consider one of America's leading anti-Semites, gay rights activists consider a homophobe and who famously referred to white people as "devils."

In recent weeks, Andre Carson has been reassuring Jewish leaders here and in Washington that Farrakhan's appearance wasn't his idea. He has spoken publicly about his distaste for discrimination, homophobia or racism of any kind. He has talked repeatedly of his desire for unity.

There is almost universal agreement amongst our readers regarding Farrakhan, who is widely known for his hate-filled speeches and racist comments- particularly towards Jews.

7th District Congressional candidate Andre Carson has refused to repudiate the endorsement from Farrakhan, despite this knowledge.  Kudos to Barack Obama for speaking out against Farrakhan, by the way.

That's where I see the hypocrisy.  Farrakhan is probably the most prominent and vocal anti-white, anti-Jew racist out there.  His organization has posted rants from individuals who suggest that white people are an inferior race.  According to the Nation of Islam, whites are newcomers to this planet, arriving long after aboriginals (blacks) inhabited our world.  I also note that many homosexual organizations consider him highly controversial as well.

Where's the outcry?  Where is the left doing their best to save us from racism?  Are two paragraphs in the Indianapolis Star and a few posts from bloggers all we get here?

What would have happened if a local politician was endorsed by David Duke and then refused to repudiate him?   It would have been national news.  Either party would have sought for the candidate to be removed from the ballot.  There would have been a front page story in the Indianapolis Star.  In fact, didn't the Star fire a reporter last year for a racial slur?

So what's the difference?  I don't get it.  Rational explanation anyone?

Woman at the Well

This video was recommended to me by Erin Tobias, an invaluable employee of IFI.  She is clearly much more hip than I am.  The video is a spoken word piece on the woman at the well, found in John 4.  Take a minute to listen to this impactful performance.

FYI - This is about Jesus, not Barack Obama. :)  See here.

Changes at Veritas Rex

We're making some changes at Veritas Rex!

It's encouraging to see recent significant increases in monthly readership.  Although there are many blogs who do better, we've doubled our per-month unique visitors and our RSS feed subscribers.   As a result, we are looking to improve our readers' experience.

New Contributors
You've heard from Chris Mann and Micah Clark already.  In addition, Peter Heck has agreed to be a contributor.  In the next few weeks we'll be welcoming even more.  This is our attempt to continue to provide ample content for our readers despite our busy schedules.  We are a small operation.  Everyone's got other responsibilities and we're having a hard time keeping up.  We hope our new contributors will help.

New Comment Policies
We would like to do more to keep our dialog productive and inviting.  Some recent threads have devolved into discussions that don't fit into that goal.  Like we stated before, our resources don't allow for all of us to answer every question or fully moderate every thread.  However, we are making a renewed commitment to moderation.  We recognize that without it, the conversation on VR has sometimes devolved.

First of all, we'd like to remind individuals of our current comment policies.  We will be enforcing them more rigorously. 

1.  All comments are to be related to the post.  Off topic remarks, even if appropriate from a taste standpoint, will either be put into a new thread or deleted.

2.  Personal or ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.  Veritas Rex is not the appropriate place for airing personal problems with our contributors or attempting to "out" individuals or relatives.  We hope that our debates can focus on the substance of the issues and not on the individuals supporting or opposing them.

3.  We should respect both contributors and those who participate.  Those who would like to brand IFI and other pro-family organizations as terrorists, bigots, hate groups and/or KKK members have a number of other places where that attitude is celebrated.  Veritas Rex is not one of those places.

4.  We encourage our most frequent contributors to sign up for a TypeKey account.  For now, we won't be requiring a TypeKey account in order to comment.

All of these new policies will be enforced equally on those who agree with us and those who do not.  We hope that Veritas Rex can make a positive contribution to matters of public policy, and we believe these changes will greatly assist us in that goal.

Blogs for Life Videos- Rep. Chris Smith

We covered the annual "Blogs for Life" Conference held in conjunction with the Walk for Life.  There are some excellent videos from the conference.

This one, from US Rep. Chris Smith, is good.

This statement, also on his website, is worth reading.

Mr. Speaker, Today, 35 years after the infamous Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, we mourn the estimated 50 million innocent girls and boys whose lives were cut off by abortion—a staggering loss of children’s lives, equal to six times the total number of people living in my home state of New Jersey.

Someday future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of women by abortion both here and overseas.

They will note with keen sadness that some of our most prominent politicians and media icons often spoke of human or civil rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today, unborn children.

On Sunday, Senator Barack Obama criticized Americans for both our moral deficit and empathy deficit and called on us to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

Can Senator Obama not see, appreciate or understand that the abortion culture that he and others so assiduously promote lacks all empathy for unborn children—be they Black, White, Latino or Asian—and is at best, profoundly misguided when it comes to mothers?

Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals, fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, moral outrage, mercy or compassion by America’s liberal elite?

Abortion destroys the life of our “brothers and sisters” and the pro-abortion movement is the quintessential example of an “Empathy Deficit.”

Human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Every second thereafter is simply a stage of development. By day 22 after fertilization the heart is beating and brain waves can be detected at 44 days. By week five tiny hands and feet begin to develop and by week 7 the baby is already kicking and swimming in the womb. Ultrasound technology gives us a window into the robust lives of unborn children showing them even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy, moving, turning, and stretching. We now know that in the second trimester babies have the capacity to feel pain.

Future generations will wonder why it took so long for Congress, the President and the courts to stop just one hideous painful method of death, partial-birth abortion.

Abortion can never be construed as a human right, even if Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say it is. It is a human rights abuse against the weakest and most vulnerable—treating these young persons as a sexually transmitted disease, a parasite, a piece of junk to be destroyed. And the whole notion of wantedness and unwantedness turns a child into an object. Unborn babies have dignity, inherent value and infinite worth. Because these kids are so defenseless, politicians and jurists must now, at long last, rise above perceived political self-interest, surface appeal arguments crafted by pro-abortion focus groups and pollsters, and a raft of junk science to protect the fundamental human rights of unborn children.

Let’s be blunt. Abortion is violence against children. It is extreme child abuse. It is cruelty to children. Sadly, abortion is not only legal until birth but the daily perpetrators of this terrible injustice are massively subsidized by liberal politicians who enrich the abortion industry with taxpayer funds.

Generations to come will reflect with dismay and incredulity that, notwithstanding modest pro-life legislative gains in Congress and the States, in 2008 the largest abortion provider in the nation, Planned Parenthood, continued to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funds.  As I said recently on the floor of the House of Representatives, it’s time to take a second look at Planned Parenthood, “Child Abuse, Incorporated”, for the millions of children it has killed and continues to kill, all the while receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from local, state, and federal governments.

For the abortion industry, business is good. In 2005 Planned Parenthood alone increased the number of abortions it performed in its so-called family planning clinics by 10,000 for a total of nearly 265,000 abortions. With its nation-wide clinic building boom well underway that number of slaughtered babies will likely rise to 300,000 per year or more.

Human rights defenders worthy of the name must at a minimum move to abolish government subsidies for those who destroy children. We must also tenaciously fight for the day when every life, born or unborn, is respected and protected by law.

There are at least two victims in every abortion (Three when twins are involved). It’s time to recognize and accept the inconvenient truth that abortion exploits women. Women deserve better than abortion. Nonviolent, humane solutions need to be found for women facing the challenge of an unexpected pregnancy without adequate financial resources or emotional support. A woman’s unborn child may be easily scraped from her womb, but the memory is not so easily scraped from her heart and mind—some women experience severe psychological consequences including clinical depression.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has had two abortions. Today, she has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions and are “Silent No More.” Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both the mother and the child. The women of Silent No More give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and a roadmap for reconciliation. And to society at large, these brave women compel us to rethink and reassess the far-too-cheap sophistry of our abortion culture. Reflecting on her uncle’s famous speech, Alveda King asks: “How can the ‘Dream’ survive if we murder the children?”

Future generations will look on those who March for Life with gratitude for their unwavering resolve to protect both women and unborn children from abortion. Thirty-five years after Roe, pro-life ranks have swelled with abortion survivors—courageous post-abortive women, fathers grieving the loss of their son or daughter, siblings who mourn the abortion death of a brother or sister and students who miss every third classmate denied a chance to live. Through their efforts, combined with the dedication of pro-life advocates of all ages, and united in prayer and fasting, America’s dark night of child slaughter will soon come to an end.

Watch the Blogs for Life Conference LIVE

Watch it here.

FRC will host the third-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2008 at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. beginning at 7:30a.m. This event will precede the March for Life, which will mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

A webcast will be available for those who can't make it to D.C..

Speakers will include:

• Hadley P. Arkes
• Michael Illions
• Sen. Sam Brownback
• Jill Stanek
• Rep. Chris Smith

Idolatry

I'm a regular reader of this great blog by Zack (I believe it's Zack Exley of Kerry/Edwards 2004).  Revolution in Jesusland is an exploration of evangelical Christianity from a secular progressive point of view.  Read more about his motivation here.  Note that we've plugged the blog before, but I continue to find it a bottomless pit of great reading.  Being a lifetime church-goer, I am exactly the opposite of Zack.  I've never experienced life without faith.

Recently he had a great post up about the Christian concept of Idolatry.

Today, check out Pastor Eric Stillman’s recent three blog posts on Idolatry. (Part I, Part II, Part III.) This is a major theme I’ve heard preached in dozens of churches. I always thought that Idolatry just applied to the worship of statues, etc…. But the Revolutionaries preach about an expanded meaning of Idolatry—and I’ve been surprised, in my own gradual reading of the Bible, that this is not a stretch at all, but is very blatantly there in both Old and New Testaments.

The expanded Idolatry means putting anything ahead of God in your life. Material possessions, prestige, sex, work, a business, a hobby…those are all frequent idols for American Christians these days. But what does it mean to put God ahead of all those things (none of which Christians are against)? It means you do what God wants. And you only enjoy those kinds of rewards when God intends you to enjoy them in the course of doing what he wants. But what does God want? That’s a BIG question, and it’s one that every community answers in the course of studying the Bible and deciding how to live it out.

Stillman's posts are a great read too.

Blogging for Life

The Family Research Council will be sponsoring (again) the annual Blogs For Life conference in DC.  It is set up in conjunction with the March for Life.

The annual March for Life will be taking place on Tuesday, Jan 22nd.  Unfortunately, I won't be available to attend the event, but IFI President Curt Smith will be in attendance.  You can also check on the event's progress at www.blogs4life.com.

About the March for Life:

Late in October 1973, grassroots prolife leaders became concerned that January 22, 1974, might come and go without properly memorializing the Supreme Court's infamous abortion decisions and without petitioning Congress for redress.

No established right-to-life organization was prepared to undertake the planning, financial and operational responsibilities for a high impact prolife March on the U.S. Capitol. But, grassroots prolifers wanted to march! About thirty prolife veterans resolved themselves into a committee and began making plans for the first March for Life.

On January 22, 1974, the first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol. An estimated 20,000 committed prolife Americans rallied that day on behalf of our preborn brothers and sisters.

In 1974, the March for Life was incorporated as a non-profit, non-partisan, non-sectarian organization.

Our numbers have gradually risen through the years despite reduced numbers from the snow in 2000 and the terrible 9/11 attacks just months before the March 2002. These growing numbers give testimony to the increasing ranks of prolife Americans and to the importance of the March's work.

Property Taxes Too High? Blame the Christians!

OK, OK.  I get the point.  We Christians (particularly the "Taliban" wing who wants to preserve traditional marriage) are to blame for Indiana's ills.  Our extremely controversial legislation (that will pass handily if actually voted on in the full house) is the culprit behind high property taxes, government spending and the Colts' play-off loss on Sunday.

From Norm Cox's Capitol Watchblog:

That leaves the classic Karl Rove wedge issue, the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Sponsors are absolutely right.  If it gets to the House floor it will pass, because a No vote will be hard to explain back home in many districts, especially rural ones.  But many Democrats privately don’t like it, so look for Speaker Pat Bauer to find a way to block a vote without having to force his members from vulnerable districts to go on record on the floor.  And while Republican sponsors will scream and shout, many of them will smile to themselves, knowing it could be the issue that drives religious conservatives to the polls and returns the House majority to them.  And in the process, the marriage amendment could create so much hostitility that property taxes and everything else goes to the bottom in the process.  (Emphasis Mine, misspelling is Norm's).

From Hoosiers for Fair Taxation:

Brian Bosma says property taxes are the number one issue this year in the general assembly. Taxes took a back seat last year to the marriage amendment. This year the same folks are trying to push their issue on our legislators again regardless of the state of Indiana's homeowners' finances.

OK.  Enough is enough.  If individuals want to make credible arguments against SJR7, then they should make them.  This argument is not one of them.  It doesn't challenge the amendment on the merits.  It's the 2008 equivalent of "Blame the Jews" and it's outrageous that some of these people have the courage to make it with a straight face.  SJR7 didn't kill property tax reform in 2007, and it won't in 2008.

If you are looking for a great example of just how hypocritical this argument is, look no further than to gay activists themselves.  These activists see no problem with using the 2008 short session to advance their left wing agenda.  From Advance Indiana:

Rep. Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis) and Sen. Tim Lanane (D-Anderson) have introduced legislation in their respective chambers to provide enhanced sentencing for persons who commit crimes against a person or their property because of a bias motivation, such as the person's race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. HB 1076 has been assigned to the House Court and Criminal Code Committee where it is awaiting action. SB 306 has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Interestingly, Sen. Lanane has also introduced a bill, SB 171, which makes it an aggravating sentencing factor to commit a crime against a person because of their disability. That bill has been assigned to the Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.

Indiana is one of just five states in the country without a hate crimes law. The religious right has made it a priority to defeat the legislation because it interferes with their "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" to condemn such things as homosexuality, suggesting ministers will be jailed if the legislation becomes law. Of course, this has happened in any of the 45 other states but hey, whatever works, right?

Gary, you need to get back on message; it's "The 2008 session is short.  We can't entertain SJR7, hate crimes, or resolutions honoring the Jasper girl scouts.  It's just too much for the clowns we've elected to the State Legislature to handle." 

Come on now.  Even the gay activists know that isn't true.

Make your arguments.  Suggest that the 2nd sentence of SJR7 is going to set all abusers free and bring about a legal apocalypse unseen before in human history.  I can handle that.  But this argument that the legislature couldn't possibly entertain SJR7 and property tax reform both is outlandish- and just plain stupid.

Hope SHOULD be the message

The victors in Iowa, both Obama and Huckabee, should be commended for one thing- making a genuine effort to talk about HOPE.  They've talked about a grander vision, a higher ideal- something more than just dividing up the country into small voter blocks and attempting to aggregate enough of us to be the victor on Election Day.

On Barack Obama, From Newsweek Magazine:

In public, Obama attributes his quick political rise to that "respectful tone," which he believes voters crave after so many ugly, dispiriting campaign seasons. (Which includes most races since 1800.) When he first began thinking about a White House bid, he told advisers that he would be willing to run only if he could do it his way, which meant defying the conventional campaign theology of hitting the other guy hard and first, sticking to simple sound bites and preaching only to the base. He has shown a willingness to stray from his script and risk engaging (or boring) audiences with rambling professorial explanations about the details of this or that policy. And he has tried to rewrite Karl Rove's campaign manual by reaching across racial and party lines to appeal to the broadest—rather than the very narrowest—base of supporters.

From Mike Huckabee's Blog:

Yesterday, I flew to Little Rock to cut three new television ads with our campaign team. The first "Our Values" will air in Iowa and discusses my unwavering commitment towards a Human Life Amendment. The second ad which will air exclusively in New Hampshire called "Tax Cuts Matter" discusses the first broad based tax cut that I passed in Arkansas' history. You can view both ads here.

The third ad was a negative attack against Governor Romney. We prepared it, sent the ad to the television stations here in Iowa, and it was supposed to start running at noon today. This morning, I ordered my staff to pull the ad; I told them I do not want it to be run. If it was run at all, it would be until the stations pulled it off their schedules. And we are now committed, from now through the rest of the caucuses, that we will run only the ads that talk about why I should be president, and not why Mitt Romney should not.

I may not agree with everything both candidates say.  However, if they'll continue to try to appeal to something bigger than just who's got the largest campaign war chest or who can make the most negative ad, then they've done something for our country- whether they win or lose.

Veritas Rex welcomes 3 new guest bloggers

All of us at Veritas Rex are pleased to announce the addition of 3 new guest bloggers to our crew. Liberals, be afraid…be very afraid.

Micah Clark is the Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana. Micah brings a wealth of experience from the front lines of the culture war and has worked side by side with many of us here at Veritas Rex on a number of issues over the years.

Peter Heck is the host of the Peter Heck Show, previously mentioned on Veritas Rex. Peter is a one of the most knowledgeable and eloquent young voices for Christian conservatism in Indiana today.

Chris Mann has already made his presence known on Veritas Rex. Chris is a long-time conservative activist and tireless promoter of faith, family and freedom. His experience includes work for the Hudson Institute, Indiana Right to Life, and WORLD Magazine.

A big thank you goes out to all three for taking the time to join the fray.

BDS and CDS: What's the difference?

For some time now, I have been pondering our current political atmosphere and its effect on our leaders.

For instance, I've been observing the phenomenon that could accurately be described as Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS for short.  The left's netroots has it for sure- blaming Bush for everything from a liberal talk show hosts child porn conviction to secretly planning 9-11.  And as the netroots has become more mainstream for the Democrat Party in general, their deranged thinking has had a measurable effect on prominent Democrat elected officials.  We now have Congressman Wexler's impeachment petition (of Dick Cheney), Bill Richardson joining the BUSH LIES!!!!!!!!! crowd, and the Bush-hating coming out of the DNC.

But at the same time, I have the ability to rewind to the 90's.  At that time we had another President, Bill Clinton.  Slick Willy, as some (including myself) called him at the time.  We believed every possible conspiracy against him.  I remember the drug smuggling stories, the Vince Foster suicide, and others.  We could also call that Clinton Derangement Syndrome. 

I'm a recovering CDS addict.  Hello, my name is Kurt and I'm a CDS-oholic?

It didn't bother me (or I didn't notice) then because attacking our leaders is a long-standing tradition in this country.  We do it with such precision and effectiveness, from the "swift boat" attacks on John Kerry to the attacks on President George Bush (the First) over Iran Contra (particularly good video here).  It also didn't bother me then because Clinton wasn't my preferred President.

But, although he wasn't choice #1 for me, I did vote for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.  So then he was my preferred President, and I didn't like all this crazy criticism of him.  The shoe was on the other foot.

So now it's 2008 and the Democratic nominee may be Hillary Clinton.  If we attack her harshly (as I suspect the Republicans are ready to do in 2008), what happens if she actually wins?  There has to be a certain level of respect and decorum when dealing with the President of the United States- even when they are a candidate.  Because when they win, they must lead our country.  They must be able to unite our country to challenge common enemies or tackle social ills. 

Somewhere, there is a balance between what we have now- an absolute attack on anyone running for office- and totally ignoring their faults altogether.  I don't support any kind of "be a patriot, support the war" mentality, but I also don't support this "be a patriot, kill George Bush" attitude we are seeing from his opponents.  The bumper stickers I see are outrageous.

So, you've seen me make a couple of posts defending Hillary Clinton in particular.  I suppose it's my "penance."  As for me, I've resolved to do my best to find some sort of middle ground and have a respectful attitude towards all of the individuals running for office- particularly Hillary Clinton.  Because she may just be MY President someday.

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.

SPAM filtering problems

BRIEF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

A few of you have emailed to say that your comments are being rejected as spam. This seems to be a problem with TypePad as Ryan, myself and Kurt are having the same issues. Please be patient while we try to figure this out.

In the meantime, we are keeping an eye on blocked comments and are approving them as they arise.

 

Democrat voter suppression of Christian students

The HoosierPundit, Scott Fluhr, has done an excellent job of covering the St. Joe Democrat Party's harassment of Christian students at Bethel College. 

From The Hoosier Pundit:

And here I thought that it was the Republicans, with their evil voter ID law, that were trying to suppress voters and keep people from the polls.

I guess not.

Doing whatever it takes to win--and I mean whatever it takes--is par for the course for Democrats up in St. Joe County.

From WNDU:

The winning Mishawaka councilman still wants to challenge whether or not some voters should have been able to vote in his district.

Democratic incumbent Ron Banicki says a number of Bethel College students should not be able to vote in the 6th district, because they live in the 5th District.

He wants students to vote with provisional ballots until they can prove they live in his district.

“We are not necessarily challenging students from Bethel College but anybody that lives in the wrong district faculty staff commuter students that live in the different districts,” says 6th District Incumbent Ron Banicki.

Banicki's challenger was a Bethel College professor.

The election board also says workers were reprimanded today after students were harassed and intimidated while trying to vote in the district.

As a former student at Indiana Wesleyan University, I remember the same harassment by the Grant County Democrat Party, including (but not restricted to):

• Sending letters to IWU students suggesting that they will lose college scholarships if they choose to vote in Indiana.
• Sending letters to Taylor University students (also in Grant County) suggesting that by voting in Indiana they will be forced to cancel their current drivers' licenses to replace them with an Indiana license.
• In Grant County, two Democrats were arrested for challenging every college student (at both Taylor University and IWU) who walked through the doors of each polling location.

Despite their intimidation tactics, both IWU and Taylor had high vote turnout in 2000 (when I was there).  Each polling location had such long lines that students were still voting an hour after the polling location was closed.

In the end, this hypocrisy is a great illustration of why the Democrats are challenging the Voter ID law while at the same time attempting to disenfranchise Christian voters.  Their opposition to the voter ID law is political, not idealistic- nothing more.  And, as covered in a recent post, at least partially motivated by racism.

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!

FCC ownership regulations have outlived their usefulness

This comes to us courtesy of the Indianapolis Star's Anthony Fargo:

Congress and the FCC have been whittling away at the rules limiting the number of stations one company may own for years, most notably in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eviscerated the FCC’s ownership rules and allowed greater concentration of ownership, particularly in radio.

Martin’s proposal is modest compared to the FCC’s failed attempt earlier this decade to greatly reduce FCC oversight of ownership, but it is controversial nonetheless. It may be the first step toward allowing TV/newspaper or radio station/newspaper combinations in smaller markets as well, where the financial pressures on newspapers are just as intense as in the big markets.

But to get back to my student’s question: In a time when we can get news and other information from thousands of Web sites, delivered to our cell phones and beamed to our homes via satellite, have the FCC ownership regulations outlived their usefulness?

To answer Mr. Fargo's question:  Yes.  And they outlived their usefulness years ago. 

Current technological advances have provided news readers with a variety of internet options.  Blogs,  news websites, and others are in some ways providing more comprehensive coverage than ever.  However, even before the advent of blogs and news feeds, the market had already provided solutions to monopoly ownership- it's called Fox News.

We have these laws because we are worried about news being slanted towards a viewpoint advocated by large corporate owners.  In many ways this was true prior to Fox News.  Conservatives were rightly disturbed by the left-wing domination of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.  So an enterprising individual provided a market solution- a competitor that appealed to a conservative audience.  And he was clearly rewarded.  Fox News is, by far, the most watched news station in the USA.

Now the free market has evolved to include a whole new selection of alternative media.  It's time the federal government recognized that and got out of the regulation business.

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. 

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.

"So, a Gay Rights Activist and a member of the Religious Right walk into a bar..."

As many of our faithful Veritas Rex followers know, Bil Browning of www.bilerico.com and I have a mutual agreement of sorts.  He agreed to go to the Love Won Out conference with me if I would accompany him to a viewing of Inlaws and Outlaws. 

Well, I attended the movie with Bil on Sunday afternoon (I even had to give up football…ouch) and was pleasantly surprised by what I found.  All you gay activists out there shouldn’t get too excited.  I wasn’t pleasantly surprised by the movie.  “Inlaws and Outlaws” was basically a fairly boring propaganda documentary on the lives of many homosexual couples and a few heterosexual couples.  Of course, the homosexual couples were either attractive or intelligent or funny or just plain likeable or a combination and the heterosexual couples were pretty dull and uninspiring.  The message was almost “Homosexual marriage – gooood.  Heterosexual marriage – baaaad.” 

The pleasant surprise was Bil Browning.  We don’t agree on much of anything and he says and promotes some things on his blog www.bilerico.com that I find unconscionable, to put it mildly.  However, Bil was kind and treated me with respect.  I was able to carry on a conversation with him without being shouted down or called names (which I have found unfortunately rare among gay activists).  We were able to talk as men and I respect him for that.  I attempted to see things from his perspective and I believe he tried to see things from my perspective as well.  Who knows, perhaps after the Love Won Out conference he will even count me as a friend.  (Don’t tell him…but I already count him as one.)

The peculiar problem of the "gay gene"

Supporters of the homosexual movement have long attempted to tie themselves to the civil rights movement.  It's a strong argument to associate sexual orientation with gender or color.  The argument is that a person can't choose his or her sexual orientation, just like they can't choose their race or gender. 

They work this angle with great energy.  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.

Take this paragraph, written by Michele O'Mara, in a post entitled Homosexuality 101 on The Bilerico Project.

Is it possible for someone to change his or her sexual orientation – for a heterosexual to become homosexual, or a homosexual to become heterosexual?
No published scientific evidence supports the effectiveness, or viability of programs designed to change the sexual orientation of a person (called “reparative therapy” or “conversion” therapy).

Reparative therapy attempts to change behavior, not sexual orientation. It is agreed by all, even reparative programs, that it has not been possible to change the direction of a persons sexual and emotional attractions. The only thing that can be changed is one’s behavior. The American Psychiatric Association strictly opposes any psychiatric treatment such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, which is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that he or she should change his/her homosexual orientation.

O'Mara is half right.  Even Focus on the Family's own ministry, Love Won Out, agrees that some homosexual urges may never change.

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions. We concur with the American Psychological Association’s position that homosexuality is likely developmental in nature and caused by a “complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors” (www.apa.org). We would also agree with the American Psychiatric Association when it states “some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” If you ever hear us use the word “choice,” it is in relation to men and women who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions choosing to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions.

In the end, Love Won Out is right to argue that humans have a choice.  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.