www site     

Link to us   
HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Monday, October 17, 2016

Paris: Thousands Rally Against "Family-Phobia" in France

By Rick Pearcey • October 17, 2016, 09:51 AM

According to CNSNews, "Tens of thousands of people marched in Paris this weekend to call for support" of human marriage and for the "repeal of a law allowing" that "family-phobic" counterfeit known as homosex "marriage."

For a critical thinker's assessment of significant difficulties intrinsic to the slogan "marriage equality," please see "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'."

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Man Who Wants to Marry Computer Files Lawsuit Against Kim Davis

By Rick Pearcey • July 13, 2016, 09:03 AM

"A federal lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for denying a man a license to marry his laptop computer," Eric Scheiner reports at CNSNews.com.

In other words, extremist secular society alienated by its idolatry from the blessings of love, meaning, facts, and humanity is a lot like computer programming: Insanity in, insanity out.

Monday, October 12, 2015

More Than 60 Legal Scholars Urge: Reject Supreme Court Homosex "Marriage" Opinion as Binding

By Rick Pearcey • October 12, 2015, 11:56 AM

At CNSNews.com:

A group of more than 60 legal scholars released a statement . . . calling on all federal and state officeholders not to accept the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision -- declaring a national right to same-same sex marriage -- as binding precedent.

One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. 

"We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is," said George. "We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court." 

What follows is the complete text of the statement


We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. 

The Court's majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court's own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional -- and sound -- methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity -- one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms. 

Justice Scalia refers to it as "a naked judicial claim to legislative
. . . power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."

Justice Thomas says the opinion "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority" as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action. 

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the "liberty" guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights "that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition," and that it is "beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights." He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to "the happiness of persons who choose to marry." He warns it will be used to "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy" and is yet another example of the "Court's abuse of its authority."

Chief Justice Roberts says "the Constitution leaves no doubt" that the majority's "pretentious" opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to "sully those on the other side of the debate" in an "entirely gratuitous" manner. 

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: 

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care. 

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union -- the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman -- will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy. 

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined. 

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, "The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers."

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, "Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession." If a decision "had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent." If, however, a decision is "wanting in all these claims to the public confidence," it is "not factious" to resist it. 

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States. 


We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court

We call on all federal and state officeholders: 

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: 

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as "settled" and "the law of the land" the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do. 

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Friday, September 4, 2015

Huckabee: Clerk Kim Davis and the "Criminalization of Christianity"

By Rick Pearcey • September 4, 2015, 08:57 AM

Cheryl Chumley reports at WND:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee . . . jumped directly into the jailing of Kim Davis -- the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant gay wedding licenses and is now behind bars -- and said Americans need to wake up to the "criminalization of Christianity" that's coursing through the country.

According to Chumley, among Huckabee's statements on this issue are:

"What a world, where Hillary Clinton isn't in jail but Kim Davis is."


"Government is not God. No man, and certainly no unelected law, has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God."

Homoesex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
"God's Authority": KY Clerk Refuses to Issue License for Phony Homosex "Marriage" After Losing High Court Fight

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Jindal Doubles Down on Freedom After Louisiana Religious Liberty Bill Defeated as Republicans Side With LGBT Activists

By Rick Pearcey • May 20, 2015, 03:08 PM

Todd Starnes writes:

Louisiana Republican lawmakers sided with Democrats, big business, and LGBT activists to kill a bill that would have protected individuals and religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage.

In doing so, lawmakers defied the objections of an overwhelmingly majority of voters and handed Gov. Bobby Jindal a significant defeat for his legislative agenda.

But Gov. Jindal responded by issuing an "Executive Order late Tuesday to protect religious liberty and prevent the state from discriminating against those with deeply held religious beliefs," Starnes writes in a story update.

"In Louisiana, the state should not be able to take adverse action against a person for their belief in traditional marriage," Jindal is quoted as saying.

"That’s why I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman," Jindal said, according to Starnes.

Comment: Jindal is right to protect the people of Louisiana from attempts by homosexualists to impose a counterfeit concept of marriage upon the body politic.

Such an imposition is profoundly hateful, inhumane, intolerant, and discriminatory.

And unwise.

For in both business and society, rejecting counterfeits is a sign of health, sanity, and common sense.

And just as it is right and humane to ethically discriminate against racism and slavery, even so it is right and humane to ethically discriminate against phony marriage and the authoritarianism that attends its fevered imposition.

All people, whether Christian or otherwise, ought to have the freedom to say no to counterfeits and to LGBT oppression, and to say yes to marriage and liberty in community with the verifiable Creator who is the source of both marriage and unalienable rights (for more, see the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

To be human is to be free. Not just in a church or prayer closet, but on campus, in business, in the boardroom, in the voting booth, whether civilian or military, and "to end of the earth," as the pro-human leader of the resistance once put it.

The scope of this calling even includes the State of Louisiana. If you want real "love without limits," this is it.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism, by Nancy Pearcey
Jindal on Hillary's Vision: "It Sounds Like Re-education Camps," by J. Richard Pearcey

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Rep. King Announces Bill to "Restrain the Judges on Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 23, 2015, 09:24 AM

Lauretta Brown reports at CNSNews.com:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a bill that would block the federal courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.

King discussed his on legislation on Capitol Hill Wednesday, saying that it "follows Constitutional principles" as outlined in Article 3, Section 2, which reads: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"King believes Congress has the authority to tell the federal courts they have no jurisdiction to hear any case on marriage," Brown reports.

"And we have the authority to prohibit any funding from being used to enforce or adjudicate any decision on marriage,” Kings is quoted as saying.

“Congress has the authority to establish all the federal courts, and we’re directed to establish one by the Constitution. That one is the Supreme Court. All the other federal courts are created by Congress at the discretion of Congress," King said, according to Brown.

What happens if King's proposal becomes law? "That would mean that the federal courts would no longer hear cases on marriage. They would revert back to the states, and the states then would define what marriage is, and most of the states have defined marriage between a man and a woman,” Brown quotes King as saying.

Comment: It should be noted that a) in speaking of courts and states "defining marriage," such governmental entities would be making merely legal definitions, and the b) such legal definitions may or may not be true to reality.

Clearly, if a court decides, or the voters of a state decide, that "marriage" allows, for example, that a U.S. president can "marry" a horse, it does not follow that marriage per se has been redefined.

Instead, what has happened is that a society has moved to a point where it cannot, or willfully refuses, to reject counterfeit "marriage" (between man and a man or a man and a horse, let us say) and the real thing (between one man and one woman).

Codifying a counterfeit never changes a sham into an actuality. "Homosex Marriage" is an oxymoronic sham of the first order. It has all the validity and purchase of Monoply money.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals

Monday, September 1, 2014

Farm Halts Weddings After Lesbian Tyrants Impose Their Private "Morality"

By Rick Pearcey • September 1, 2014, 08:21 AM

Breitbart reports:

Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in New York, used to rent out their farm so couples could get married on the grounds. They will no longer offer such services because the state ruled they had to violate their Christian beliefs and allow same-sex weddings on their property. 

"The state had fined the Giffords $13,000 when they refused to allow a lesbian couple, Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, to be married on their farm in 2012. The Giffords were against a wedding ceremony for the lesbian couple but said a wedding reception would be permissible," according to Breitbart.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Judge: Tenn. Ban on Homosex "Marriage" Is Constitutional

By Rick Pearcey • August 12, 2014, 11:10 AM

Michael Gryboski reports at Christian Post:

A judge has ruled that Tennessee's constitutional amendment banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage is legal, breaking a streak of judicial losses for the traditional marriage side.

Circuit Court Judge Russell E. Simmons Jr. ruled last week against the claim that the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"In 2006, Tennessee was one of multiple states in the U.S. to have a majority of voters approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage," Gryboski writes. "Known as Amendment 1, the ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly with 81 percent of voters in favor. In the same election cycle, Virginia, Wisconsin, South Dakota, South Carolina, Idaho and Colorado approved similar bans."

This win for marriage against its counterfeits is to be applauded. Tennesseans are right to protect marriage and family life, and judges who stand against homosexualist extremism are to be commended. 

The U.S. Constitution was drawn up and ratified to apply to governance and society the principles of freedom as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

That Declaration, as every schoolboy and schoolgirl ought to know, understands human freedom and dignity as rooted in unalienable rights from the Creator, who, it turns out, is also the same origin for the remarkable and liberating center of civil society known as marriage and family. 

The protection of marriage -- in Tennessee and elsewhere -- is the protection of human freedom and dignity against the ravages and discriminations of many kinds of barbarism, including that of the current faddish, but false and extremist, homosexualist movement.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Thursday, July 3, 2014

French Resistance Defeats LGBT Lobby

By Rick Pearcey • July 3, 2014, 07:37 AM

Parents in France are successfully revolting against the homosexualist indoctrination of their children in French schools, write Judith Reisman and Tom Hampson.

"Plans for homosexual marriage met with massive French opposition from the French people, and it looks like gender re-education has taken a major hit as well," say Reisman and Hampson at WND.

Update: 1.4 Million French March Against Homosex "Marriage" 
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

Monday, June 16, 2014

Nancy Pelosi Warns Catholic Bishop Not to March for Marriage

By Rick Pearcey • June 16, 2014, 09:27 AM

William Bigelow writes at Breitbart:

In an astonishing challenge to traditional Catholic doctrine, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nominally Catholic, has taken to telling San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that he should not attend the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. 

Cordileone is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the event, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which is consistent with his championing of Proposition 8 in 2008. Cordileone helped raise $1.5 million for the initiative, which intended to ban same-sex marriage in the state. He once said, "The ultimate attack of the evil one is the attack on marriage."

According to Breitbart, "Pelosi, who called the event 'venom masquerading as virtue,' wrote to Cordileone, 'We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco,' adding that the event would feature some participants displaying 'disdain and hate towards LGBT persons,' and asserting, 'If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?'

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals 
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Theaters Tonight: Nancy Pearcey in Encore Performance of "Irreplaceable"

By Rick Pearcey • May 15, 2014, 08:48 AM

"Due to the overwhelming response, Fathom Events has agreed to an encore performance for Thursday May 15th at 7:30 p.m.," Pearcey Report editor at large and "movie star" Nancy Pearcey writes on her Facebook page.

Here's our first posting in Pro-Existence on this project.

To buy tickets and find locations for tonight's event, please click here

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Quack! Earth Needs Men Who Stare Ducks and Women 
Brazil, in Portuguese: Nancy Pearcey on Homosex "Marriage" Opening Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Fireproof -- Reel Rebel Upsets Tinseltown Stereotypes

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Banned Benham Brothers Will Let "Free Market" Decide Fate of TV Show

By Rick Pearcey • May 14, 2014, 09:03 AM

Ken McIntyre and Alissa Tabirian write at The Foundry:

Twin brothers whose Christian beliefs on marriage and the sanctity of life got their real estate show canceled by a cable network before it ever aired say they’re open to other TV offers if "the free market" will allow it.

Pressure generated by a left-wing website led to HGTV’s dropping Flip It Forward, the show that was to feature David and Jason Benham. The unstated reason: One or both twins expressed what they consider Bible-based views in support of marriage as a man-woman union and in opposition to abortion on demand.

Now, though, one or more other networks could make a play for the Benham brothers, according to The Hollywood Reporter. A dispatch by Paul Bond identifies INSP -- a "traditional values" television outlet that reaches 75 million household -- as one suitor.

Comment (updated, from my Facebook page):  

I would like to see this show make it to the air. The Benham brothers have been attacked for remaining true to marriage (as opposed to marriage counterfeits) and respectful of all humans (even the preborn!).

Their views are consistent with science, biology, the Declaration of Independence (unalienable rights), and sound ethics rooted in verifiable information from a knowable Creator who welcomes questions and dialogue from free-thinking human beings.

Unfortunately, homosexual activists and their allies are so into their agenda that they have abandoned the rules of freedom in pursuit of what they want.

Not surprisingly, having abandoned the rules of freedom, homosexualists now impose unfreedom -- they oppress, silence, castigate, and condemn.

Not exactly "gay," if you ask me. More like victimizer than victim, if you ask me.

A people of freedom and dignity questions this.

In the face of such rage and ugliness, yes, we ask questions.

Intelligence revolts.

Quack! Earth Needs Men Who Stare at Ducks and Women 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Poll: Republican Voters Overwhelmingly Support Marriage

By Rick Pearcey • April 23, 2014, 10:36 AM

Dustin Siggins reports at LifeSiteNews:

Republican voters continue to be at odds with many party leaders and donors on the issue of marriage, a new national poll shows.

Over three-quarters of GOP voters support marriage being kept between a man and a woman, according to the poll, released last week by the Family Research Council and American Values.

The release came a few days after the Nevada GOP decided to drop support for marriage from its platform, and in Illinois six of seven state party committee members were replaced after they pushed back against a former chairman's support for same-sex "marriage." 

Alabama Democrat: OK With a Man Marrying a Mule 
"Marriage Equality" Spells "Marriage Extinction"
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist" 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Monday, April 14, 2014

"Long-Trusted" Christian Publisher Planning Pro-Homosexual Book

By Rick Pearcey • April 14, 2014, 11:00 AM

Matt Barber writes at Barbwire:

WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group is planning to release, through its liberal imprint Convergent Books, a manuscript titled God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.

Is the Christian world about to suffer through another World Vision moment?

The book’s author, Matthew Vines is a homosexual activist and Bible revisionist known for manipulating Christian terminology to advance the counter-Christian homosexualist agenda.

Despite his frequent use of a Christian-like lexicon, Vines surprisingly admits to running an apostate enterprise that he calls The Reformation Project.

"An unabashed denier of Biblical teaching on sexual morality, Vines has publicly acknowledged that his goal is to 'reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity'," Barber writes. "The book is scheduled to be published on April 22, 2014."

If I may, here is another title Multnomah might consider publishing: God and Atheism: The Biblical Case in Support of the Non-Existence of Yahweh. 

There is no doubt a twenty-something author out there willing to assert that when the Bible says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1), what is being given is culturally conditioned by ancient thought-forms in a temporal milieu shaped by the struggle for human liberation and survival against a plethora of gods and goddesses evoked by privileged elites of wealth and power. 

Further study of the living text reveals what it actually means is: "The wise man says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" 

Thus is achieved a "third way" of church reformation that transcends old dichotomies of existence and non-existence. Thus, the Bible liberates human beings from all idolatry! How cool and affirming is that! I mean, how can there be idolatry is there are no gods whatsoever?

O the joy that "honors scripture" and "those who are different." And O the wonder of being released from the shadows of idolatry!

On the other hand, April 22, 2014, may go down in Multnomah history as the date marking the decline and fall of a once-trusted Christian publisher. Time, and the choices people make in the next days and weeks, will tell. Meanwhile, intelligence revolts.

Alabama Democrat: OK With a Man Marrying a Mule 
Video: Compilation of Anti-Marriage Homofascist Violence 
Pink Is the New Brown: Mozilla, Homofascism, and the Pink Swastika
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Friday, April 11, 2014

Alabama Democrat: OK With a Man Marrying a Mule

By Rick Pearcey • April 11, 2014, 10:43 AM

"That's fine with me," said state representative Alvin Holmes on WVAS radio. "It doesn't bother me any kind of way."

Mr. Holmes also expressed his support for homosex "marriage."

Read the news story at The Blaze.

Here is audio of the interview (Holmes makes his mule comments near the 3:50 mark).

"Marriage Equality" Spells "Marriage Extinction"
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist" 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Video: Compilation of Anti-Marriage Homofascist Violence

By Rick Pearcey • April 9, 2014, 10:24 AM

The video Attacked by "Tolerance" is produced by a group called Tradition, Family, and Property.

"Will CNN and MSNBC run this footage?" ask a TFP spokesman as the video concludes.

"Probably not," he answers. "So please share it with your friends."

Pink Is the New Brown: Mozilla, Homofascism, and the Pink Swastika 
Fascism Is Back
Concentration of Power: Hitler, Mao, Obama -- How Decent People Make Terror Possible 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Furor at Catholic High School After Nun Presents Church Teaching on Homosexuality

By Rick Pearcey • April 3, 2014, 11:21 AM

Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews:

A North Carolina Roman Catholic school [held a meeting April 2] to address the concerns of parents and students who say they are outraged about remarks a visiting nun made criticizing homosexuality, divorce, and sex outside of marriage during a recent speech.

Dominican Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, who often speaks to high school and college-age students on matters of sexuality, gave an hour-long presentation to students at Charlotte Catholic High School on March 21 called "Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift." School officials told the Catholic News Herald she spent about half her allotted time discussing homosexuality, blaming its rising influence in part on fatherless homes created by divorce and extramarital sex. . . .

Although the Catholic Church has always held both homosexual behavior and sex outside of marriage to be gravely sinful, students and parents at the Catholic school reacted to her remarks with shock and anger, launching both an online petition and a letter-writing campaign calling the sister’s words "offensive and unnecessarily derogatory."

"Not all students were upset by the nun’s presentation," LifeSiteNews reports. "A group of students who adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality have launched a counter-petition condemning the protesters’ actions. 'We are outraged that the topics talked about are being debated within a community where the shared faith teaches us what truly is holy and that anyone would stand up against a nun, who has given her life for the Lord, and blantly [sic] deny God's teachings,' the petition reads."

Obama OKs Killing Unborn in Notre Dame Speech 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals 
Quack! Earth Needs Men Who Stare at Ducks and Women

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Legal Expert Calls for Mozilla Boycott After CEO Apologizes for Backing Marriage

By Rick Pearcey • April 1, 2014, 11:38 AM

Thaddeus Baklinski reports at LifeSiteNews:

A noted Catholic academic and leading marriage defender is calling for a boycott of tech company Mozilla after homosexualist pressure from inside and outside the company led newly-appointed CEO Brendan Eich to apologize for previously supporting true marriage and pledge his "active commitment to equality."

Eich had contributed $1,000 in 2008 to support California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that opposed same-sex "marriage."

"The employees of Mozilla evidently think that people like me, and perhaps you, are not morally fit to be employees of their company," wrote Dr. Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence, whom the NY Times called America’s "most influential conservative Christian thinker."

"I have just deleted Mozilla Firefox from my computer," writes Dr. George, according to LifeSiteNews. "If I'm not morally fit to be their employee, I'm not morally fit to use their products."

Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend: Surprising Help From Secular America

Friday, March 28, 2014

World Vision Homosex "Marriage" Fiasco: Is an Apology Enough?

By Rick Pearcey • March 28, 2014, 09:09 AM

Here are a few responses to World Vision's reversal of its "decision to hire 'married' homosexuals."

In "World Vision Withdraws From the Brink," Mark Tooley at American Spectator writes, "Kudos to World Vision for relatively quickly rediscovering its doctrinal and intestinal fortitude. . . . Groups like World Vision will need double doses of such warming fortitude in the cold, secularist Winter ahead."

Not so fast, writes Bryan Fischer in an article titled "An Apology Is Not Enough -- World Vision Needs to Clean House," published at BarbWire. "This is not the end of testing for World Vision but the beginning," Fischer writes. "They had better make sure they have leaders who are up to the task. Right now, they don’t."

Also, I stated on Facebook: "The mere fact that World Vision has people in leadership anywhere close to thinking in this manner raises significant questions about the group's understanding, ethos, staffing, and direction."

In addition:

Whether with prodigals or with organizations, forgiveness and long-suffering are always in order. Legitimate concerns about forgiveness, etc., are issues separate from what should or should not happen structurally at a place such as World Vision in the aftermath of such a debacle.

As for "guts" and "showing fidelity," etc., there are other explanations that account for their quick reversal. The threat of massive donor pullout, for example. . . .

I, for one, would prefer a leadership who have demonstrated an understanding that the Lordship of Christ applies holistically across all of life -- to content and to methods.

Being clueless about the issue of marriage in the face of today's cultural breakdown is stunning, to say the least.

"A loss of funding may be the least of the organization's problems," I concluded earlier in Pro-Existence.

Nancy Pearcey: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Boycott: Evangelicals Blast World Vision Decision to Hire People in Homosex "Marriages" 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Supreme Court Halts Homosex "Marriage" in Utah

By Rick Pearcey • January 7, 2014, 08:55 AM

Dustin Siggins reports at LifeSiteNews.com:

In a shock to homosexual activists, the Supreme Court halted all same-sex "marriages" in Utah on Monday morning.

The state began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples last month after Judge Robert Shelby's ruling that Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the U.S. Constitution. However, last week, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes asked the Supreme Court to "stay" Judge Shelby's decision until the state's appeal makes its way through the courts. 

"The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless," said National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown in a statement released yesterday. NOM is "pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion."

"If Shelby's decision is upheld, that would make Utah the ninth state where gay 'marriage' has been legalized by judicial decree, out of the 18 states that recognize such unions," according to LifeSiteNews. "Voters in the majority-Mormon state voted to uphold traditional marriage in 2004."

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

New South Wales Rejects Homosex "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • November 20, 2013, 10:46 AM

Thaddeus Baklinski reports at LifeSiteNews:

Members of the State Legislative Council of New South Wales, Australia voted earlier this week by a narrow margin of 21 to 19 to uphold the true meaning of marriage.

"It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist," said lesbian and journalist Masha Gessen at the Syndey Writers Festival in June 2012.

"That causes my brain some trouble," Gessen went on to say. "And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there -- because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."

For more on Gessen's remarks, please go here

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"

Friday, October 11, 2013

NJ Senate Race: Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Lonegan vs. Pro-Abortion Homosexualist Booker

By Rick Pearcey • October 11, 2013, 09:12 AM

LifeSiteNews.com reports:

When New Jersey voters go to the polls Wednesday to elect their new U.S. Senator, they won’t have to wonder what the candidates think about abortion or same-sex “marriage.”

In a political climate that has seen many campaigns minimize controversial social issues in favor of popular fiscal catchphrases like “job creation” and “tax reform,” candidates Cory Booker (D) and Steve Lonegan (R) have taken the opposite approach, exchanging frequent verbal blows about social issues ranging from gay adoption to partial birth abortion.

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Massive Marriage Penalties Imposed by Obamacare Exchanges

By Nancy Pearcey • October 1, 2013, 09:03 AM

Hans Bader writes at OpenMarket.org, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:  

On the Obamacare health insurance exchanges, being married can cost you a lot.

Get divorced (or avoid getting married, if you live together), and you save $7,230 per year if you are a fairly typical 40-year-old couple with kids (example: the husband working full-time, and the wife working part-time, with the husband making $70,000, and the wife making $23,000).

If you are a 60-year-old couple with equal incomes and no kids, and you make $62,041 a year, you save $11,028 a year by getting divorced or remaining unmarried.

These are the amounts of money you will lose if you get married, since you will lose this amount of taxpayer subsidies due to Obamacare’s discriminatory treatment of married versus unmarried couples.

That’s the reality confirmed by an Obamacare “calculator” provided by the pro-Obamacare Kaiser Family Foundation showing how Obamacare’s “tax credits” work.

This calculator is not designed to make Obamacare look bad: Indeed, it has been touted by Obama’s own proxies at BarackObama.com, known as Organizing for Action: “In a September 13 email, Erin Hannigan of Organizing for Action’s ‘Truth Team’ bragged about” this cool calculator showing how Obamacare’s “tax credits” work, and encouraged everyone to “share it on Facebook or Twitter.”

HT: Wintery Knight

Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
Nordstrom Decides to Stomp on Marriage 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Friday, June 28, 2013

Rand Paul: Marriage Not a Defining Issue

By Rick Pearcey • June 28, 2013, 09:45 AM

Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews:

Senator Rand Paul told ABC News on Wednesday that he agreed with the Supreme Court decision striking down a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that he believes marriage should be regulated by states, not the federal government. He praised the author of the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for trying to "keep up with opinion" on the issue and said that members of the Republican Party would have to "agree to disagree" on the definition of marriage.

Paul, who is widely expected to be a top contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said that he felt Justice Kennedy's majority opinion "tried to strike a balance" and praised Kennedy as "someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion. . . .

"As a country, we can agree to disagree," said Paul.

Sen. Paul’s spokesman, Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com on Thursday that, while Paul personally believes in "traditional marriage between one man and one woman," he also "believes the issue is a state issue and not a federal one."

Rand Paul is wrong on this. Marriage is not a personal issue about which one may disagree or about which the nation can agree to disagree.

Rather, the verifiable Creator has given objective publicly actionable information regarding the pre-government ontic status of marriage, and neither Rand Paul, the individual states, nor the federal government has the authority to alter this unalienable institution of society, which is also an ontic fact of life. This I assert not religiously as a matter of private belief (which is the false secular dumbed-down notion of "faith") but rather humanly and Biblically as a matter of fact grounded in the real world, just as the avant-garde Founders moved forward on the basis of the publicly actionable verifiable truth communicated by the Creator (see, for example, the Declaration of Independence).

Of course, through sheer power, human beings can try to redefine marriage. But the reality of marriage per se does not change just because arrogant human beings ascribe to themselves the authority of Deity or the power to alter the liberating constants of the universe.

Societies indeed can transform themselves by "reimagining" the definition of marriage. But then those societies are ripe for social disintegration and massive governmental control to avoid total collapse. Slavery seems a high price to buy the extremist line about "marriage equality."

When I liberate a plant from soil, it dies. A nation liberated from the soil of freedom can look alive for a while, but it dies, too. Of course, extremists can agitate for such "liberation" in the name of any number of issues, including "marriage equality," but the trajectory and unfortunate outcome remain the same.

Rand Paul has harmed his chances to win the 2016 GOP nomination for president. Americans who desire a full-bodied advance on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights would do well to press Paul on this matter -- and simultaneously to look elsewhere for more sure champions of human freedom and dignity.

Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

NFL MVP: Homosex "Marriage" . . . "Not Something I Believe In"

By Rick Pearcey • May 29, 2013, 10:22 AM

Eric Scheiner reports at CNSNews.com:

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson says when it comes to gay marriage, "That's not something I believe in."

Peterson made his comments in an interview Sunday with Bruce Murray and Amani Toomer of Sirius/XM NFL radio. The NFL MVP was discussing former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, an advocate for gay rights and gay marriage, who was recently cut from the team.

Adrian Peterson stands in good company. The facts of biology, the liberating norms for healthy human sexuality, and the Creator himself support the pro-marriage stance Peterson has vocalized. 

Cults of religion and politics that discriminate against male-female diversity, that are intolerant of holistic family life, and which hate the verifiable Creator -- who is the center of gravity for human freedom and human dignity (see the Declaration of Independence) -- will no doubt rant and rave about what really is merely Peterson's reaffirmation of the mainstream and humane position on real marriage, in contradistinction to its homosexualist counterfeit.

Let the extremists throw their fits. Free-thinkers follow the facts. Truth and love triumph over fear and hate and authoritarian political agendas. Well done, Mr. Peterson.

Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"

Friday, May 17, 2013

Brazilians Fight Back as Regulatory Agency Tries to Impose Homosex "Marriage" on Entire Country

By Rick Pearcey • May 17, 2013, 10:19 AM

LifeSiteNews.com reports:

Brazilian pro-family politicians have announced that they will fight a decree issued by the country’s National Council of Justice (CNJ) that orders all of Brazil’s registrars to accept applications for homosexual "marriage" and threatens them with legal action if they refuse.

The decree, which was issued on May 14, claims to implement a 2011 decision by the country’s Supreme Federal Tribunal, which ruled that homosexual unions are eligible to be registered as "stable unions," similar to common-law marriages in Anglophone countries.

However, parliamentarians from the Social Christian Party and other pro-family representatives are crying foul, pointing out that the Tribunal’s decision does not mention "marriage." They say they intend to file suit with the Tribunal against the CNJ to nullify the decree.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals 

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Blaze Reports on Lesbian's "Surprisingly Candid Speech" on Homosex "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 30, 2013, 11:52 AM

In an article titled, "Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a 'Lie' to Destroy Marriage," Mike Opelka writes at The Blaze:

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry -- it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the "traditional family."

We noted Ms. Gessen's remarks in August 2012, in a Pro-Existence post titled, "Pro-Same-Sex 'Marriage' Lesbian: 'Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist.'"

Ms. Gessen's remarks are also commented upon March 13 of this year in "The Revolt of Intellience Against 'Marriage Equality," published at The Pearcey Report and American Thinker.

I'm encouraged to see this information made available to another circle of readers. It was also discussed on the Glenn Beck radio show yesterday.

Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals

Friday, April 26, 2013

Colombian Senate Overwhelmingly Rejects Homosexual "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 26, 2013, 07:05 AM

Matthew Hoffman reports at LifeSiteNews:

The Senate of Colombia voted down a bill to create homosexual "marriage" yesterday by an overwhelming majority of 51-17, with 32 senators either not present or abstaining.

The defeat of the bill means that it will not pass to the lower Chamber of Deputies, and is effectively dead. However, the country is rapidly approaching a deadline set by the Constitutional Court in a July 2011 ruling requiring homosexual couples to be given benefits similar to those associated with marriage.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Homosexual "Couple" Accused of Raping Adopted Boys

By Rick Pearcey • April 13, 2013, 10:19 AM

"The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial," Erik Oritz reports at the New York Daily News.

Hat Tip: Matt Barber

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Brazil, in Portuguese: Nancy Pearcey on Homosex "Marriage" Opening Door to "Unlimited Statism"

By Rick Pearcey • April 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

On March 29, we published at Pro-Existence Nancy's remarks, "Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex 'Marriage' Opens Door to 'Unlimited Statism'."

It's terrific to report that her observations now appear in Portuguese at this website in Brazil.

Thank you (obridado!) Jorge Alberto for translating Nancy's column -- and a hat tip to our São Paulo and Mackenzie University friend Mauro Meister for posting on Facebook.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Aquila Report Features "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'"

By Rick Pearcey • April 3, 2013, 12:10 PM

Here's the link. Also, don't miss "Ten Reasons Why 'Same-Sex Marriage' Affects Your Marriage," also at The Aquila Report.

Son of Lesbian in Paris: Meet the "Gay" Police State
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"

Monday, April 1, 2013

Keller: "I Do Not" Support Legalizing Homosex "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 1, 2013, 05:56 PM

Keller writes:

In explaining the Anabaptist tradition, I was quoted saying, "You can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal." I did say that -- but it was purely a statement of fact. It is possible to hold that position, though it isn't my position, nor was I promoting or endorsing the position. I was simply reporting on the growth of that view.

"I can see how some readers might be confused at these points
. . . and think that I support the legalization of same-sex marriage. I do not. I hope that clarifies things for those of you who asked about this article," Keller writes.

Rev. Tim Keller "Deluded" on Legalization of Homosex "Marriage"
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Rev. Tim Keller "Deluded" on Legalization of Homosex "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 1, 2013, 05:12 PM

Erick Erickson wrote March 28 at RedState:

1,980 years ago tomorrow, the world put God on trial. When offered a choice, the world surrendered up God to be tortured, crucified, and killed and asked that Pontius Pilate free the criminal Barabbas instead.

There is no compromise between Christ and the world. Young evangelicals, complacent in the United States and unharassed, would do wise to remember this.

Tim Keller, a noted preacher in my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America), made news yesterday when he talked about evangelicals coming to terms with gay marriage. In particular he said that "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal."

"Young evangelicals have bought into the notion that by proclaiming the standards of the Bible they are judging," Erickson continues. "They seek accommodation and given tacit approval to sin lest they be accused of judging or casting stones."

In fact, Erickson counters, "There is no accommodation on this issue with the world. Young evangelicals, Tim Keller, and the rest are deluded if they think they can seek a compromise with the world."

Erickson began his column by quoting Jesus' unflinching affirmation that "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).

Erickson concludes: "Mammon chose Barabbas and too many young evangelicals are choosing Mammon."

My recommendation: Join "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'." 

Hat tip: Matt Barber

Son of Lesbian in Paris: Meet the "Gay" Police State 
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Son of Lesbian in Paris: Meet the "Gay" Police State

By Rick Pearcey • March 30, 2013, 12:54 PM

Robert Oscar Lopez writes:

On March 24, 2013, as I stood with other speakers waiting to take the stage at Paris's "manif pour tous" against homosexual marriage, I saw tear gas sail through the air at a crowd of peaceful protesters.    

Children, elderly people, and elected officials were hit by the gas. Christine Boutin, the president of a major political party, passed out. Some videos showing what happened are posted on my blog here. . . .

The images of a police force, commanded by a gay Socialist mayor (Bernard Delanoe), shooting tear gas at children was worse than the imagery of Lt. Pike pepper-spraying college students in Davis, and worse, I would say, than the Jim Crow police force using dogs and water hoses on black children during the famous protests led by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. . . .

Having spent so many years in the gay community, I found myself falling into an emotional nadir as violence marred events, both in Brussels and Paris. In both cases, it was the side militating for gay parenting that used physical intimidation: a combination of riled street thugs and armed riot police, the deadly cocktail of "unofficial" and "official" violence that characterizes the dynamics of so many police states. . . . 

"Whatever becomes of same-sex marriage in the United States," Lopez concludes, "the gay movement poses a much longer-term problem. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation, but rather an ideology. The LGBT movement is not a community, but rather a political machine. . . .  [I]t is the face of an ancient urge which must always be resisted: the lust for power and domination."

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Friday, March 29, 2013

Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism"

By Nancy Pearcey • March 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

Editor's note: While the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8 this week, apologists for homosexual "marriage" ask how such an arrangement poses any harm to society. In fact, very much is at stake, and negatively so, for the individual person and for society at large, as Nancy Pearcey demonstrates below, in remarks published in 2011, prior to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

The conservative coalition has always been unstable. And homosexuality may be the issue on which it shatters.

Several groups have announced that they will boycott next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because of its decision to invite the pro-homosexual activist group GOProud to participate.

Dissenting groups include the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, The American Principles Project, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.

Not all conservatives support the boycott. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey opines that by pulling out, social conservatives create the perception "that they don’t even want to debate their position on homosexuality."

At Commentary, Peter Wehner says that these groups could give the impression "that they do not have the arguments needed to win on the merits."

Unfortunately, too many Americans already have that impression -- especially younger voters. A 2009 Pew study found that 58 percent of young adults 18 to 29 years old support same-sex "marriage," compared to 39 percent of the population nationwide.

By voting with their feet, however, social conservatives are not giving up, they are taking a public stand -- which creates a forum to make their case more effectively. They should take this opportunity to argue that the practice of homosexuality has a negative impact not just on the family but also on individuals -- that it expresses a profound disrespect for a person’s biological identity.

Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. The male sexual and reproductive anatomy is obviously designed for a relationship with a female, and vice versa.

Homosexual practice thus requires individuals to contradict their own biology. It disconnects a person’s sexuality from his or her biological identity as male or female -- which exerts a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.

And the logic of alienation will not stop there. Already the acceptance of same-sex relationships is metastasizing into a postmodern notion of sexuality as fluid and changing over time.

For example, an article in the Utne Reader highlights individuals who came out of the closet as homosexual, but were later attracted to heterosexual relationships again. The article quotes psychotherapist Bret Johnson explaining that people today "don’t want to fit into any boxes -- not gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual ones." Instead "they want to be free to change their minds."

What we’re seeing, Johnson concludes, is "a challenge to the old, modernist way of thinking 'This is who I am, period' and a movement toward a postmodern version, 'This is who I am right now.'"

In other words, yesterday I was straight, today I may be homosexual, and tomorrow I could be bisexual. One’s psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux.

In the past, homosexuals employed the defense that they were born that way. But now they are beginning to embrace the postmodern idea that you can be anything you want to be along a sexual continuum.

This contradicts conservatism at its philosophical core. Conservatism bases human rights on the recognition that there are certain non-negotiable givens in human nature, prior to the state, which the state is obligated to respect.

As political scientist Philippe Beneton explains, in conservatism, equality "is grounded in the recognition of what is human." By contrast, in liberalism, equality "is founded on the claim that nothing is specifically human" -- that human nature itself is a social construction, something we make up as we go along, including our psychosexual identity.

In that case, however, there is nothing in the individual that is given, which the state is therefore obligated to respect. Liberalism undermines the basis for inalienable human rights.

The CPAC walkout is a chance to highlight what is at stake. Jesse Hathaway at NewsReal Blog defends CPAC, saying, "I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me."

But it does affect him -- and everyone else. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it -- all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.

If America accepts practices such as same-sex "marriage," in the process it will absorb the accompanying worldview -- the redefinition of human personhood as a purely social construction -- which opens the door to unlimited statism, because there is no human nature that an oppressive state could possibly offend.

Those who resist will be compelled by the state to go along, or face penalties for "discrimination."

Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Instead of caving on this issue, the leaders of CPAC should be vigorously advancing the core arguments of conservatism. Not just to win the vote but to preserve the foundation of the American republic.

Note: This column first appeared in The Daily Caller.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"  
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals

By Nancy Pearcey • March 28, 2013, 08:57 AM

Editor's Note: Nancy Pearcey's analysis below seems to have particular relevance now that the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8:

The ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down Proposition 8 raises a host of issues that go far beyond the California case. Especially troubling is Walker’s view of gender. His ruling makes the sweeping assertion that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

This declaration is being quoted in astonishment for its sheer breathtaking exaggeration. Yet it reveals a pivotal element in the liberal view of human sexuality.

Liberal ethics is based on a fragmented view of the human being that pits biology against choice. Its roots go back to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, who proposed that the body is a machine controlled by a completely separate thing called the mind. The ghost in the machine.

As philosopher Daniel Dennett explains, “Since Descartes in the 17th century we have had a vision of the self as a sort of immaterial ghost that owns and controls a body the way you own and control your car.” In other words, the body is no longer regarded as an integral part of the human person but as sub-personal, functioning strictly on the level of biology and chemistry -- almost like a possession that can be used to serve the self’s desires.

This is the philosophy that underlies arguments for same-sex “marriage.” The assumption is that our bodies have nothing to do with our identity as persons. And that, therefore, anatomy can be overridden by sheer self-expressive choice.

The denigration of physical anatomy does not stop with same-sex “marriage.” The cutting edge issue today is transgenderism, a movement that rejects the distinction between male and female itself as a mere social construction -- and an oppressive one at that.

According to the New York Times, several universities now offer separate bathrooms, housing and sports teams for transgender students who do not identify themselves as either male or female. Some schools no longer require students to check male or female on their health forms. Instead, they are asked to “describe your gender identity history." In other words: Which genders have you been over the course of your lifetime?

Gender has become a postmodern concept -- fluid, free-floating, completely detached from physical anatomy.

Several states have already passed laws mandating that schools and workplaces accommodate transgenders, and supporters are pushing hard for the same laws at the national level. In 2007, California passed a law requiring schools to permit transgender students to use the restroom or locker room of their preferred gender, regardless of their anatomical sex. The new law redefines sex as socially constructed gender: “Gender means sex and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

Note the assumption that your sex is “assigned” to you, as though it were purely arbitrary instead of an anatomical fact. The law is being used to impose a secular liberal worldview that dismisses physical anatomy as insignificant, inconsequential and completely irrelevant to gender identity.

As I show in Saving Leonardo, this represents a devastatingly disrespectful view of the physical body. It alienates people from their own bodies, treating anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity. No dignity is accorded to the unique capabilities inherent in being male or female.

Ironically, Christians are often dismissed as prudes and Puritans because of their “repressive” sexual morality -- and yet the Christian worldview actually affirms a much higher view of the body than the liberal, utilitarian view. It offers the radically positive affirmation that the material world was created by God, that it will ultimately be made whole by God and that God was actually incarnated (made flesh) in a human body.

In the ancient world, these claims were so astonishing that the Gnostics rejected them, and tried to turn Jesus into an avatar who only appeared to have a human body. They could not accept the idea of a Creator who celebrates our material, biological, sexual nature.

Today’s liberal elites such as Judge Walker may pose as enlightened liberators, but in fact they are secular Gnostics, treating physical anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity or purpose. In an unexpected twist of history, it is once again Christians who are defending a high and holistic view of the human person.

Note: This analysis originally appeared in WND.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Minnesota Lawmakers: Let 6 Adults Claim "Biological Parentage of the Same Child"

By Nancy Pearcey • March 27, 2013, 01:10 PM

Ryan MacPherson writes at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

As the cliché would have it, "You can’t legislate morality." But some Minnesota lawmakers think they can legislate biology instead.

The interaction of two bills introduced in the Legislature this session defies the facts of Biology 101.

A "biological parent," as crafted in SF370 and SF925, would no longer include only the birth mother and the man who got her pregnant, but potentially six persons. (emphasis added)

The Legislature’s proposed allowance for up to six adults to claim biological parentage of the same child takes the marriage debate to a new level.

No longer will people be asking whether every child has the right to a mom and a dad -- or whether same-sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples.

Now a child can have up to six persons whom the law will recognize as "presumptive biological parents."

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
The "Gay" Anti-Science 
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist" 

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Update: 1.4 MILLION French March Against Homosex "Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • March 26, 2013, 10:11 AM

Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits has the story at Lifesitenews.com. Smits "directly witnessed the events that took place during this extraodinary event. She confirms the enormous numbers claimed by organizers," and she "reports on many aspects either ignored or distorted by French and other media," according to Lifesitenews. 

Here is video of the protest in Paris.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marraige Equality" 
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

Saturday, March 23, 2013

"Marriage Equality" Spells "Marriage Extinction"

By Rick Pearcey • March 23, 2013, 02:08 PM

In his most recent column, Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action writes:

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law. 

Will the high court revolt on behalf of intelligence against "marriage equality"?

Will the justices assert a critical distance that allows them to see beyond the well-practiced PR boom-boom and recognize, as I wrote last week, "that the kind of 'equality' promoted in 'marriage equality' is alien in theory, and inferior in results, to the genuinely liberating concept of 'created equal' we find in planted in the Declaration of Independence?"

Or will they lose perspective and fail to realize, as Barber notes, that the "fierce push for 'gay marriage' has nothing to do with 'marriage equality' and everything to do with 'marriage extinction'"?

The Supreme Court may find it of interest that lesbian journalist Masha Gessen signaled the real endame of "marriage equality" during a conference last summer in Sydney, Australia.

"It's a no-brainer," she said, "that the institution of marriage should not exist."

We can honestly posit that Gessen holds her views sincerely. And yet, however she holds them, they reflect a personal attachment to what ultimately is an arbitrary and relativistic approach to marriage.

It is a counterfeit complaining about the authentic, the spurious complaining about the injustice of the genuine.

And if U.S. justices follow her lead, the result will not be law, but legalized anarchy enforced by legalized crime.

If yesterday crime "was put on trial," warns Albert Camus, "today it determines the law." That is regress, not progress; reactionary, not humanitarian.

The revolt of intelligence says Masha Gessen is welcome to her private feelings but that she, and others who share her sentiments, should refrain from trying to impose them upon the rest of us. That would be intolerant, oppressive, and profoundly discriminatory.

Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
"Gay" Totalitarianism

Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

Thursday, March 21, 2013

MN Legislators Can’t Answer Child’s Question: "Which Parent Do I Not Need -- Mom or My Dad?"

By Rick Pearcey • March 21, 2013, 05:24 PM

Fred Lucas reports at CNSNews:

Minnesota state legislators considering a same-sex "marriage" bill for the state did not have an answer to an 11-year-old girl’s question on which parent is not needed.

"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Grace Evans, 11, said before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law last week. "I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need -- my mom or my dad?"

"She paused for eight seconds as the legislators on the committee sat silent," CNSNews reports. "Evans then said, 'I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need -- my mom or my dad?' She paused again, this time for 13 seconds of silence from state lawmakers."

And then the brave Minnesota lawmakers struck silent by the question of an 11-year-old "voted in favor of the gay 'marriage' bill and sent it to the full House."

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
Ending Regressive Public Education
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Be Glad Portman's Son Isn't a Serial Killer

By Rick Pearcey • March 19, 2013, 03:04 PM

Joseph Farah writes at WND:

I’ve heard some wacky excuses by politicians for changing their minds on some of the most important moral issues facing American, but Ohio Sen. Rob Portman’s rationale for flip-flopping on same-sex marriage takes the proverbial wedding cake.

In case you haven’t heard, his son is a homosexual.

"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married," Portman wrote in a commentary published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch.

I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman’s son didn’t choose to become a polygamist or a serial killer.

I have no doubt Rob Portman is sincere in his newfound opinion.

However, that’s all it is -- an opinion.

And opinions don’t determine what is right and what is wrong. Opinions don’t determine what is sinful and what is not sinful. Opinions don’t determine what is truth and what is a lie.

The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"
Pope Francis on Homo-Sex "Marriage": "A Move of the Father of Lies," "A Total Rejection of God's Law"
Coalition of Black Pastors Targeting Counterfeit Homosex "Marriage"