# 1216 (4/30) "Man on Admission: Verrilli Reveals Taxing Truth"

"MAN ON ADMISSION: VERELLI REVEALS TAXING TRUTH" - by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council,  Washington Update, April 28, 2015; http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150429/man-admission

The biggest news from yesterday's Supreme Court arguments isn't news at all to conservatives: Same-sex "marriage" is a threat to religious freedom. For once, that revelation didn't come from one of the lawyers on our side but from the Obama administration's own attorney. In a rare moment of candor, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sent a clear signal on where this debate is headed, and it isn't to the marriage altar.As the President's chief attorney made stunningly clear, redefining marriage is -- and has never been -- the end goal of homosexuals. Silencing dissent is. And you can't silence dissent without punishing speech and belief -- which is apparently what the government has in mind if the Court rules in the Left's favor.

Looking ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex "marriage," Justice Samuel Alito asked a key question: "In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?" With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, "It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue."

Translation: If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won't surrender their beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt. A lot. Imagine what's happening to Aaron and Melissa Klein (slapped with a $135,000 fine for their marriage views) occurring on a national scale through hijacked tax exemptions, Pell grants, loans, and other government contracts. If the Supreme Court finds invisible ink granting a "right" to same-sex "marriage" in the Constitution, it will be a declaration of war on principled objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a natural definition of marriage -- the same definition our own President held three years ago -- would have a target on its back. (Or a bigger target, I should say.)

Is it really a stretch, given the IRS's history of harassment and discrimination against conservatives, to think that it wouldn't show a "smidgeon" of prejudice? This ruling would give the political operatives at one of the country's most powerful agencies even more ammunition to punish opposition. Resistance -- even principled, seemingly protected resistance -- wouldn't be tolerated. The IRS, which has been weaponized under this administration, will stop at nothing, including stripping tax exemptions, to force acceptance.

Recognizing the damage his admission could do, Verrilli tried to soften the blow by suggesting that "different states could strike different balances." But if liberals won't accept the long-held right of the states to regulate marriage, what makes anyone think they would accept it here? Besides, Justice Antonin Scalia fired back, "If you let the states do it, you can make an exception... You can't do that once it is a constitutional proscription." Carried to its logical conclusion, the government would be in a position of punishing any non-sanctioned views. This is about controlling beliefs and actions the government doesn't agree with -- which is not only a direct attack on our First Amendment freedoms, but an attack on what it means to be an American. This is what the Left has been searching for: a selective, surgical removal of the conservative voice.

And the disadvantaged, poor, needy populations the Left claims to care about would be the unintended victims. Under this brave new world of "progressive totalitarianism," as Ed Whelan calls it, churches, Christian media, schools, or groups like FRC wouldn't be the only ones suffering. People around the world served by Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, and countless others who depend on the generosity and efficiency of their programs would feel that pain. So much for love being love.

As horrifying as Verrilli's revelation was, the Solicitor General might have done us a huge favor. No one has made a better case for Congress's Marriage and Religious Freedom Act than the Obama administration just did. Under the bill that conservatives plan to reintroduce, it would be illegal for the government to discriminate against individuals, organizations, and small businesses who believe in natural marriage. The same institutions that Verrilli vows to hunt down -- child welfare organizations, private schools, religious universities, relief providers, abstinence groups, military religious contractors, adoption agencies, and political nonprofits -- would be spared the government's crackdown.

If you like your religious liberty, you could keep it. A concept that yesterday's proceedings proved is more and more foreign.

[bold, italics,and colored emphasis mine]

"Congress Sets the Record State on Marriage" - by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council,  Washington Update, April 28, 2015; http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150429/man-admission

# 1215 (4/29) "Inside the Court: Judges Don’t Have a Crystal Ball on Marriage"

ATTENTION: Please SCROLL DOWN this page to find the article titled on this post in LARGE BRIGHT BLUE CAPITAL LETTERS. Thank you.)

"A.D. - The Bible Continues" April 27 Update - (: While I still think there was too much focus on Herod and the High Priest, I was encouraged by last night's episode's greater focus on the disciples and the actual events told in Scripture. Also, the violence depicted was not as bad as past weeks. Let's continue to pray that in the future episodes the focus will be more on the disciples and will be restrained in it's depiction of violence. - Stan
"DON'T LEAVE AMERICAN PASTOR SAEED BEHIND "(4/1/2015) - A nuclear deal with Iran could come at any time, any hour, any day. But will American Pastor Saeed be freed? His health is worsening. He continues to suffer grave threats in an Iranian prison where torture and executions are commonplace. President Obama assured Pastor Saeed’s wife that freedom for this wrongfully imprisoned U.S. citizen would be a “top priority.” Now is a critical time to continue to pressure the Obama Administration to not leave Pastor Saeed behind and urge Iran to show goodwill. Pastor Saeed is imprisoned merely because he is a Christian. He deserves to be home with his family. We continue fighting for his freedom – working in Congress, with the State Department, and with leaders across the globe. We must not forget Pastor Saeed. Sign the Petition: "Don’t Leave American Pastor Saeed Behind".; http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/dont-leave-am 
Urgent Petition: Defend Christians - Defeat ISIS. -  Go to http://aclj.org/jihad/say-no-to-a-third-term-of-president-obamas-failed-foreign-policy?view=donFrmB&utm_expid=7567081-8.vdNbXkfzQUyJhpww3WXtYQ.1&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign= "..An estimated 76 percent of the world's population live in countries where religious freedom is restricted...

PRAYER MATTERS: "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and asking Him to accomplish His perfect and loving will." - Stan

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE (The decision is expected by the end of June so let's be praying for this UNTIL it is announced.:

 1) Pray that God will guide the Court to read, comprehend, and take to heart the sound warnings in briefs before them which make clear that no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage” exists in our Constitution! May our Justices keep their oath to uphold that Constitution. (2 Chr 32:22; Ps 32:8; Is 10:1; Mt 5:18)
2) May each of the Justices be gripped by the fact that only one of the very few world nations that presently allow same-sex “marriage” did so by judicial fiat. May they be convicted that judicial fiat is not the American way. (Exodus 23:1-3; Lev 26:45; 2 Kgs 17:11; 2 Chr 20:6)
3) May our Justices conclude and rule that only a sacred union between a man and a woman can be called a marriage. May they rule that no state is required by the Constitution to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere that do not meet the requirements for marriage in their own state. (2 Chr 7:14; Pr 22:28; Jer 18:1-11; 2 Th 2:15)

     For a list of 10 sermons you can download on the subject, click over to the website. - https://www.watchmenpastors.org/standformarriage/  I also refer you to my previous posts # 1210 - #1212. The Christian community needs to show up and send a message to the Court that we will not stand by silently while family and freedom hang in the balance!

PRAY FOR AMERICA: THANK GOD for His many blessings on America throughout it's history. May we then ask that AMERICA once again be a blessing TO GOD, by once again submitting to HIS will in our affairs - both personal and national - that He may truly "heal our land." (2 Chron. 7:14) Short of that, we should not be saying "God Bless America"but instead "God be merciful towards America!" (Feb. 24th - Rev. Franklin Graham delivered this insight to his Facebook friends yesterday, "I do know that the president defends Islam and chastises Christians, rebukes our allies and befriends our enemies, and fully supports gay marriages and abortion but denies the religious freedoms of those who don't agree. Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.")

PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS:  Let's be praying that the Congress and the the President will find a way to pass legislation and enact policies that will benefit America today and future generations and NOT do any lasting harm

World-Wide Prayer Requests:

4/17/2015 "US Missionary Injured in Apparent Terrorist Shooting" - By Abigail Robertson, April 17, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Christian-Missionary-Wounded-in-Apparent-Terrorist-Shooting/ "A Christian missionary is fighting for her life after being shot in the head in Karachi, Pakistan, in an apparent terrorist attack. Fifity-five-year-old Debra Lobo was hit twice when four men fired shots from motorbikes as she was leaving work...The gunmen, who escaped, left a leaflet in her car with her name on it saying they had targeted her because she was American." Let's keep Debra in our prayers.
4/18/2015"Recant or Else: Saeed Faces New Psychological Torture" - By George Thomas, April 18, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Iranian-Prison-Guards-Torment-American-Pastor/ "Naghmeh [his wife] says recent prisoner executions have also taken their toll on her husband. Despite the hardships, she writes that he continues to remain strong in the faith.'He wants you all to know that the Lord continues to move in that prison and lives are being transformed!' his wife wrote on Facebook. 'That they had a great Easter in prison,' she continued. 'Saeed desperately 'missed being with our family on Easter, but new Easter traditions were created in prison!' 'Over the years this journey has truly become more difficult and painful for Saeed and for the kids and I,' she wrote. 'Our family appreciates your continued prayers.'We need to continue to pray for Pastor Saeed - that his health will improve and that he will be re-united with his wife and two young children who live in the United States.

Feb. 25 - Urgent Prayer: "US Missionary Held for $300K Ransom in Nigeria" - CBNNews.com, February 25, 2015;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/February/US-Missionary-Held-for-Ransom-in-Nigeria----/ "Phyllis Sortor, an American missionary in Nigeria, has been abducted from the Hope Academy compound in Emiworo, Kogi State. Nigerian police say her captors are asking for $300,000 in ransom. The Free Methodist Church, Sortor's sponsoring denomination, reports that the U.S. State Department and FBI are working with Nigerian authorities to find and rescue her. Kidnappings for ransom are common in Nigeria and most victims are returned unharmed. It's also possible that the Islamist insurgent group Boko Haram is involved, although it operates mainly in the northeastern corner of Nigeria and Sotor was kidnapped in the central part of the country..."

 Save Christian Mom Asia Bibi from Execution - A Christian mom has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for her faith. Asia Bibi was falsely accused of “blasphemy” – speaking against the prophet Muhammad. Now this wife and mother of five will hang for her Christian faith.She would be the first woman executed under Pakistan’s Shariah blasphemy law.This is the ultimate human rights violation. We’re mobilizing our international affiliate – the European Centre for Law and Justice – and its partner in Pakistan to stop this atrocity. Add your name to our letter to the government of Pakistan demanding Asia Bibi’s freedom.Go to http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/save-christian-mom-asia-bibi-from-execution; please add your signature to mine and over 35,000 others AND pray for Asia Bibi.

Of course, let's CONTINUE PRAYING FOR AN END TO THE EBOLA CRISIS IN WEST AFRICA AND THE HEALING OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INFECTED.

PRAY FOR THE CRISIS HAPPENING NOW IN IRAQ (see post #907) Pray that allied forces will be able to drive the group ISIS back (see post #964)

/PRAYER ALERT- UKRAINE: As the Lord leads, please pray: 

*For God to suppress President Putin’s ambitions to "restore" the Soviet empire.

*For the people of Ukrainen [esp. for the church 'to be THE church']  as they wait to see if the Russian troops will advance.

*That President Obama would use wisdom in crafting our  foreign policy, and wisdom for his advisers.

Continue to Pray for EGYPT - Continue to pray for the tense situation in Egypt and especially for the Christian believers who are being targeted with violence by Muslim Brotherhood members.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"INSIDE THE COURT: JUDGES DON'T HAVE A CHRYSTAL BALL ON MARRIAGE" - Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanT_Anderson / April 28, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/inside-the-court-judges-dont-have-a-crystal-ball-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

One of the protesters outside the Supreme Court today. (Photo: Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.

Last year, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that the state marriage laws in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky—all democratically defining marriage as the union of husband and wife—were good law. The 6th Circuit ruled that these state marriage laws did not violate the Constitution. Earlier today, lawyers on both sides of that question presented their best arguments to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court should conclude that the 6th Circuit got it right: The Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage. After all, the nine justices on the Supreme Court do not have a crystal ball. They cannot predict whether redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will strengthen marriage or weaken marriage. They cannot predict whether it will be good for children or bad for children. They heard arguments on both sides of these questions—and the Constitution doesn’t tell them what the future will hold.

Indeed, the first few questions asked by the justices from the bench gives us a glimpse into how the Court is considering this issue. Consider Justice Anthony Kennedy[considered by most to be the swing/deciding vote], who asked the third question:
"One ­­of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and—and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is—is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate …  But still, 10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better."

Chief Justice John Roberts asked the second question and suggested that while one side says they want to “join in the institution,” the other side says “they’re seeking to redefine the institution.” Roberts went on to add: "Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable." Roberts then concluded: “My question is you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”

This is why marriage policy needs to be made democratically. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships isn’t required by the Constitution, and it runs the risk of causing harm to the institution of marriage as a whole and to children in particular.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The nine justices on the Supreme Court don’t have any more great insight than ordinary citizens do as to which marriage policy will serve the 50 states best. Unelected judges shouldn’t throw out the votes and voices of over 50 million citizens on this particular debate.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer [one of the more liberal justices] got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.” He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”

Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the same cross-cultural historical point:"How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [one of the most of the liberal justices], who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”

Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole. There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried (unsuccessfully) to settle the abortion issue. Because the Supreme Court cut the democratic process short on abortion, there is no issue less settled in American public life than abortion. Our politics on abortion are so polarized because the Court didn’t allow the democratic process to work. Why would the Court want to repeat that mistake? Why would the Court want to enflame the Culture War?

Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.

At the end of the day, this is a debate about whether citizens or judges will decide an important and sensitive policy issue—in this case, the very nature of civil marriage. This is a debate about whether the Court will launch a new generation of cultural controversy. To avoid launching that controversy, the Court should do what the Constitution requires: Respect the authority of citizens to make marriage policy in the states.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.

"Ryan T. Anderson’s Instant Analysis of Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case" - Jamie Jackson @JamiePressDC / April 28, 2015; http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/ryan-t-andersons-instant-analysis-of-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-case/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D [NOTE: This is a VIDEO interview of the comments he shares in the above article.]
"Courting For Marriage: Left Tries To Woo SCOTUS" - by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Washington Update, April 28, 2015; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20150428/courting-marriage

"The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting State Man-Woman Marriage Laws" - Gene Schaerr April 28, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/the-key-supreme-court-briefs-supporting-state-man-woman-marriage-laws/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

# 1213 (4/27) "Exclusive: Bakers Facing $135K Fine Over Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple Speak Out"

"EXCLUSIVE: BAKERS FACING $135 FINE OVER WEDDING CAKE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLE SPEAK OUT" -  Kelsey Harkness/ @kelseyjharkness / April 27, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/27/exclusive-bakers-facing-135k-fine-over-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple-speak-out/ [AS I SEE IT: What happened to this couple for standing up for their Christian values in the face of government oppression didn't happen on the other side of the world but HERE IN AMERICA! I applaud Samaritan's Purse for having a donation site to help them. (Note weblink in the second article noted below.) We need to take their experience as  foreshadowing what will happen to those who dare to stand up for their religious rights in our "politically correct" culture. - Stan] 

It was the first time seeing her bakery since the new owners moved in.“This is really hard,” Melissa Klein said, tears filling up her eyes.

Almost two years ago, Melissa and her husband, Aaron, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, had to close the bakery they built from scratch after declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
“I did all the flooring in here—this was a collection agency before we moved the bakery in,” Aaron said, peering through the glass window.

 The end began in January 2013, when Melissa was home in Sandy, Ore., taking care of their then-six-month-old twin boys.“It was my day to be at home with the kids and Aaron’s day to be at the shop,” she told The Daily Signal in an exclusive interview. A woman named Rachel Cryer walked into the bakery with her mother for a wedding cake tasting. Aaron, just like he always did, asked for the groom’s name.

“I’m sorry, we don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings,” he recalls saying after learning there were two brides.Aaron and his wife, both Christians, believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say that turning down the request wasn’t easy, but not because they were worried about breaking any laws.“I wasn’t even aware at the time that Oregon had anything on the statute that would have prohibited me from turning down the order,” Aaron said.

Shortly after that interaction, Rachel and her then-fiancé Laurel Bowman filed a civil complaint against the Kleins for failing to provide them equal service in a place of public accommodation.

Then, a firestorm started. “A group of people—I don’t know what group of people—but they got together and harassed all of our vendors,” Melissa, 33, said.Their vendors, worried about being driven out of business themselves, took Sweet Cakes by Melissa off their referral list, and asked Melissa to do the same.
Without that business, which counted about “65 to 70 percent” of the family’s yearly income, Melissa said they were forced to close the bakery. That day came on Sept. 1, 2013, one month after the Kleins received an official complaint from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries on behalf of the now-married Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Moving Out - Melissa now works from home, baking one or two cakes each month.Her five kids—Samantha, 16; Ethan, 13; Elijah, 9; and the 2-year-old twins Everett and Michael—provide easy distractions.To avoid being a place of public accommodation, she can’t do much promotion.“I really haven’t been able to do my cakes … not even close to what I did in the shop,” she said.When Melissa does bake, it’s in her small kitchen, just a few feet away from the garage storing her old ovens, pots and pans as they collect dust.

Aaron, 35, found a new job as a garbage collector.“From what we were making at the shop, compared to now … our income has dropped drastically,” Melissa said.“It’s about half,” Aaron said.Aaron says he doesn’t expect everyone to agree with his views on marriage.

“This country should be able to tolerate diverse opinions,” he said. “I never once have said that my fight is [to] stop what they call equality.”My fight in this situation is religious freedom. It is the ability to live and work by the dictates of my faith without being punished by the government and all Americans should be free to do that.

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

The Legal Fallout - The Daily Signal reported on Friday that an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for the damages they caused for Rachel and Laurel.The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries pursued charges against the Kleins on behalf of the now married same-sex couple.

The Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is responsible for enforcing the state’s public accommodation law, and the judge who issued Friday’s proposed order works for the bureau.
“The administrative agency is not a court—it’s actually under the executive branch, not the judicial branch of the government,” Anna Harmon, the attorney representing the Kleins, told The Daily Signal. “[The case] is heard through the administrative law judge.” The proposed fine will now go to state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, who can either accept it or adjust the amount in issuing a final order, which is expected to arrive this summer.The Kleins have signaled they plan to appeal the judge’s ruling.

One question concerning the Kleins and their lawyer is why no doctor or medical expert was present during the hearings.To claim $135,000, the couple submitted a list of mental, physical and emotional damages inflicted by the Kleins’ action. As The Daily Signal previously reported, some of those symptoms include, “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “surprise,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

“There was no expert testimony at the hearing,” Harmon said. “The witnesses at the hearing were the two women who were requesting a cake, one of their mothers, one of their brothers and another family member. There was no doctor, there was no psychologist, no expert testimony at all.”

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries did not respond to The Daily Signal’s multiple requests for comment.Paul Thompson, the attorney representing the lesbians, also declined to participate in an interview until a final order is issued.

In order to account for $135,000, the state isn’t just going after Aaron and Melissa’s bakery.“The business is gone,” Harmon, their lawyer, said.“They don’t have business assets so when we talk about [the fine] it’s personal,” Harmon added. “It means that’s money they would have used to feed their children that they can’t use anymore.” 

Aaron said the sum is enough to financially ruin their family.“The state is now saying that we can award damages above and beyond what you have already suffered … and they have no qualms about doing this,” he said. “It is really showing the state is taking a stance on absolutely obliterating somebody that takes a different stance than the state has.”

 Harmon contends the Kleins can win on an appeal, arguing that a cake is more than just a cake.“I know we are talking about cake, but anybody who has watched TV recently knows that cake is more than just flour and eggs and water and sugar,” she explains. “It’s artwork.” It’s designed and created, and that is what the Supreme Court has called speech.

For Melissa, who spent five years designing all sorts of cakes in her small town bakery, it’s hard to explain without crying. “When I do a cake, the only way I can describe it to people is it’s my canvas,” she said. “I get to create something on this cake and I get to pour myself out onto this cake.” Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a centerpiece of their family, and something that Melissa had hoped to pass on to her five kids.“I actually had the thought of my kids taking over,” she said, as more tears filled up her eyes.

Looking back, what she misses most isn’t the bakery, but rather, the moments. “I know this probably sounds really silly, but when my daughter would be helping out, we’d get into frosting fights,” she said, laughing. “Those were just so much fun. I’d just get her and she’d be covered all over her face.”

The Kleins’ daughter, 16-year-old Samantha, has her own memories of the bakery. She started helping in the family business when she was 10.“It was a part of my childhood,” she recalls. “My mom doing cakes and loving helping her with it. It was a lot of fun.”“And,” says Samantha, “it was pretty sad to see it go.”

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey.

"After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers’ Crowdfunding Page Shut Down" - Kelsey Harkness/ @kelseyjharkness / April 25, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/25/after-receiving-over-100k-in-donations-bakers-crowdfunding-page-shut-down/ > "..GoFundMe said the money raised thus far “will still be made available for withdrawal,” which means the Kleins will be able to keep the donations. In the meantime, the family has set up a temporary donation page on Samaritan’s Purse."[http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine/]
“For all of you who gave to the GoFundMe account before it was shut down, we so appreciate your love and generosity,” the Kleins wrote on their Facebook page"

# 1212 (4/26) Sunday Special: THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MARRIAGE DEBATE

"THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MARRIAGE DEBATE"- by Jim Garlow (found at the website: https://www.watchmenpastors.org/standformarriage/) [AS I SEE IT: My hope is that a sermon similar to the following sermon - or one of the others listed at the weblink noted here - would be delivered in our pulpits, esp. on this Sunday preceding the Supreme Court hearing o homosexual "marriage" this Tuesday. I, again, ask that we all be praying for that hearing - that at this proceeding, the justices will hear indisputable truths of the wrongness and the great harm that their redefining marriage will do for us and future generations. (It's scheduled to be heard between 11 am and 1 pm this Tuesday, April 28th. - Stan]

May I share some thoughts that form the biblical underpinnings for me, which is why I am doing what I do, and I suspect why you do what you do. Why are we willing to risk so much, for the sake of marriage? The answer is not as obvious as we might think.

THE FULL IMAGE OF GOD: MALE AND FEMALE TOGETHER. We know that God is neither male nor female. Yet we are made "in his image." In spite of the fact that we are, as individuals, made in the image of God, the true, full image is expressed when the two halves of humanity complement each other and become one. 

If I understand the role of marriage properly, a male, by himself, is not fully representative of all the descriptors of the image of God. For example, a male, by himself, cannot manifest the full spectrum of God’s features, historically associated with both femininity (tenderness) and masculinity (strength).Thus, no husband, for example, can fully represent the image of God. 

At the same time, if I understand the early pages of Genesis correctly, a female, by herself, cannot do justice to the full spectrum of the image of God. However, when the two complimentary halves of humanity unite - physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally and psychologically – the image of God, containing both tenderness and strength, is manifested. Male and female are made anatomically, emotionally and spiritually for oneness. Husband and wife, joined together, represent the full spectrum of the image of God.

One part of God’s image is his creativity. In sexual union, husband and wife become co-creators, in a sense, with God. Children come into being as husband and wife unite, one more expression of the image (creativity) of God. A sperm and an egg unite to form (miraculously) a human! A person! Male and female becoming one is what Genesis establishes as the components for this image. The breathtaking image of God! 

MARRIAGE IN BIBLE: ONE MAN / ONE WOMAN. This is the reason that the Bible does not affirm homosexual marriage. Nowhere. Not overtly. Not covertly. The only time Jesus participated in a wedding or spoke of marriage, he referred to male/female constituents. The reason is that "oneness marriage" - that is male and female - expresses the notion of the image of God.

The Bible opens with a marriage – between a man and a woman. The Bible closes with a wedding – between a groom and bride. In between, one man-one woman marriage is extolled in both Old and New Testament, as well as by Jesus Himself. 

REAL MARRIAGE vs. THE “SHADOW” OR IMAGE OF MARRIAGE. Having said that, lets take our understanding of marriage to the next level. Often times, we think that real marriage is that which we see here on earth, that of a man and woman. We sometimes assume that God simply “borrowed” the metaphor or marriage in an attempt to describe what will happen in the book of Revelation at the culmination of all history, the marriage of Jesus and the church. But in reality we have it backwards.

Actually “marriage” on this earth, as wonderful as it is, might be spelled with a small “m.” The real Marriage needs to be seen as being spelled with a capital “M.” This Marriage is the one at the culmination of history, the Marriage of The Groom (Jesus) and The Bride (The Church).

Thus we have never ever seen the Real Marriage. That is yet to come – at the end of time. Here on earth, we only have a “shadow” of the real thing. With earthly marriage, we are experiencing merely the hors d'oeuvre, or appetizer, not the main course. God established earthly marriage – between a man and a woman – to provide a tiny glimpse of the spectacular True Marriage. Intimacy between a married man and woman is only a miniscule glimpse of the breathtaking oneness that Jesus and the Church will experience.

Therefore, Satan is obsessed in destroying marriage, the coming together, fitting together of the two complimentary halves of humanity – male and female, since they are on earth, a mirror, an image, of what is to be fulfilled at the end of this age.

And that is why we are in the battle we are in. It is not ultimately about earthly marriage, about our religious freedoms, our church’s, or even about the practice of homosexuality as such. It is about the desire of Satan to decimate the picture of God’s ultimate design for the Cosmos – the Grand Wedding of His Son to the Prepared Bride. And that is why votes to preserve marriage must remain center stage in our lives. Much is at stake.

# 1211 (4/25) "Forcing States to Recognize Gay Marriage Could Increase Number of Abortions"

"FORCING STATES TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE COULD INCREASE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS" - Gene Schaerr / April 17, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/

(Photo: Getty Images)

On the surface, abortion and same-sex marriage may seem unrelated. However, as explained in an amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage, filed in the pending Supreme Court marriage cases and summarized here, the two are closely linked in a short and simple causal chain that the Supreme Court would be wise not to set in motion.

Even in the short time that same-sex marriage has been officially recognized in some states at home and abroad, man-woman marriage rates have declined.

In a nutshell: A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women. And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates.

Effect of Same-Sex Marriage on Man-Woman Marriage Rates
    As the amicus brief explains in detail, redefining marriage in genderless terms—which is legally necessary to permit marriage by same-sex couples—undermines the existing social norms of marriage in ways that are likely over time to reduce opposite-sex marriage rates. For example, an “any-two-adults” model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting.  Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.

It is thus not surprising that, even in the short time that same-sex marriage has been officially recognized in some states at home and abroad, man-woman marriage rates have declined—even as marriage rates in other jurisdictions have remained relatively stable.

In the Netherlands, for example, among young women, and after controlling for other factors, there was a net 5 percent reduction in the nationwide opposite-sex marriage rate, and a 31.8 percent plunge in urban, less religious areas. As shown in the graph below, moreover, in just a few years after it redefined marriage Spain saw man-woman marriage rates plummet 36 percent.

Similar patterns have been observed in U.S. states for which we have sufficient data. Comparing the last year for which data are available to the year just prior to adopting same-sex marriage, Vermont (-5.1 percent), Iowa (-9.2 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent) and Massachusetts (-8.9 percent) all suffered a reduction in their opposite-sex marriage rates.

Yet, from 2009 (the first year of genderless marriage in Iowa and Vermont, and the second in Connecticut) until 2012, the overall U.S. marriage rate remained stable.

Increases in Abortion Rates
     Conservatively applying the lowest of these reductions, a 5 percent reduction in marriages among U.S. residents aged 15-44 (from a base of 1.7 million marriages annually) means 85,000 fewer marriages per year. Over a 30-year fertility cycle, that amounts to 2.55 million fewer marriages.

Conservatively assuming that half of the marriage decline over the next generation comes from women who permanently forgo rather than delay marriage, under that scenario 1.275 million more women aged 15-44 would never marry—the equivalent of the entire city of Dallas, Texas.      

Married women do not abort children at the same rates as cohabitating women or women living singly. Currently, as shown in the chart below, there are 28.9 abortions per 1,000 unmarried women per year, in contrast to 6.1 for married women:



Calculating the total number of abortions over an unmarried woman’s childbearing years by averaging this rate over her assumed 30-year fertility period, unmarried women would average 0.87 abortions over their lifetimes, while married women would average 0.18 abortions.

Accordingly, with 1.275 million additional women never getting married, nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.

And again, the actual increase in abortions would likely be much higher, as most women who would have married will cohabitate rather than live singly, and cohabitating women are three times more likely to have an abortion than a woman living singly.

In short, forcing states to convert the traditional gendered marriage institution into a genderless institution will very likely reduce man-woman marriages by undermining some of the norms that encourage heterosexual couples to marry, which will in turn increase the number of unmarried women and, hence, the number of children aborted.

It is one thing for the people of a state to subject themselves and their children to that risk through democratic processes. It would be quite another for the Supreme Court to subject a states’ citizens to that risk, against their will.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Gene Schaerr is a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who specializes in constitutional and appellate litigation. He has previously served as associate counsel to the president and as law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and has handled dozens of cases (including six he personally argued) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

# 1210 (4/24) "What You Need to Know About [Homosexual] Marriage and the Supreme Court"

"WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT [HOMOSEXUAL] MARRIAGE AND THE SUPREME COURT" - Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanT_Anderson / April 21, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-gay-marriage-and-the-supreme-court/

One week from today [THIS TUES. APRIL 28] , the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about gay marriage. Here’s what you need to know.

1. There simply is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the Constitution does not settle this question.

Unelected judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere.

2. The overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.

Those suing to overturn male-female marriage laws thus have to prove that the man–woman marriage policy that has existed in the United States throughout our entire history is prohibited by the Constitution. They cannot successfully so argue. [go to weblink to see chart]

3. As Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pointed out two years ago, there are two different visions of what marriage is... One view of marriage sees it as primarily about consenting adult romance and care-giving. Another view of marriage sees it as a union of man and woman—husband and wife—so that children would have moms and dads.

Our Constitution is silent on which of these visions is correct, so We the People have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.

The debate over whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships is unlike the debate over interracial marriage. Race has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and there were no reasonable arguments ever suggesting it did.Laws that banned interracial marriage were unconstitutional and the Court was right to strike them down. But laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman are constitutional, and the Court shouldn’t strike them down.

4. The only way the Court could strike down state laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based primarily on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way.

Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.

But the Constitution does not require a new vision of marriage.

Advocates for the judicial redefinition of marriage cannot reasonably appeal to the authority of Windsor, to the text or original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause, or to Loving v. Virginia. So, too, one cannot properly appeal to the Equal Protection Clause or to animus or Lawrence v. Texas.

Nor can one say that gays and lesbians are politically powerless, so one cannot claim they are a suspect class. Nor can one say that male–female marriage laws lack a rational basis or that they do not serve a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored way, as explained in Heritage Foundation legal memorandum “Memo to Supreme Court: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional.”

5. Everyone in this debate is in favor of marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways. The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representative should. And they should democratically enact laws that define marriage as the union of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father.

6. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces. [go to weblink to see second chart] Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.

7. Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

8. Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.

There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried to settle the abortion issue. Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.

As the 6th Circuit noted when it upheld several states’ marriage laws, “federalism…permits laboratories of experimentation—accent on the plural—allowing one State to innovate one way, another State another, and a third State to assess the trial and error over time.” Judges should not cut this process short.

At the end of the day, this is a debate about whether citizens or judges will decide an important and sensitive policy issue—in this case, the very nature of civil marriage. Read more about it in our legal memo.[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/memo-to-supreme-court-state-marriage-laws-are-constitutional]

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.

# 1210 (4/23) "[EARTH DAY(4/2) ]"The State of Our Planet Is Better Than Ever"

"THE STATE OF OUR PLANT IS BETTER THAN EVER" - Stephen Moore/ @StephenMoore / April 22, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/22/the-state-of-our-planet-is-better-than-ever/ [NOTE: Did ANYONE in the mainstream media share the information shared below? You have to ask if they have any real interest in the truth? - Stan]

Today [April 22nd] is Earth Day and to hear the experts like Usher and Al Gore tell the story, the planet is in a miserable state. We’re running out of our natural resources, we’re overpopulating the globe and running out of room, the air that we breathe is becoming toxic, the oceans are rising and soon major coastal cities will be underwater, and the Earth is, of course, heating up, except when it is cooling down.

This is perhaps the single greatest misinformation campaign in world history. Virtually none of these claims are even close to the truth—except for the fact that our climate is always changing as it has for hundreds of thousands of years.

Since the first Earth Day back in the 1970s, the environmentalists—those who worship the creation rather than the Creator—have issued one false prediction of Armageddon after another. Yet despite a batting average approaching zero, the media and our schools keep parroting their declinism as if they were oracles rather than proven shysters.

Here are the factual realities that we should be celebrating on Earth Day.

1) Natural resources are more abundant and affordable today than ever before in history. Short-term (sometimes decades-long) volatility aside, the price of most natural resources—from cocoa to cotton to coal—is cheaper today in real terms than 50, 100, or 500 years ago. This has happened even as the world’s population has nearly tripled. Technology has far outpaced depletion of the Earth’s resources.

2) Energy—the master resource—is super abundant. Remember when people like Paul Ehrlich nearly 50 years ago and Barack Obama just three years ago—warned the we were running out of oil and gas. Today, thanks to the new age of oil and gas thanks to fracking, the United States has hundreds of years of petroleum and an estimated 290 years of coal. Keep in mind, this may be a low-ball estimate; since 2000, the Energy Information Administration’s estimates of recoverable reserves have actually increased by more than 7 percent.

We’re not running out of energy, we are running into it.

3) Air and water. Since the late 1970s, pollutants in the air have plunged. Lead pollution plunged by more than 90 percent, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide by more than 50 percent, with ozone and nitrogen dioxide declining as well. This means that emissions per capita have declined even as the economy in terms of real GDP nearly tripled. By nearly every standard measure it [the air] is much, much, much cleaner today in the United States than 50 and 100 years ago. The air is so clean now that the EPA worries about carbon dioxide which isn’t even a pollutant. (And, by the way, carbon emissions are falling too, thanks to fracking). One hundred years ago, about one in four deaths in the U.S. was due to contaminants in drinking water. But from 1971-2002, fewer than three people per year in the U.S. were documented to have died from water contamination.

4) There is no Malthusian nightmare of overpopulation. Birth rates have fallen by about one-half around the world over the last 50 years. Developed countries are having too few kids, not too many. Even with a population of 7.3 billion people, average incomes, especially in poor countries, have surged over the last 40 years. The number of people in abject poverty fell by 1 billion from 1981 to 2011, even as global population increased by more than 1.5 billion.

5) Global per capita food production is 40 percent higher today than as recently as 1950. In most nations the nutrition problem today is obesity—too many calories consumed—not hunger. The number of famines and related deaths over the last 100 years has fallen in half. More than 12 million lives on average were lost each decade from the 1920s-1960s to famine. Since then, fewer than 4 million lives on average per decade were lost. Tragically, these famines are often caused by political corruption—not nature. Furthermore, the price of food has fallen steadily in the U.S.—and most other nations steadily for 200 years.

6) The rate of death and physical destruction from natural disasters or severe weather changes has plummeted over the last 50 to 100 years. Loss of life from hurricanes, floods, heat, droughts, and so on is at or near record lows. This is because we have much better advance warning systems, our infrastructure is much more durable, and we have things like air conditioning, to adapt to weather changes.We are constantly discovering new ways to harness and even tame nature.

Earth Day should be a day of joy and celebration that life on this bountiful planet is better than anytime in human history. The state of the planet has never been in such fine shape by almost every objective measure. The Chicken Littles are as wrong today as they were 50 years ago.This is very good news for those who believe that one of our primary missions as human beings is to make life better over time and to leave our planet better off for future generations.

Happy Earth Day.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal, is a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

# 1209 (4/22) "Children Raised By Same-Sex Couples May Do Worse When the Couples Marry"

"CHILDREN RAISED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES MAY DO WORSE WHEN THE COUPLES MARRY" - Gene Schaerr/ April 20, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/20/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-may-do-worse-when-the-couples-marry/

For decades social science has found that there is an optimal family structure for a child’s intellectual, emotional and physical flourishing: being raised in a home by her biological, married parents. All other arrangements—cohabiting biological parents, marriage with one step-parent, two adoptive parents or single parents—do not generally provide the same level of benefit.

But the rise of same-sex couples has led to a curious development. By their very structure, same-sex couples cannot meet what has been shown to be the gold standard of family structures for children. Yet in recent amicus briefs in the pending Supreme Court marriage case, the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association claim that the science is “settled” that there is no difference between married, biological parents and same-sex parents for child outcomes.
How can that be?

An amicus brief filed in that case by the American College of Pediatricians and several well-known social scientists explains the paradox. In short, the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association’s conclusions are driven by a political agenda and rely upon studies that on any other issue would be rejected on methodological grounds.

In fact, as shown below, when these methodological errors are corrected, this same body of studies reinforces what we’ve long known—that no other home situation compares with one headed by two married, biological parents. And when the errors in one previous large-sample study are corrected, the study actually suggests that allowing same-sex couples to claim the status and benefits of marriage may lead to worse outcomes for the children in such families than if the couple did not marry.

Many of the Touted Studies Are Methodologically Inadequate
     To draw valid population inferences, social science must follow certain methodological standards.  Most fundamentally, a study must have a sufficient number of observations to detect true differences between groups, and those observations must be randomly selected in order to allow generalizations to the larger population. These standards are well known even to undergraduates engaged in social science research. So it is surprising that, of the dozens of studies cited to support the so-called “scientific consensus” that the American Psychological Association claims, only eight meet scientific standards for population inference. The rest tell us nothing about the population at large.

Of these eight, the four older ones found no disadvantages for children raised by same-sex couples compared to other family structures. But as the recent American College of Pediatricians amicus brief shows, all four studies suffer an incurable flaw:  about half (40-60 percent) of the children they report as being raised with same-sex parents are actually children with opposite-sex parents, either because of coding errors, or problems with the census data on which the studies relied. In the end, this “dirty data” problem either invalidates their findings, or makes relying on them extremely problematic.

Same-Sex Family Structures Are Not as Beneficial
     This leaves only four studies that are methodologically sound. And as the American College of Pediatricians brief shows, all four—the four most recent—find that children do not fare as well when raised by same-sex couples as when raised by married, biological parents.

To the contrary, such children often experience significantly higher levels of events or conditions such as being arrested, using marijuana, being depressed, having a learning disability or other psychological or developmental problem—and are less likely to graduate from high school.  As adults, they are more likely to be unemployed, receive public assistance and to have an extramarital affair.

This is not surprising, and it doesn’t mean that people in same-sex relationships are bad parents.  To the contrary, many of them are wonderful parents individually.But a same-sex couple simply cannot provide a child with the benefits of biological connections and gender diversity that her own two, married biological parents can provide.

And that is the fundamental problem with any policy—including recognition of same-sex marriage—that tends to encourage or facilitate a parent’s decision to raise her biological child in a household that does not include the other biological parent.

Marriage May Do More Harm Than Good to Children of Same-Sex Couples
     But it gets worse.  Advocates of same-sex marriage have assumed that the benefits to children from man-woman marriage would automatically transfer in both degree and kind to children raised by same-sex couples—if those couples could only marry.

But assumptions are not science. As the American College of Pediatricians brief shows, when one of the four studies mentioned above (finding “no difference” between same-sex and opposite-sex family structures) was corrected for coding errors, the study actually showed something else:  In several important respects, children’s outcomes were worse when raised by married same-sex couples than if they were not married at all.

Specifically, children raised by married same-sex couples showed markedly higher rates of depression, unhappiness, fear and anxiety than those raised by unmarried same-sex couples.  The results are shown in the following chart:

As the American College of Pediatricians brief explains, this is directly contrary to the pattern for opposite-sex couples, where marriage typically leads to improved outcomes for children.

The reasons for the disparity aren’t clear. Perhaps a parent’s marriage to a same-sex partner clearly signals to the child that she will likely never achieve her hope of one day being raised by the two people who brought her into the world, thereby triggering the trauma that increases the child’s risk of depression, unhappiness and fear. But given this study, at best it is uncertain whether in the aggregate marriage will really benefit the children of same-sex couples at all.

That is all the more reason why the Supreme Court should not wade into a policy issue that needs more time and science to settle.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine] [This article has been modified.] Gene Schaerr is a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who specializes in constitutional and appellate litigation. He has previously served as associate counsel to the president and as law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and has handled dozens of cases (including six he personally argued) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

# 1208 (4/21) "Gauging the Insanity Around Us"

"Gauging the Insanity Around Us" - Robert Knight | Apr 21, 2015; http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2015/04/21/gauging-the-insanity-around-us-n1987926/page/full

Did someone explode a crazy bomb over America?

There’s so much insanity afoot – some serious, some silly – that one has to wonder if the asylum doors popped open in the middle of the night and the inmates emerged as cultural and political leaders. Actually, they’ve been doing just that since the 1960s. Now is their time to roar.

Every day, the media tell us to believe the unbelievable. Polls continue to assert that a majority of Americans now think that weddings lacking a bride or a groom are just like marriage vows between a man and a woman.

In Washington, the administration still pretends there is no particular religious tie-in to the systematic killing by extremist Muslims of Christians in the Middle East and Africa or the ongoing threats to wipe out Israel and the United States.

In drought-stricken California, Gov. Jerry Brown’s government is rationing water while dumping hundreds of millions of gallons from the northern part of the state into the Pacific Ocean so as not to disturb a tiny fish, the Delta Smelt.

Up in Oregon, which is vying with California for looniest state, an incident at a state university provides a wonderful snapshot of the deranged liberal war on freedom of speech.During the election campaign in early April of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, Elle Mallon, a vice presidential candidate for the Ducks F.I.R.S.T. party, filed a grievance on April 3 against the rival We Are Oregon (WAO) campaign. The latter shockingly held “its kickoff event in a building with no gender-inclusive bathrooms,” according to the Daily Emerald.

On April 4, the student elections board suspended We Are Oregon’s campaign for 36 hours over this breach of bathroom etiquette. WAO campaign manager Taylor Allison appealed, and sent an email apology to Ms. Mallon. Not good enough, said Ms. Mallon, who responded by accusing Allison of sexual harassment for “misgendering” her/him. It turns out that Mallon prefers the title Mx, not Ms. Allison apologized, triggering a second grievance from Mallon, who accused Allison of ignoring other acceptable pronouns, which “include xe, xem, hyr and they them their [sic].” Mallon called for the removal of all We Are Oregon candidates from the ballot. For an Oregon activist, Mallon was somewhat magnanimous, stopping short of demanding they be euthanized. The good news is that a Constitution Court removed the sanctions, while advising “all future campaigns to remember their cultural competency trainings in order to promote as inclusive a community as possible.”

Yearly tuition, room and board, by the way, is about $25,000 at the University of Oregon, where inclusivity reigns unless you convey a normal, healthy aversion to extreme environmentalism, aberrant sexuality or are openly conservative, Republican or Christian.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, the Girl Scouts just announced the formation of a new troop catering to all youths of varying persuasions. “Children who identify as girls – even if they have Y chromosomes and male sex organs – can join the Girl Scouts,” according to the Associated Press.After their cookie-peddling days, the kids can go on to attend the University of Oregon and play for either the women’s or the men’s Division I basketball teams, depending on their frame of mind.

In the world of politics, there is no shortage of lunacy. Just the other day, the third-ranking House Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn (SC), actually blamed voter ID laws in part for the tragic fatal shooting of a black man by a white cop caught on video. As related by columnist Deroy Murdock, Mr. Clyburn fingered the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) over its election reform efforts: “The U.S. House Assistant Minority Leader, Mr. Clyburn explained to ‘Hardball’ host Chris Matthews, thanks to ‘ALEX [sic] . . . a climate has been created in the country that's causing these things to occur all over. They have drawn up these legislations [sic], pieces of legislation like stand your ground, that legislation gives a license for people to be vigilantes. They are the ones that are drawing up all of these, uh, so-called voter-ID laws.”

While we’re on the subject of different realities, President Obama complained to a Town Hall audience last Wednesday in North Carolina that his critics “always want to paint me or the Democratic Party as … tax-and-spend, you know irresponsible….” He pointed to decreasing federal deficits, ignoring the fact that since he took office in 2009, the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to more than $18 trillion. If that’s not thrifty, what is?

Also on Wednesday, congressional lawmakers revealed that some 541,000 illegal aliens from President Obama’s “dreamer” amnesty have been granted Social Security numbers, which entitles them to tax credits and driver’s licenses. This muddies the waters of citizenship and who can legally vote. At the same time, the Obama Administration has sued Kansas and Arizona over their common-sense laws requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration.

If you’re a liberal, you might not find any of this crazy. If you’re an “everyday American,” however, you might think things are more than a little off kilter in 21st Century America and that we need a way back to sanity.

A good start would be to take the advice of St. Paul, who wrote, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

[bold,italics, and colored emphasis mine]
 
Robert Knight is an author, senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a frequent contributor to Townhall.

# 1207 (4/20) "A Morale Dilemma"

"A Morale Dilemma" - by Tony Perkins, Family Reserach Council, Washington Upate, April 17, 2015; http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150417/a-morale-dilemma [AS I SEE IT: It's tragic to hear of what has bcome of the greatest fighting force in th world. When you lower their morale as our President has seemed to have done, you strike at the very core of what gives them more strength then their body armor. It's criminal that our brave fighting men have to also battle they who are supposed to be lifting them up rather than in effect bringing them down. I invite you to pray with me regularly for those whose job it is to risk their lives for us. - Stan]

The slogan used to be "An Army of one." And if the military isn't careful, that's exactly what they'll have. America's soldiers are more disgruntled than ever, a new report in a depressing string of outcomes shows. Of the branch's 777,000 soldiers more than half (52 percent) are unhappy -- or worse, "rarely count(ing) on good things happening" to them. Almost as many -- 48 percent -- explain that what was once one of the most rewarding jobs on the planet is now anything but.

Dissatisfied and disrespected, hundreds of thousands of soldiers say their commitment is waning. The warning signs have been there all along, but only recently have the surveys started to confirm what most long suspected: that this administration's radical policies are having a catastrophic effect on the troops. Only 28 percent of the Army and National Guard feel good about what they do -- a low-water mark for one of the nation's proudest traditions: military service. Two-thirds, USA Today reports, are "borderline or worse for an area called 'catastrophic thinking'" -- despite six years of an "optimism program" meant to make soldiers resilient. At $287 million, the campaign has been a dismal failure.
Like most of the Pentagon's fixes, this one can't seem to overcome the toxic environment created by the President's attacks on faith, values, and brotherhood. The Army's "positive psychology" never had a chance in a culture of non-stop sexual engineering and foreign policy incompetence. Not to mention that this "optimism program" doesn't compete with the original one -- and that's faith! Why not save a quarter of a billion dollars and stop discouraging a source of real positivity: religion? [One of the things I pray for daily is military leadership with wisdom, integrity, and accountability (and also who are Spirit-filled (: Would that those who endorse such wasteful spending - while struggling to provide needed care to our troops - could be held accountable in some way? - Stan]

Unfortunately for the military, leaders can't buy optimism -- they have to create it. That's extremely difficult to do when the commander-in-chief turns the military into his primary base for social engineering. It started with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," worsened with women on the front lines, and continued right through to a full-scale war on religious expression.

Back in 2010, when Congress rolled out the red carpet for homosexuals, FRC warned the consequences would be severe. A year later at our press conference, reporters asked me, "Where's all the fallout that FRC predicted?" And I'll tell you what I told them. It's impossible to gauge the full effect of sexualizing the military in one year. "But make no mistake," I said. "The repercussions have begun." Now, the same media is tripping itself to report the string of bad news: sexual assaults, suicides, tanking morale, dissatisfaction, recruitment problems. Is it any wonder 40 percent don't trust their fellow soldiers or superiors? Only 15 percent have confidence in the leadership of their chief superior -- President Obama.

For now, the DOD [Department of Defense] is desperately trying to avoid the root issues. In fact, when USA Today asked for comment on the report, officials "disavowed (the Army's) results." "Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data... (said), 'I've sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can't figure out how your numbers came about.'" When reporters sent her the data, Saunders claimed the formulas "were obsolete." They cooked the numbers and forwarded along new statistics ("but lowered the threshold for a score to be a positive result"). "As a consequence, for example, only 9% of the 709,000 score poorly in optimism."

Well, the Army can change the formula, but it can't change reality. And that reality is that the constant wear and tear of war isn't the problem here; the President's battle against the timeless traditions and standards of the military is. This isn't what our brave young troops signed up for. And based on enlistment numbers, it isn't what future soldiers will sign up for either.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

"The U.S. Military: Now Hiring!" - Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Washington Update, April 1, 2015; http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150331/liberals-get-indy 

# 1206 (4/19) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "... 'A.D.' BRINGS TO LIFE THE TURMOIL FACED BY THE DISCIPLES"

"From Resurrection to Insurrection - 'A.D.' BRINGS TO LIFE THE TURMOIL FACED BY THE DISCIPLES" - By: Rachel McMillan|: April 13,2015;

http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/27191 [AS I SEE IT: I do hope that you've taken time to watch this series. It is definitely not what we would expect from a NETWORK presentation of the Biblical account. Please be sure to watch it, tell others about it, and pray that it encourages people, even bringing many to faith. And let's certainly pray that the response to this series will encourage even other networks to invest in productions like this. - Stan]

Image copyright NBC.

From "Game of Thrones" to "House of Cards" to the BBC production of "Wolf Hall" now airing on PBS, our society is fixated on shows with heavy political undercurrents, punctuated by the threat of complete social overhaul. Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, the successful team behind the popular miniseries “The Bible,” have produced a look at the early Christians and the movement that swept the world following Jesus’ ascension. There is violence; there is political intrigue; there is a fascinating realization of history, and a sense that the world will never be the same.

Capitalizing on exceptional British talent (the Sanhedrin speak with Shakespearian gravitas worthy of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts) and using thrilling graphics, “A.D.: The Bible Continues” recognizes the firebrand potential of this true story that rivals “House of Cards” for political tension. “A.D.” is accessible, engaging, and likely to appeal to viewers even without a faith background. The fact that Downey and Burnett have been able to place such an overtly Christian production in such a coveted primetime spot is astounding, wonderful, and maybe, like the Bible itself, divinely inspired.

While watching the first installment on Easter Sunday, I was delighted to see that the show was the top trending topic on Twitter. (Later, we’d learn that the premiere episode was the most watched television event of its week—during March Madness, mind you!) During that viewing, I forged a little online community of those—Christian and non-Christian—engaged with the drama unfolding before them.

There has been plenty to engage with. The miniseries began with the crucifixion, through which characters were introduced, flashbacks to recent events were explored, and sides were taken. When the zealous Boaz entreated Peter and John and Jesus’ other disciples to join an uprising with violent overtones, Peter explained that he was a fighter and not a fisherman.Yet even in the earliest moments of the premiere, something was stirring and eventual insurrection will take place.

Marrying exceptional special effects, top rate acting and impressive production values, Downey and Burnett have again made an indelible mark on both Christian culture and the mainstream media. Indeed, I would argue that they are shifting the public’s perception of Christian entertainment. While the story still appeals to religious audiences, Downey and Burnett and crew do well to focus on the political and historical tenets that inspired the premiere’s comparison to aforementioned shows such as “Game of Thrones.” We can consider it a springboard to engage in conversation about the birth of the faith, its ramifications, and the severity of the persecution of its early members.

“A.D.” helps us go back and explore some of the moments in biblical history we may not have visited in a while, moments that were part of the plight of the early Christians in the years following Christ’s death and beyond, even as Roman rule was pressed harder and their fledgling movement survived, miraculously, amidst the harshest waves of tyranny.

It also embraces their humanity. Currents of divinity still linger after Jesus’ ascent, but for the most part Jesus’ followers are forced to walk by faith. They must now live, for the first time, without concrete proof. This moment helps connect us with Peter, John, and their fellow disciples. Believers have long had to justify their faith, explain it, and live it without the concrete evidence that the world would have us provide. As Jesus’ first disciples scatter throughout the world to preach the gospel and cast their nets for men and women who will also take up their crosses, they are forced to rely on stories, on conviction, on faith. While they had made great sacrifices to follow him, this rabble-rouser who shattered years of Jewish tradition, they had at least had His physical presence with them. Now, without that physical presence -- even though they have the Holy Spirit with them -- we see their all-too-human vulnerability. They, like Jesus when confronted by the Sanhedrin, must detach themselves from the status quo, planting a seed that will thrive and grow but also demand their lives and their all.

Over the next several weeks, I encourage viewers to invest in the series as an act of faith that it can be an ever-extending platform for Christian values and theology on the small screen. Also, cherish the fact that you can turn to NBC on Sunday night and hear Jesus’ name used not with irony or as a throwaway curse, but with reverence. Too often Christians can feel victimized in a secular entertainment field that they believe cloisters and secludes them. Here, Christians have made their mark and believers and non-believers alike can enjoy the fascinating story of an integral part of history. So DVR whatever Sunday show is your preference and make sure that you watch “A.D.” Your viewership can show the network that stories like this are welcome on television.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Rachel McMillan is a novelist in Toronto. She blogs at A Fair Substitute for Heaven.