April 12th, 2011 by M. French

From an E-Mail sent by Lou Engle’s TheCall on April 12th:

Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” Regarding Senate Bill 48, the next few weeks will decide what California students will learn, which according to Lincoln will guide the thinking of our future government. As Gettysburg was considered the high water mark of the civil war, this very well could be the Gettysburg of American education regarding the issue of homosexuality.

This bill will affect nine million children and parents in public schools. The implications of this one bill are monumental and I believe the voice of the churches must be heard in this critical hour.

Lou Engle
President, TheCall to Conscience


What is Senate Bill 48?

ConcernedParentsUnited.com explains:

“California Senate Bill number 48, now tracking its way through the legislature, would change the teaching of core academic subjects into a ‘celebration’ of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual lifestyles. This profound change in the basic education of children would be mandatory, without involvement or opt-out rights of parents.”

What is at stake?

SB 48 still passed the Senate Education Committee but there’s still time to stop this bill in the assembly and senate that SaveCalifornia.com calls “the worst school sexual indoctrination ever,” forcing nine million California children to learn about homosexuality at an early age with no opt-out rights for parents.

What is most alarming about this bill is that if it passes, parents will have no rights over what their children learn in public schools regarding their sexuality. This is total discrimination against religious liberties and parents’ rights to teach their children morals.

Furthermore, Dr. Miriam Grossman, an author and child psychiatrist for over 20 years, presented well-researched evidence that introducing elementary and junior high school students to homosexuality will cause gender confusion and misidentification as a homosexual because they are still in the stage of gender and identity formation.

Also, because California is the largest consumer of textbooks, what goes into California’s textbooks will most likely go into the rest of the nation’s textbooks. This could effect what all public schools will teach across the nation!

ConcernedParentsUnited.com goes on to say:

“What we all do, or fail to do, in the next few weeks will determine whether or not California’s school children will be subject to homosexual textbooks and curriculum for years to come! Your help is needed to fight this bill every step of the way at every committee hearing and every vote.”

Three steps to stop SB 48

1. Please pray that God would do a miracle and stop the passage of this bill.

2. If you are a California resident and you want to stop this bill, please go to the following website to let your representatives know your stance. It only takes a minute: http://capwiz.com/legislativecenter/issues/alert/?alertid=27189501

3. It is vitally important for us to vote and put those who will truly represent us into office. If we don’t vote, we won’t be represented, period.


To watch the video of last week’s hearing at the Senate Education Committee, visit www.calchannel.com. To hear Sarah Yang’s powerful testimony, skip to 28:45 in the video

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

August 17th, 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.

When one judge overturned the will of more then seven million Californians last week in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed “findings of fact” (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They’re lies or distortions.

Before we address the top ten false “facts” asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:

“The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.”

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.

Second, Prop 8 doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because 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.

What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker’s first false “fact.”

1. “Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.” (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker’s entire case collapses without it. The “fact” is false because it ignores the difference 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. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.

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, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that’s a job for the people, not judges.

2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.” (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. As I document here, health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well)—a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That’s exactly what same-sex marriage does—it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

But won’t same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker’s next false fact.

3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” (FF 48) What does “successful” mean? It has nothing to do with children according to Judge Walker. In his “the stork brings children” universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a “successful” marriage is merely about commitment, but he can’t even support that case.

In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it’s a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, “None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that’s why he didn’t bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.

4. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.

5. “Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.” (FF 62) It’s too bad Judge Walker didn’t look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught homosexuality in grades as low as Kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.

“But you can’t legislate morality!” some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights—rights that our founders declared self-evident.

Think I’m overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it’s poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Part 2, with five more false “facts,” tomorrow.

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

July 8th, 2010 by Michael L. Brown

Ten years ago at TheCall DC, with real urgency and expectation, we announced that it was time for a new Jesus Revolution – a gospel-driven, moral and cultural reformation, empowered by the Spirit. Now, ten years later, the hour is even more urgent, and there is a deep sense that the revolution is gaining traction. It really is time for God’s people to seek His face like never before, to give themselves to His purposes like never before, and to say to the Lord, “Here I am, send me and use me to spark a holy revolution in my generation.” If not now, then when?

I believe that TheCall Sacramento could mark a turning point of real significance for the Church and for the society. Make your plans to join me there!

Dr. Michael L. Brown, President, FIRE School of Ministry

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

July 4th, 2010 by M. French

I’ve been at meetings the last few days that have caused faith to arise for TheCall Sacramento happening this fall. Let’s see what God will do! A description from their site, along with a video invitation, is below.

“Gather to Me my consecrated ones, who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice . . . call upon Me in the day of trouble and I will deliver you” —Psalm 50:5,15

Ten years ago, four hundred thousand primarily young people, the consecrated ones, the Nazirites, gathered to the Mall in D.C. to fast and pray for America. Now, ten years later, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Seismic political, economic, and societal shifts are drastically reshaping California, every state, and the nation. This is the time for a great spiritual outpouring to be unleashed to meet the demand of these times.

God’s prescription in the day of trouble is to regather the consecrated ones to the place of the covenant, the cross, not just to be blessed, but to rend our hearts and call upon God. In that place of united fasting and prayer, God promises to release deliverance and help.

Therefore, we are again summoning thousands of young and old—those who have been marked by TheCall’s solemn assemblies and those whose hearts burn for their generation—to gather in Sacramento as consecrated, intercessory representatives from, and on behalf of, California and every state to “altar” their lives, “altar” their states, and “altar” the nation.

Can California be changed? Can a nation be changed? Yes, but only if they are altar-ed!

“Elijah repaired the altar of the Lord that was broken down . . . then the fire fell.” —1 Kings 18:30, 38

Day 1Friday EveningProphetic Worship

Day 2Saturday 9am–9pmJoel 2 Solemn Assembly

Get the Detailed Breakdown of the event.

[Link to Video]

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

May 26th, 2009 by M. French

Prop 8 has been upheld in California! The same-sex “marriages” that went into effect before Prop 8 will remain legally recognized, however. According to the Long Beach Press-Telegram:

The California Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same- sex marriage in the state, but the court also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year will remain valid.

Despite the conclusions in the 186-page ruling, the battle over same-sex marriage in California is likely to continue, with supporters insisting they will try to get the matter back on the ballot, or possibly try to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Expect gay activists to protest the ruling around the country, a campaign called Day of Decision has been planning events to either celebrate or protest today’s decision. Below are a list of cities that have Day of Decision events planned. If you live in or near one of the cities, see if you can take a bit of time to minister to these folks as they protest, showing them that we are not “mean-spirited bigots,” but instead Jesus-followers that love them and our community enough to keep marriage a male/female union.  Click on a link to find out where the protest will be held in your community.

1. Anchorage
2. Phoenix
3. Tucson
4. Auburn
5. Bakersfield [x3 event locations in Bakersfield]
6. Big Bear Lake
7. Chico
8. Claremont
9. Concord
10. Danville
11. Davis
12. Delano
13. Escondido (North Inland San Diego County) (Note: Event was not canceled, new facebook)
14. Eureka (Humboldt County)
15. Fairfield
16. Fort Bragg
17. Fresno
18. Hermosa Beach (South Bay)
19. Hollister
20. Lakeport
21. Long Beach
22. Los Angeles County (x5 locations: Downtown, East LA, UCLA, WeHo, Santa Monica)
23. Modesto
24. Monrovia
25. Monterey
26. Napa
27. Norwalk
28. Oakland
Orange County
29. Palo Alto [2 events, day & evening, same location]
30. Palm Springs
31. Pasadena
32. Pittsburg (Contra Costa County)
33. Rancho Cucamonga (Inland Empire-Riverside & San Bernardino Counties)
34. Redding
35. Sacramento
36. Salinas
37. San Diego (Note: Event was not canceled, new facebook)
38. San Francisco (Marin County)
39. San Jose
40. San Luis Obispo
41. San Mateo
42. Santa Ana (Orange County)
43. Santa Barbara (South Santa Barbara County)
44. Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County)
45. Santa Maria (North Santa Barbara County)
46. Santa Monica
47. Santa Rosa
48. Stanford
49. Stockton
50. Temecula
51. Thousand Oaks
52. Ukiah
53. Ventura
54. Visalia
55. Walnut Creek
56. Watsonville
57. West Hollywood, LA
58. Boulder
59. Denver
60. New Haven
61. Fort Meyers
62. Lake Worth
63. Sarasota
64. Tampa Bay/Hillsborough
65. Tampa Bay/Pinellas
66. Atlanta
67. Moscow
68. Champaign-Urbana
69. Chicago
70. Peoria
71. Springfield
72. Bloomington
73. Indianapolis
74. Lexington
75. Louisville

76. New Orleans
77. Boston
78. Northampton
79. Lansing
80. Kalamazoo
81. Joplin
82. St. Louis
83. Las Vegas
84. Reno
New York
85. Albany
86. Ithaca
87. New York City
88. Rochester
89. Kent
90. Portland
Rhode Island
91. Providence
South Carolina
92. Columbia
93. Austin
94. Dallas
95. Denton
96. Houston
97. San Antonio
98. Salt Lake City


99. Charlottesville
100. Richmond
101. Bellingham
102. Seattle
103. Spokane
US Capitol
104. Washington D.C.
105. Toronto, ON Canada
106. Vancouver, BC Canada

106 Total Day of Decision City Events:
104 U.S. City events
+2 Canadian City events
25 States + D.C.
54+ California City events

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

May 26th, 2009 by Marc Thomas

Editor’s Note: A guest community post from Marc Thomas, a frequent contributor to VOR via comments.  Learn more about Marc at his blog: www.heknocks.com. Guest community posts do not necessarily represent the views of Voice of Revolution.

As I write, the seven-judges of the Supreme Court in San Francisco consider the legitimacy of Proposition 8 and whether or not to uphold or overturn the legislation forbidding homosexual marriage in California.

Since the voters of California voted ‘yes’ to the ban at the end of 2008, the new rule has been a constant source of contention.

Shannon Minter, lead counsel for the overturning of Proposition 8 is quoted by BBC News Online as saying, Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities…A simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away from a historically protected minority” In saying this, Minter implies the following:

1) “Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities”

In actuality, the democratic government of America is there to represent the people and to implement policies under the ‘indirect’ influence of the voting public. In short, if the people agree by vote that a policy should become law, then the leaders receive legitimacy to make the law – regardless of its effect on minority groups. However, while leaders receive the ‘O.K’ from the voters to pass and implement a law – they can equally decide not to. This is the way that a representative government works.

2)     “simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away…”

Minter here, we assume, refers to the right to marriage. It is true to say that previously homosexual couples had a legislative right to a marriage, and since Proposition 8, they no longer have this right.

In principle, although it is an uncomfortable thought with many implications on all of us regardless of sexual orientation or religious preference, a democratic system of government shapes its legislation through the election of representatives or by direct ‘voicing’ of opinion through vote. Equally, a society’s values and rights[1] are defined by the society itself. Not all of the population will have the rights it desires – but on another occasion, the group previously deprived of what it perceives to be a ‘right’ will gain a different privilege or benefit by the same democratic means.

However, let us question the most basic question, namely; is there a right to homosexual marriage in the first place?

We may briefly define the Christian doctrine of Marriage as the union between a man and a woman reflecting the relationship between Christ and the Church (as seen in Song of Solomon and referred to several times by Jesus in the NT). If we take this definition to be accurate, the idea of marriage between two men or two women is at very best a misinterpretation of the doctrine.

In the Bible, God expressly forbids sexual relations between two members of the same sex and consequently we must take marriage between two homosexuals to be illegitimate. If there is no legitimacy, then there is no right.

Continuing to view homosexual marriage as a right in the context of ‘individual happiness’ and love has the effect of ‘blurring’ boundary lines. Should we also view it as a right when a man wants to be married to a child? A woman to a horse?

Can we really still say “As long as it makes them happy?”

3)      “…historically protected minority.”

Let us consider the facts behind this statement – It is true that since the beginning of the 20th century, homosexuality has become more acceptable in society in general. This is due to any number of complex sociological reasons: e.g. the breakdown of the family unit following depleted male population after the war, breaking down of sexual boundaries in literature and film (both hetero- and homosexually speaking).

However, we cannot forget the laws that governed homosexuality in America until very recently. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Sodomy Law remained in California until 1976, and it is only since 2003 that the U.S Supreme Court has invalidated all remaining state sodomy laws.

Traditionally, legally and politically speaking, the homosexual community has not been a protected community.

The problems are present and they speak for themselves – America stands at a crossroads, she will either choose a liberal state or something else. The laws on homosexuality, particularly in a state as important as California, are a ‘levee,’ if the dam breaks, the land will flood.

In any case, America is rife with immorality from all sides (including heterosexual marriage which is rotten with sin) but she is certainly not alone in her malaise.

[1] Here let us draw a clear distinction between basic human rights – the right to think, speak and move freely – but with responsibility and tact – with the legal and social rights i.e. the laws governing marriage.

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

March 5th, 2009 by M. French

A key court case will take place today in which the constitutionality of Proposition 8 will be decided. According to CNN:

The California Supreme Court began hearing arguments Thursday in a case that could determine the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, as well as the validity of about 18,000 same-sex marriages.

The court is tackling the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November.

Its opponents are seeking to have the amendment nullified. They maintain Proposition 8 alters the state constitution and therefore, under state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention.

The video below is from a same-sex marriage rally in San Diego yesterday: [Link To Video]

Lou Engle, founder of The Call and the Justice Houses of Prayer, provided some insight into the issue and issued a call to prayer on his blog:

Today, March 5th, one of the most significant court cases in America’s history will take place. The California Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the overturning of the vote of the people last year to pass Proposition 8, which defines marriage between a man and a woman. If this vote is overturned, not only will it set a major precedent of the court’s power over the will of the people, but it will likely be the flash point that will determine the future of America as liberal and homosexual agendas will disseminate throughout the educational systems and into the very fiber of American culture. The California State Senate just ruled against the peoples’ vote and asked the court to overthrow the defining of marriage as between a man and a woman. Senator Leno likened the people who voted for Prop 8 to the Germans who voted for the Nazi Regime.

During these past three months since President Obama’s election, the voices of rage against Judeo-Christian values and against the church have been emboldened to use inflammatory language and pass bills and laws that are anti-Christian in their very nature. When senators use such language, persecution is close at hand. We are in a desperate moment in American history. Everyone is pointing to the severe crisis of our economy, but I am convinced it is only an indicator of a massive moral decline America has slid into. It is time to pray, humble ourselves, and rid ourselves of moral compromise in the Church. If the salt loses its savor, it is only good for being thrown out and trampled under the foot of man.

[Click to Read More…]

In addition to those those that will be directly affected by the ruling (as Randy Thomas points out: “if Prop 8 is upheld … what happens to the 18,000 gay couples that got state marriage certificates that recognize their union?”), this ruling will surely affect the rest of the nation both culturally and legally. As others have stated, as goes California, so goes the nation!

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

January 24th, 2009 by M. French

A new campaign from homosexual activists to counter California’s Prop 8 is coming out with a series of commercials aimed at normalizing the public perception of gay couples and gay families, and promoting the legalization of gay marriage.  The campaign is called GetToKnowUsFirst.org, their website declares:

In the wake of California’s passage of Proposition 8, a group of gay and lesbian families are taking to the airwaves with five 30-second Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that are airing on daytime and prime time television throughout the state.

They ran in urban and rural markets on broadcast and cable channels during the Presidential Inauguration and will continue through the spring.  Their purpose is to capture the hearts and minds of people who do not understand why marriage is so important to us.

Our message:

Marriage promotes families.
Support marriage equality
Get to know us first.

The following is one of the commercials (the rest can be found here) , note the prominence of church, prayer, and family in the ad: [Link to Video]

They are currently raising money to buy ad time during this year’s Super Bowl:

We successfully ran our ads on broadcast and cable television in 42 of California’s 58 counties before, during and after the Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009.  These images of happy gay and lesbian families are new for many viewers and our work has just begun.

Next stop?  The Super Bowl! Every dollar we collect will go to purchase ads during the most viewed sports event of the year (Sunday, February 1, 2009), replicating our regional DMA media buy strategy.  No doubt, our PSAs will be the topic of many a water cooler conversation.  I am willing to believe that, stacked up against the Cheetos, Fritos and Pepsi ads, ours will stand out as remarkable!

Homosexual propaganda, depicting the wonderful family life of gay couples with children, aired during the Super Bowl?  It’s coming friends, whether or not this particular campaign is able to obtain the money it needs this year, it’s coming.

But do homosexual couples really provide an ideal family structure?  According to The American College of Pediatricians:

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.”  Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.  Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

They conclude:

Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

Homosexual activists are boldly proclaiming that they want to change society, and because the facts concerning homosexuality and homosexual parenting are not on their side, they will continue to appeal to people’s emotions to support their case. It is in a child’s best interest to be raised by both a mother and a father, that simple truth needs to be trumpeted loud and clear, especially as the public starts to really consider these questions.  As Dr. Brown has stated elsewhere, “The truth will triumph!”

Posted in News, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,