This Filmmaking Couple Doesn’t Want to Be Punished for Not Promoting Same-Sex Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Minnesota couple is suing state officials to allow their film production company to celebrate marriage as a man-woman union without being forced, against their biblical beliefs, to promote same-sex marriage.

Carl and Angel Larsen, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, say they run Telescope Media Group as a way to deploy their storytelling ability and production services to glorify God.

“The Larsens desire to counteract the current cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically orthodox definition of marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to tell stories of marriages between one man and one woman that magnify and honor God’s design and purpose for marriage,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota says.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Larsens and Telescope Media Group, which they own.

“Because of their religious beliefs, and their belief in the power of film and media production to change hearts and minds, the Larsens want to use their talents and the expressive platform of [Telescope Media Group] to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman,” the suit says.

Minnesota government officials argue that private businesses face criminal penalties if they promote a marriage between a man and woman but refuse to promote a same-sex marriage, the Larsens’ lawyers at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom say.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement.

If convicted after criminal prosecution under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Larsens face a fine of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail, according to the lawsuit. They also could be ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages up to $25,000.

The Larsens, who are in their mid-30s and have been married for 14 years, are challenging the law before Minnesota officials take any action against them and their company.

The law in question is the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from nondiscrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website says.

The Larsens’ lawyers filed a pre-enforcement challenge against Kevin Lindsey in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and against Lori Swanson in her official capacity as attorney general of Minnesota. According to the suit:

The Larsens simply desire to use their unique storytelling and promotional talents to convey messages that promote aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or that at least are not inconsistent with them. It is standard practice for the owners of video and film production companies to decline to produce videos that contain or promote messages that the owners do not want to support or that violate or compromise their beliefs in some way.

The Daily Signal sought comment from both the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Human Rights, but neither had responded by publication.

Telescope Media Group’s services include web-streaming and video recording of live events as well as producing short films.

“Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production,” the company’s website says.

The company has created content for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and LifeLight, an annual Christian music festival held near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Every American—including creative professionals—should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment,” Tedesco said in a release from Alliance Defending Freedom. He added:

For example, a fashion designer recently cited her ‘artistic freedom’ as a ‘family-owned company’ to announce that she won’t design clothes for Melania Trump because she doesn’t want to use her company and creative talents to promote political views she disagrees with. Even though the law in D.C. prohibits ‘political affiliation’ discrimination, do any of us really think the designer should be threatened with fines and jail time?

French fashion designer Sophie Theallet published an open letter Nov. 17 saying she would not dress President-elect Donald Trump’s wife, the future first lady, because of disagreements with him and urged other fashion designers to do the same.

Last week, American fashion designer Tom Ford said on TV’s “The View” that he would not dress Melania Trump, in part because “she’s not necessarily my image.”

“The Larsens simply seek to exercise these same freedoms, and that’s why they filed this lawsuit to challenge Minnesota’s law,” Tedesco said. (For more from the author of “This Filmmaking Couple Doesn’t Want to Be Punished for Not Promoting Same-Sex Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Problem with Amy Schumer Playing Barbie Is NOT Her Thick Body. It’s Her Thick Head

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, several entertainments outlets reported that comedian-actress Amy Schumer is poised to star as Barbie in a new live-action comedy based on the iconic Mattel doll leftists can’t seem to leave alone. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film’s creators hope it will “put a contemporary spin on beauty, feminism and identity.”

The story begins when Barbie is banished from Barbieland for not being “perfect enough,” Entertainment Tonight reported. This upsetting incident launches her into an adventure-filled journey in the “real world,” where Barbie discovers that being different is beautiful. Truly inspiring.

Liberal outlets reacted to Schumer’s anticipated new role with glee, calling it a triumph for feminism and a slap in the face for body-shaming misogynist pigs everywhere. Why, exactly? Apparently because Schumer doesn’t fit the mold of the tall, thin, hourglass-shaped toy (though I can’t think of any human being who does).

But not everyone was a fan. Despite the widespread support for Schumer, a handful of stupid internet trolls did what stupid internet trolls do and tweeted nasty comments about Schumer’s chubbier build . . .

Amy Schumer would make a terrible Barbie, but her physical appearance has nothing to do with it.

It’s not Schumer’s weight (which seems pretty average, if not for leftist Hollywood standards) that disqualifies her. The fact that she is unfeminine and crass disqualifies her.

The Barbie character wasn’t originally created to be a political statement. She was supposed to be an outlet for little girls to make-believe about their future as real, grownup women. She was, in her own way, a role model.

Schumer’s foul mouth and sexually lewd standup comedy routines are the last thing I think of when I hear the term “role model.”

Schumer manages to be self-deprecatory and self-indulgent all at once. She calls herself a “slut” and expects the world to applaud her for being some champion of women’s equality. Also, she’s BFFs with Hollywood’s favorite “nasty woman,” Lena Dunham.

The past doesn’t necessarily define a person, and actors are free to branch out and try new things. But don’t expect everyone to rally behind a woman who represents many of the things we hope our daughters will never become.

And liberal media: Don’t expect to not get called out for suggesting that anyone who criticizes Schumer is just a fat-shaming misogynist. Contrary to what Tinseltown liberals believe, you don’t have to be a hateful bigot to believe that their ideas are garbage. (For more from “The Problem with Amy Schumer Playing Barbie Is NOT Her Thick Body. It’s Her Thick Head” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New York Mayor Promises City Will Pay for Abortions If Planned Parenthood Loses Federal Funding

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a speech that criticized President-elect Donald Trump on Monday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed to make sure the city would pay for women to abortions in the event that Planned Parenthood is defunded.

In one of several defiant responses to Trump’s developing domestic policy, de Blasio said, “If there are threats to federal funding for Planned Parenthood in New York City, we will ensure women receive health care they need.”

Later, the mayor tweeted, “I want to be clear: If GOP threatens federal funding for Planned Parenthood of NYC, we will ensure women receive the healthcare they need.”

But as The Resurgent reported, “If the feds cut the funding, New York’s mayor says they’ll cover the costs. That means they have the money and there is no reason for federal funding to be kept.”

Responses to de Blasio’s tweet flooded social media. Many concluded that if federal tax funding for Planned Parenthood is not needed, the abortion giant should be defunded. (Read more from “New York Mayor Promises City Will Pay for Abortions If Planned Parenthood Loses Federal Funding” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Sues Abortion Center Over Violation of Informed Consent Regarding Fetal Research

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jessica Duran is suing Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO), an abortion center in New Mexico, for giving her aborted daughter’s body to University of New Mexico for taxpayer-funded fetal research without her knowledge or consent.

Duran, who received an abortion from SWO in 2012, is being supported in her lawsuit by non-profit pro-life group New Mexico Alliance for Life (NMAFL).

At a press conference at the University of New Mexico Monday morning, Duran said “my right to choose was violated” by SWO. “They take advantage of women like me in frantic situations by not giving us all the facts and information we are entitled to,” Duran said.

According to the lawsuit filed at the Second Judicial District Court in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, SWO provided Duran with a consent form indicating that “tissue and parts” of her aborted baby could be used in medical research. However, the center failed to inform Duran of important specifics, such as the nature and extent of how her baby would be used in research, the fact that SWO was the sole supplier of fetal tissue to UNM (several SWO staff physicians are also volunteer faculty members at UNM), who she could contact with questions about the process, or the fact that the donation of her baby’s body to fetal research was voluntary.

“I was never informed of the University of New Mexico’s collaboration with SWO for research,” Duran said in a NMAFL press release Monday morning, “which appears to have influenced SWO employees to encourage me to abort my daughter.”

Duran’s lawsuit accuses SWO of deceptive trade practices and violation of state law, which requires informed consent before providing an abortion.

“We have evidence that suggests UNM and SWO have been violating women’s rights to informed consent since 1995,” said Elisa Martinez, NMAFL Director, in Monday’s press release. Martinez and Duran are asking New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas to criminally investigate SWO and UNM.

NMAFL isn’t the only group investigating the relationship between and fetal harvesting practices of SWO and NMAFL. The Congressional Select Panel on Infant Lives issued a criminal referral to Balderas earlier this year for “prosecution of various acts” by SWO and UNM.

“UNM Health Sciences Center and Southwestern Women’s Options can no longer deny wrongdoing,” Martinez said; “there are victims out there who were deceived and whose rights were violated in the harvesting of aborted babies’ bodies.”

NMAFL has launched a new website where women like Duran who have had abortions at SWO and believe their rights were violated can submit a complaint.

At the press conference, Martinez further detailed the “shocking” practices NMAFL had discovered in their investigation of SWO and UNM, including the dissecting of an unborn 7-month old brain by students at a UNM summer camp. The brain had been ordered “whole and fixed” by UNM from SWO.

Laura Rosecrans of Surrendered Hearts Abortion Recovery Ministries said that many women are re-traumatized when they learn after-the-fact that their aborted babies’ bodies are used for such purposes.

“My baby was not just a clump of cells,” Duran said in NMAFL’s press release Monday morning. “That’s the lie that is being exposed: my baby was fully human, and her body was highly valuable for the sum of her parts, for UNM research projects.”

Watch the recorded press conference from NFMAL here. (For more from the author of “Woman Sues Abortion Center Over Violation of Informed Consent Regarding Fetal Research” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Make Christmas Great Again. Skip Church!’ Says New Atheist Billboard

/0 Comments/in , /by

The group American Atheists is once again campaigning to keep people out of the pews on Christmas.

After featuring an image of Santa on their billboards last year, urging passers-by to “Go ahead and skip church! Just be good for goodness’ sake,” American Atheists is doubling down.

This year, the group has debuted not one, but two signs, which will be up for the entire month of December in cities such as Colorado Springs, Colo., Lynchburg, Va. and Shreveport, La. The group has even been so kind as to provide a map of their billboard’s locations (see below).

The first and more widespread billboard depicts a young girl texting a friend there’s “no way” she’s going to church this Christmas because she doesn’t “believe that stuff anymore.” And her parents? They’ll just have to “get over it.” Charming young lady.

The second billboard takes its play right out of Donald Trump’s signature campaign hat — or, one could say, right off of it. “Make Christmas Great Again,” the sign declares, “Skip Church!”

American Atheists announced the billboards last Thursday in a post on their website.

“In what has become an annual holiday tradition, American Atheists launched two billboards nationwide urging viewers to celebrate an ‘atheist Christmas’ by skipping church,” the release said.

Following the announcement, the group took to social media to share coverage of their billboards as well as to counter their critics.

“‘Anti-Christian?’ Nah,” the group tweeted in one response to a Fox News video. “Anti-church, anti-being-forced-to-do-things-you-don’t-believe, maybe. We’re happy to discuss.”

This journalist could live under a rock, but I’ve never heard of someone being forced to attend a church service before. On the contrary, I’ve come across many a parent who have regretfully informed me that their son or daughter had decided not to come to church — usually with a prayer request attached. But never “forced.”

No Belief in God? No Consistency of Message Either

Also, a quick scroll down the Twitter page finds this tweet from just last week, in response to Donald Trump tapping Rep. Tom Price, Ga.-R, for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Price is a co-sponsor of the disastrous ‘First Amendment Defense Act’ that lets people break civil rights laws they think their god apposes (sic),” along with the follow up tweet, “The re-definition of ‘religious liberty’ by people like Price has eroded the rights of women, LGBT people, and all Americans. We must fight.” That doesn’t sound very “anti-being-forced-to-do-things-you-don’t-believe” to me.

In another response to the same Fox News clip, American Atheists said, “Also: ‘War on Christmas?’ We’re literally saying that it’s fine to celebrate Xmas w/out the religious stuff. Not sure how that’s a ‘war.’” This tweet came after the group’s original billboard announcement on Twitter, which was gleefully accompanied with “#WarOnChristmas”.

The ChristianExaminer, in their report of the billboards, called American Atheists out on their misleading use of a statistic in the billboard announcement.

According to the announcement,

A recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute shows that a quarter of Americans and almost 40% of young people are atheist or non-religious. This billboard campaign is specifically aimed at that growing population, especially those who no longer believe but still occasionally attend religious services or call themselves religious despite their lack of belief.

“Presumably, they believe a good number of that group is atheist. But they aren’t telling the whole story,” the ChristianExaminer writes.

The “nones” are comprised of those disenchanted with religion, those apathetic to it, and those who are “unattached” to a denomination or church. Among the apathetic and unattached, a significant number still claim to believe in God. The number of true atheists still hovers around 11 percent of the U.S. population.

The American Atheists billboards came right as the Freedom From Religion Foundation released their own December activism plan, dubbed “Heathens’ Greetings — FFRF’s Winter Solstice Survival Guide.” In the release, the FFRF announced the beginning of its “annual “War on State/Church Separation” and called for activists to “create a little controversy” — possibly with the group’s Bill of Rights “Nativity” displays. (For more from the author of “‘Make Christmas Great Again. Skip Church!’ Says New Atheist Billboard” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Early Christmas! No Draft for Women and Philosopher Warfighter Nominated for SecDef

/0 Comments/in , /by

One could almost feel sorry for President Obama. Practically moments after confirmation that there wasn’t enough Senate support on either side of the aisle for drafting women, we see headlines that “White House announces support for adding women to military draft.”

Obama can do nothing to make this so. Only Congress can, and their decision is already made. The statement was little more than a head-pat to his base. America’s daughters will not be drafted for combat with ISIS, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other woman-stoning, gay-murdering enemies.

No Military Draft for Women

This is a victory for our military’s combat readiness and America’s young, able-bodied women, who should not be forced into being infantry replacements — the stated purpose of the draft during a large-scale war. Drafting them would require signing up equal numbers of women in all jobs — anything else wouldn’t be “equitable.” Only a tiny portion of the female population qualifies for the military as it is, and they, even having made the cut to join up, suffer an average of 2-10 times the injuries of their male counterparts.

It would be a bureaucratic nightmare for nearly no return to sift through millions of young women in order to find one or two who might be able to make men’s infantry unit standards but would still be at a stark disadvantage for survival in combat. Doing the same number of pull-ups also won’t mitigate the higher rates of injury, the fact that women are higher-value targets to our current enemies, or the other disproportionate risks women face.

Having equal rights under the law does not mean that men and women have the same obligations for the nation’s defense. Drafting women would mean more casualties, more coming home in body bags, and more missions lost. It would compromise our country’s security.

Now Congress can get back to hashing out other provisions in the military appropriations bill like the categorization of the sage grouse. In a world where this is in the spending bill for our national defense, it’s a wonder that common sense prevailed.

Secretary of Defense Mattis

Another early Christmas gift is the news that President-Elect Trump has chosen Marine Gen. James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense. Those who know the legendary general couldn’t be happier, and enemies of freedom the world over have every reason to fear. Mattis is a bold and plain-spoken warfighter, but also a well-read and philosophical student of history and warfare.

He is for American engagement around the world, but not endless military engagements with no clear plan for victory. He has a keen understanding of foreign policy and a deep affection for those who serve in America’s defense. He has not hesitated to name the enemy and believes in confronting even the most complicated military and foreign policy problems head on, rather than letting them fester for the next generation to handle.

Though some are concerned over his opposition to women in combat units, and his rejection of the idea that combat deployed troops are victims broken by their service, those who care about our military’s readiness to fight our merciless enemies and the welfare of those who do so know there is no better choice than James Mattis. He takes war extremely seriously and won’t be frivolous in recommending military operations.

He cares deeply for those who, as he puts it, close in on the last 600 yards of foreign policy, and their families that support them and endure their loss, injury and sacrifice. He believes in reason over impulse, in not repeating the mistakes of the past that have been learned in blood, and working with our friends and allies across the globe to ensure that savages like ISIS don’t prevail.

Making America great again includes restoring a credible military able to withstand any test — and we will be tested, probably sooner than later. For reversing the decline of the military and her material, and making her combat ready again, there’s no better man for the job. Indeed, we have much to be grateful for this holiday season. (For more from the author of “Early Christmas! No Draft for Women and Philosopher Warfighter Nominated for SecDef” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Satanic Temple Slams New Texas Fetus Burial Rule Opposed by Pro-Choice Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

Abortion rights activists may have found an unlikely ally in the Satanic Temple, which has vowed to oppose a new Texas state rule requiring fetal tissue be given a burial or cremation.

In two weeks, a new state rule on medical waste will take effect in Texas, meaning aborted fetal tissue must undergo “interment.”

From December 18, Texas hospitals and abortion clinics will no longer be permitted to place fetal tissue in sanitary landfills and instead will have to organize a burial of sorts. Although not an official law, the rule could be used to guide court procedures.

TEXAS RULE ON FETAL REMAINS THE SATANIC TEMPLE RELIGIOUS DEFENSE OF REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS
The Texas Department of Health and Human Services plans to enforce new rules that require that fetal tissue must be buried or cremated and can no longer be disposed of in sanitary landfills as they are in every other state. The Satanic Temple believes burial rites are a well-established component of religious practice. This is undisputed in the entirety of US legal history. In addition, members of The Satanic Temple believe in the inviolability of the body and, as such, these rules contradict our fundamental beliefs. The First Amendment protects our right to practice our beliefs,
and under the Religious Freedom Reform Act (RFRA), the State must present a compelling reason for why they want to enforce rules that inhibit adherence to our religious
practices. Clearly, the State of Texas has no compelling reason because these rules were
not enacted to promote health and safety, but rather to harass and burden women who terminate their pregnancies. For these reasons, members of The Satanic Temple are not required to comply with the Texas rule on fetal remains. Nevertheless, we will require legal support to protect the
rights of our members. Read more at thesatanictemple.com and religiousreproductiverights.com #thesatanictemple #religiousreproductiverights

A photo posted by The Satanic Temple (@thesatanictemple) on

The Satanic Temple, which uses Satan as a symbol to promote secularism, has now denounced the rule for enforcing a “well-established component of religious practice.”

The group has already targeted the inclusion of religious practices in education and local government by setting up an “After School Satan Club” in Oregon and hailing the Dark Lord in a prayer at an Alaskan council meeting. (Read more from “Satanic Temple Slams New Texas Fetus Burial Rule Opposed by Pro-Choice Groups” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could We Please Quit Pretending It’s About Marriage Equality?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education is opposed to marriage equality. Representative Tom Price, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of HHS, is also opposed to marriage equality. Three other Trump Cabinet selections are against marriage equality, according to the strongly pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. Vice-President-elect Mike Pence has been working against it for years.

Brian Soucek, an acting professor of law at UC Davis, views all this with alarm. He wants to ward off “the threat to marriage equality in California” by repealing Proposition 8 — in case a future U.S. Supreme Court repeals its recent pro-gay marriage ruling.

I hate to tell him, but whether or not Proposition 8 is repealed, there’s going to be marriage inequality either way. There’s marriage inequality even now, under Obergefell v. Hodges. The case was always billed as a battle for marriage equality, but that was never what it was about.

It’s time we quit pretending. It isn’t just Donald Trump’s Cabinet that disbelieves in marriage equality. It isn’t just Jimmy Seibert, controversial pastor to HGTV’s Chip and Joanna Gaines. It’s Brian Soucek, too. It’s the Human Rights Campaign, along with virtually every other gay activist. It’s all of us.

No one believes in marriage equality.

No one, that is, except members of the hyper-radical fringe who want to do away with marriage altogether. They’re the only ones who really believe in marriage equality. Otherwise “marriage equality” has never been anything but a slogan.

Rhetoric in Action

It’s a good one, as slogans go; I’ll grant it that. Borrowed straight from America’s most magnificent noble ideals, it’s got the all right stuff to pack a a powerful rhetorical punch. Why shouldn’t marriage equality be self-evidently a human right, just as much as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Who could possibly oppose such a positive vision?

But it gets better. The phrase also trades in the guilt we’ve felt over falling short of our country’s founding ideals. No sensitive human being would be caught dead being against it — not after all the ethical and social failures we’ve been guilty of for so long. We’re not making those mistakes again!

There’s a problem, though. For all its rhetorical usefulness, “marriage equality” can’t be a self-evident human right if it’s self-evidently self-contradictory and impossible — which is exactly what it is.

What “Marriage Equality” Would Mean, if Anyone Really Meant It

Consider what would happen if we took equality seriously as a primary principle for deciding what should count as marriage. It would mean calling an end to all of our exclusionary biases, like our prejudice against father-daughter marriages, multiple-partner marriages, sibling marriages, indeed, any relationship that anyone wants to label “marriage.” If you want marriage equality, that’s the only way you’ll really get it.

Of course LGBT activists are always quuick to tell us “No! That’s not what we meant!” They’re not at all interested in setting the stage for polygamy or incestuous marriages, they say; and I believe them. I just have trouble believing the part where they tell me at the same time they’re for marriage equality, because clearly they believe in marriage inequality, too, beyond their chosen line of marriage demarcation.

We All Draw Our Lines of Equality and Inequality

We all have lines of marriage demarcation. Marriage conservatives place our boundary in the space between opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships. Couples on one side of that line may be candidates for marriage; couples on the other side cannot. Couples on one side all deserve fully equal access to marriage (certain other reasonable conditions being in place, of course). In other words, we believe in marriage equality, but only up to a certain line; beyond that there is inequality, as we freely admit.

Marriage revisionists draw a line that looks almost exactly like our line, other than including same-sex couples. They, like we, are quick to exclude underage persons, incestuous relationships, polygamy and so on. As one pro-gay commentator wrote on the day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, “Justice Kennedy today wrote the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and securing full marriage equality for gays and lesbians across America.” Marriage equality extends to gays and lesbians, now, but no further. In other words, LGBT activists believe in marriage equality, but only up to a certain line; beyond that there is inequality, as they freely admit.

Now I’m sure you’ve caught it already, but it bears repeating: we all believe in marriage equality up to a certain line, and inequality beyond that line. We all agree on marriage equality, and we all believe in marriage inequality. Our only disagreement is over the location of the line.

Some Lines are More Principled Than Others

So how do we all decide where to place our lines of marriage exclusion? Marriage conservatives can make a strong, principled case for the location of our line. It has to do with history, with family and community stability, with the social and physical health of individuals (especially women), and much more.

Those who stand for gay marriage can make no such principled case. Virtually all the arguments they make for gay marriage work just as well for any sort of couple, threesome, foursome, etc. that wants to call their relationship “marriage.” So why don’t these others get “marriage equality,” too? LGBT activists have been quick to say, “We don’t intend that for a moment! We’ve only asked to have marriage equality for gays and lesbians.” But why? From here it looks perfectly arbitrary.

Or maybe it’s not so arbitrary. Their line is in exactly the right place to gain the social approval they’ve needed for their cause. Activist leaders have long cautioned LGBT people against asking for too much too soon, knowing that they would surely suffer a backlash if they pushed too hard. This marriage-equality line of theirs looks suspiciously as if it’s landed where it is because it suits gay activists’ political purposes.

Enough Pretending Already

At any rate it should be clear enough: we all agree on marriage equality up to a certain line, and inequality beyond it. Our only disagreement is over the placement of the line. So let’s call this “marriage equality” slogan what it is: it’s a sham. Marriage equality isn’t real. The slogan exists only to arouse patriotism and guilt, and to make the conservative view on marriage appear morally inferior. Given that we all believe in marriage equality up to a certain boundary, however, it is no moral fault to prefer a principled boundary over an arbitrary one.

But LGBT activists will undoubtedly continue the sham. They don’t dare quit it. They can’t afford to give it up; it’s too much of a rhetorical powerhouse for them. They have to keep on pretending it’s about marriage equality. But we don’t have to keep letting them get away with the pretense. (For more from the author of “Could We Please Quit Pretending It’s About Marriage Equality?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Unexpected Friendship: 4-Year-Old Gives Hugs and Purpose to Elderly Widower

/0 Comments/in , /by

When Dan Peterson went to the grocery store only months after his wife’s death, he didn’t want to be there. For Dan, everything was a chore. Most days he spent staring out the window at squirrels. As he admitted tearfully in a recent CBS interview, he was just waiting to die — he had no purpose, no reason to live.

But this day brought something different, for as Dan rounded the corner of the canned vegetable aisle, a little girl reached out to him. “Hi old person!” she said happily, “It’s my birthday!” Surprised, Dan smiled. “Well hello, little lady! How old are you today?” he asked.

Norah’s mom, Tara Wood, said the two chatted for a few minutes then they went their separate ways. But after a few minutes, Norah decided she wanted to get a picture with Dan. “And so they posed together, and then they hugged each other like they were long lost friends,” said Tara. When Norah asked for a hug, Dan was taken aback. “A hug? he said, ‘Absolutely!’”

Tara said Norah “zeroed in on him like a missile,” not asking for anything, just wanting Dan to feel loved and to give him that hug. “It was just sweet,” she said.

Dan laughed at the memory, then teared up again. “I said ‘You don’t know, this is the first time for quite a while that I’ve been this happy.’”

Tara thought that was the end of story. She returned home and posted the photos on Facebook.

The post went viral, but something more miraculous happened. A friend of Dan’s told Tara that Dan’s wife had recently passed away — and it had been a long time since she’d seen him so happy. It was through this friend that she was able to get Dan’s contact information.

When she called Dan, he knew exactly who she was. “[Tara] said, ‘Is this the Dan that talked to the little girl at the grocery store?’ I said, ‘Are you talking about Norah?’” Tara and Norah decided to visit Dan and brought a framed picture of the two at the grocery store, pictures she colored and a bag of candy. Dan promptly placed the pictures on his refrigerator. Mom and daughter have been visiting Dan once a week ever since. They even celebrated Dan’s birthday recently — Norah brought balloons and a giant cupcake.

Norah remains concerned about Dan. “Norah has been worried about Mr. Dan being alone. She wanted to know if we could buy him a dog because dogs make everything better,” said Tara. Dan said that Tara convinced Norah that a real dog might not be a good idea, but one day she brought by a present. “And she had this bag and Norah took out a stuffed puppy for me.”

According to Tara, Norah has helped put Dan’s mind at ease. “He said that he hadn’t had an uninterrupted night of sleep for the past several months. Sadness and anxiety had made his mind wander at night, but since meeting Norah, he has slept soundly every single night. He said she healed him.”

Dan believes the meeting was by divine intervention and said he feels that God had a hand in putting the two friends together. Tara said the friendship was just meant to be. “Mostly, she just cares about his well-being and his heart. She wants him to be happy … I guess that’s what friends are supposed to do, huh?”

For Dan, the friendship has given him new meaning and a sense of purpose: “Norah. Watching her grow up. If I didn’t have anything else to do the rest of my life, I have her to love.”

(For more from the author of “Unexpected Friendship: 4-Year-Old Gives Hugs and Purpose to Elderly Widower” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Diversity Police Went Too Far in Attacking HGTV’s Fixer Uppers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

For years I have said that gay activists and their allies would overplay their hand and that their bullying would backfire. It is happening today in front of our eyes as a Christian couple, Chip and Joanna Gaines, who recently graced the cover of People magazine, is now being attacked simply for attending a Christian church. Oh, the thought of it!

Yes, if you are a public figure and you attend a church that preaches that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and you actually believe that homosexuals can be changed by the power of the gospel, you should be shamed, ridiculed and perhaps even fired.

That is the obvious offshoot of BuzzFeed’s recent article which carried the headline, “Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage.” How terrible!

Chip and Joanna attend a church that actually believes what the Bible says? They’re part of a congregation that preaches what the church has taught for 2,000 years? Worse still, “Their pastor considers homosexuality to be a ‘sin’ caused by abuse,” although, “whether the Fixer Upper couple agrees is unclear.” Horror of all horrors. What kind of monsters are these two?

And note that the Gaines’ crime was not making a public statement against homosexuality, as Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson did, after which he was promptly (albeit briefly) suspended by A & E.

Their crime was not making ministry-related statements against abortion and homosexual practice, as the Benham Brothers did, because of which they were promptly fired by HGTV (after that network was bullied by radical left activists).

Their crime was not preaching in their own church that homosexuality was a sin, as Dr. Eric Walsh did, because of which he was fired by the state of Georgia as Public Health Director.

Their crime was not writing a book that made passing, negative reference to homosexual practice as did Kelvin Cochran, because of which he was fired by the city of Atlanta as fire chief.

Their crime was not penning an op-ed piece in a local newspaper, taking respectful issue with the notion that gay is the new black, as Crystal Dixon did, because of which she was fired as Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo.

Their crime was not even signing a petition after a church service which called for a popular vote on same-sex “marriage” in the state of Maryland (rather than letting legislators decide this), as Dr. Angela McCaskill did, because of which she was placed on leave by Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. where she served as Associate Provost of Diversity and Inclusion (a position, by the way, which made no reference to sexual issues in its description).

No, the crime of Chip and Joanna Gaines was simply that they attend a gospel-preaching church. How much farther will these witch hunts go?

The Gaines and their representatives have not even issued a statement as to their own beliefs (if they do, I sure hope they affirm what their church teaches), nor has there ever been the slightest hint that anything they said on or off the show has been offensive, mean-spirited or hateful. Still, the very fact that they are popular, conservative Christians has put a target on their backs.

I repeat: This kind of shaming and bullying will backfire, and it will backfire sooner rather than later.

That’s why the left-leaning Washington Post already published an article by Brandon Abrosino, himself open and proudly gay, taking issue with the BuzzFeed article and noting that almost 40 percent of Americans are “not on board” with same-sex “marriage.” In response to this Abrosino asks, “Is the suggestion here [meaning, on BuzzFeed] that 40 percent of Americans are unemployable because of their religious convictions on marriage? That the companies that employ them deserve to be boycotted until they yield to the other side of the debate — a side, we should note, that is only slightly larger than the one being shouted down?”

Under no circumstances can gay activists and their allies wave the flag of Equality, Diversity and Tolerance when it comes to the BuzzFeed article. No, this is an overt and explicit attack on equality, diversity and tolerance and is, itself, an example of bigotry and intolerance of the highest order.

So, here’s a word of wisdom for BuzzFeed and those applauding their attack on Chip and Joanna Gaines: The Bible will be here long after you are gone, and the words of Moses, Jesus and Paul will be quoted for generations to come, while articles like the current hit piece on Chip and Joanna will be here today and gone tomorrow.

Put another way, as Bible-believing followers of Jesus, we’re not backing down or cowering in a corner or going underground. We’re here to stay, we are not ashamed, and the more you attack us, the stronger we become.

(For more from the author of “The Diversity Police Went Too Far in Attacking HGTV’s Fixer Uppers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.