December 5th, 2010 by M. French

The Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad app has been pulled from the Apple Store because gay activists had been complaining that it was ‘homophobic.’ According to the Manhattan Declaration site:

The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning it contained no objectionable material. Yet Apple pulled the app shortly after a small but very vocal protest by those who favor gay marriage and abortion. These groups claim that the Manhattan Declaration promotes “homophobia” and that its supporters are “anti-gay.”

A recent show from the Line of Fire with Dr. Michael Brown focused on the issue, and included a look into the hypocrisy of Apple’s stance. Click here to listen.

Sign the petition to Steve Jobs, Apple, Inc., to restore the Manhattan Declaration App by clicking here.


Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in News, Revolution & Justice Tagged with: , , , , ,

August 8th, 2010 by M. French

On Wednesday, August 4th, a federal judge in California struck down Proposition 8, a voter-approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions in the state.  The Alliance Defense Fund will appeal the decision:

Attorneys representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.  Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8.

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process–especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision.  Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said.  “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it.  What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”


Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , ,

March 22nd, 2010 by M. French


Tags: , , ,

Posted in Life & Family, News Tagged with: , , ,

February 24th, 2010 by M. French

It’s a wonder this ad ever saw the light of day, given the incredibly controversial message it sends (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). From CitizenLink:

The NCAA took a Focus on the Family ad off of its Web site after homosexual activists complained.

The print ad shows a father holding his young son. It’s titled:

Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life.

And the picture is captioned:

All I want for my son is for him to grow up knowing how to do the right thing.

The activists claimed Focus was too controversial for being pro-life, and in favor of one-man, one-woman marriage. They said that runs counter to the NCAA’s policies.

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of ministry communications at Focus on the Family, said he was “befuddled” by the NCAA’s decision.

“Have we really become a society where it’s considered distasteful and controversial for a dad to hope the best for his son?” he said. “If so, we have a lot of soul-searching to do as a nation.”


Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in Life & Family, News Tagged with: , , , , ,

February 6th, 2010 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org

The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning “Don’t ask don’t tell” contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement.

Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. He said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

Lie about who they are?

Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that’s who they are.

The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It’s not a social experiment and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREEHaving served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.

More could be said, but I want to zero in on the fatal flaw in most gay-rights causes, and the one the Admiral repeated. It is the failure to distinguish between desires and behavior. Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire.

Take marriage as an example. Despite complaints by homosexual activists, every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.

“But what about homosexuals?” you ask. The question would better be stated “what about people with homosexual desires?” Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people “equal rights,” then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women. How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don’t have “equal rights” because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman.

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. (See Born Gay or a Gay Basher: No Excuse.)

Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws in the country and military that conflict with people’s desires. In fact, that’s why we need them! We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country or military should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.

The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don’t work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American. And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can. Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.

The truth is that our marriage and military laws do not discriminate against persons for “who they are”—they discriminate against the behaviors in which they engage. But so what? That’s what most laws do. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage and military laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

Now some may object to my comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, incest or pedophilia. I agree that the behaviors are not the same, but the point here is that the logic used to justify homosexuality is the same. “I was born with these desires” could also be used to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even gay bashing—“Don’t blame me. I just have the anti-gay gene!”

That’s the logic reduced to the absurd. And that’s why people who want to make a case for same-sex marriage or homosexual practice in the military should use different arguments. Claiming you “are” your sexual desires, is a case of don’t ask don’t think.

(If you’d like to think more about this admittedly complicated and sensitive issue, get the compact book from which this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)


Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , ,

January 23rd, 2010 by M. French


Did you know that having both a child’s mother and father involved in their life is of no real significance? That is the conclusion of sociologists quoted in a USA Today article published recently:

Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,” they conclude.

“Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures,” Biblarz says.

Did you catch that? “Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about … are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures.” Rather than determining that there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by their mother and father, Stacey and Biblarz have decided that according to the measurements they “care about,” there is no discernible difference. What are some of the differences that it would seem these sociologists find unimportant? The following is a section from Dr. Brown’s forthcoming book A Queer Thing Happened to America:

According to Prof. A. Dean Byrd, the meta-analytical study of gay researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz found that lesbian mothers had a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. They report: “…the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste…in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.”

Yet for Stacey and Biblarz, this was not a negative, and they even suggested that same-sex parenting might be superior. As noted by Dale O’Leary:

Paula Ettelbrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force admitted that Stacey and Biblarz had “burst the bubble of one of the best-kept secrets” of the gay community – namely, that the studies it had been using didn’t actually support the claims it was making. Not all gay activists saw this as a problem. Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, who raises two children with her partner, took the Stacey-Biblarz article as good news: “There’s only one response to a study that children raised by lesbian and gay parents may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation – that response has to be elation.”

Originally, the goal with this kind of research was to determine what gay activists already “knew”… that children raised by same-sex couples were identical to those raised by their mother and father. The target has now changed to only include statistical measurements that those behind the research decide they “care about” (which evidently does not include promiscuity, sexual orientation, and gender identity), resulting in the opportunity to issue soundbites to mass publications that whether a child is raised by both their mother and father or not does not “matter.”

These are complex issues, and we certainly hope that children raised by same-sex couples grow up to live healthy productive lives, but issuing statements that having a mother and father in the life of a child doesn’t matter, and backing it with data that is laden with presuppositions that many (if not most) would not hold to, is irresponsible. We’ll dig deeper into this subject over the coming weeks, looking at studies that have been done over the years, but a brief excerpt from a Mercator article should suffice in bringing home the reality of what all this means in real life. What happens when a father is replaced with a second mother in a child’s life (which we are being led to believe should not matter)?

Lesbians raising boys think they can fully compensate for the absence of a father — that fatherlessness is not a problem unless an oppressive society makes it one. But the children do not see it that way:

Parents reported a number of instances where children age four and older would ask about their father. Children would ask someone to be their daddy, ask where their father was, or express the wish to have a father. They would make up their own answers, such as their father was dead, or someone was in fact their father. (10)

Can the “second mommy” compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home — not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)

Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, “A Boy and Two Mothers”, Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two “mothers” were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)

Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.

I can’t believe we’re living in an era that would make what I’m about to say a controversial statement, but here we are… we were designed to be raised by our mother and father.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted in Life & Family, News Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

November 24th, 2009 by M. French

Jesus-followers from various denominations and movements have put together a document called the Manhattan Declaration, which Chuck Colson described as “a wake-up call—a call to conscience—for the church.  It is also a crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.” Colson drafted the declaration along with Robert George (Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University) and Timothy George  (Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University).  The declaration is summarized on their website in the following way:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Dr. Brown had the following to say about the document:

In the words of this important declaration, this is a clarion call for us to rise up as a “truly prophetic Christian witness,” reclaiming our biblical heritage and the best elements of our historic, sacrificial witness, serving humanity as agents of good and as ambassadors of God’s grace. In this darkened and lost generation, our opportunity to shine as bright lights has never been greater. Let’s seize the moment, affixing our names to this document and investing our lives in the advancement of the Great Commission. If we don’t stand for truth and righteousness and moral sanity, who will?

The full text of the Manhattan Declaration can be found here.  You can sign it by clicking here.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted in News, Revolution & Justice Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

November 16th, 2009 by M. French

Since the passage of Question 1 in Maine which repealed a law that had redefined marriage to include same sex couples, death threats have been coming in against those affiliated with the “Yes on 1” effort. According to Matt Barber:

Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, was directly targeted with a death threat shortly after the vote on 1. An anonymous caller telephoned the League and left a message warning: “I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”

Another death threat was made against Marc Mutty, chief of the unaffiliated “Yes On One” organization: “You’re dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon…you’re dead.”

Death threats because these people are leading efforts to keep the institution of marriage from being radically redefined? Death threats because a vote was passed in Maine that has passed 31 out of 31 times in states where people have been asked to vote on the issue? Pray for the leaders at the forefront of this fight over family and marriage, the threats they are undergoing appear to be serious.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

November 4th, 2009 by M. French

On Tuesday, a state law in Maine that would have redefined marriage to include same-sex couples was repealed.  According to FoxNews:

Voters in the northeastern state of Maine repealed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

Whenever the people are asked if marriage should be redefined to include homosexual couples, the answer is a clear no.


Tags: , , ,

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , ,

October 7th, 2009 by M. French

Here’s a sign that was held at a Boston Gay Marriage Protest from a few years ago:

Here’s the biblical text the sign is referencing in its entirety:

If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.

The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

How would you respond?  Here are some thoughts Dr. Brown shared on the subject:

There were certain laws that God gave to ancient Israel before Jesus came into the world in order to maintain certain standards of purity and in order to keep Israel separate from the nations. Those laws are not applicable to Christians today. There were other laws based on universal principles of morality and holiness, including the prohibition against murder, the prohibition against child sacrifice, and the prohibition against homosexual practice. Those laws are still in full force today.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,