Something is Changing....People are taking a stand for Jesus Christ in the Public Square.

Praying in Jesus name...

[link to www.c-span.org]


Rev. Gregory Goethals of Los Angeles closed his House opening prayer on May 19 by saying, “We ask this in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

A Christian nursery worker was discriminated against because of her religious belief, an employment tribunal has found.

Sarah Mbuyi, an evangelical Christian from Belgium, was working at a nursery in Highbury, north London when she was sacked for upsetting a lesbian colleague who was in a civil partnership with another woman.

[link to www.christiantoday.com]


Hollywood Actor Comes Out in Support of Christian Bakers Who Refused Gay Marriage Cake

[link to www.christianheadlines.com]

Dr. Robert George's Defense of Marriage: This Year's Wilberforce Award Winner


George begins by saying that “If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.”

That’s because “any two (or more) people can feel affection for one another . . . and make a commitment to caring and sharing.”

Thus, “if our law understood these things as the essence of marriage, then restricting it to two-person, opposite-sex partnerships would be invidiously discriminatory—a denial of equal protection.”

But folks, that’s not how state laws have historically viewed marriage, and that’s why the step the Court seems to be prepared to take is so momentous.

George tells us that state laws “have understood and defined [marriage] as a relationship shaped by the needs of children for mothers and fathers, rather than as an institution whose purpose is to serve the interests or desires of adults by facilitating sexual-romantic companionship.”

Rather than children being the by-product of a sexual-romantic relationship we call “marriage,” marriage has been understood as a “social institution” that “aims to secure for children the inestimable blessing of being brought up in the committed love—the marital bond—of the man and woman whose union brought them into being.” So, as George puts it, “the very idea of marriage is rooted in the male-female complementarity that makes sexual reproduction possible.”

Although not all marriages produce children, either because of infertility or because of choice, that does not change the fact that our laws and traditions “have always understood marriage as the type of relationship that would naturally be fulfilled by the spouses having and rearing children together.”

As George tells us, “The question before the Court is whether the Constitution requires states to adopt the [sexual-romantic idea] of marriage” in place of the “conjugal conception of marriage.”