Video: Rosaria Butterfield on Her Conversion from Lesbianism

Rosaria Butterfield used to live a lesbian lifestyle.

Now, I will spare those who are curious as to whether that means she was in the "gay-as-long-as-I-can-remember" camp. She was not. She got into it pretty late.

But all this means is that she connects with the thousands or millions of people who have embraced homosexual lifestyles post-high school or post-college.

Nevertheless, she is clear, insightful and has a heart for those in the LGBT community.

For one, she, like myself, is against reparative therapy.

In an essay, she puts it this way:

"This position contends a primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God's gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ's body and still struggle with sexual temptation. This heresy is a modern version of the prosperity gospel. Name it. Claim it. Pray the gay away."

She is right, and she is taking the biblical view.

My reason for rejecting reparative therapy comes straight from the Bible as well.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:10-11 NIV)

Almost 2,000 years ago, people were, before the arrival of modern technology, dealing with homosexual attraction and having homosexual intercourse. And, by the grace and Spirit of our God, they were washed and sanctified from their sins -- sex-related or not. Notice the inclusion of all kinds of sins in the passage.

No doctors, except the Great Physician, were present.

No medical contraptions, no weird methods or instruments designed to make a gay person straight were used.

It's also worthy pointing out what comes next:

The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? (1 Corinthians 6:13-15 NIV)

God's power, the same power that lifted the Lord Jesus from the grave, will lift us also in the Resurrection.

She also makes book recommendations. I trust them.

One of them is Christopher Yuan's Out of a Far Country.

Wesley Hill's Washed and Waiting is another book she recommends. Wesley Hill was one of those gay people who at around age 5 or 6 knew they were different.

She also mentions The Art of Neighboring as a book she is currently working through.

While she doesn't recommend it, Kevin DeYoung's "What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality?" has been recommended by a lot of people.

The Q&A is as good as the presentation, if not better. Watch the entire thing. It's worth it.

Every Christian can Defy Man's laws. But when?

Every Christian has the God-granted authority to do what Kentuckian Kim Davis did. 

For it is always better to obey God than man (Acts 5:29).

And while this is the case, it is not always strategic or prudent to do so.

For example, running red lights even though you don't believe in the human authority of the police officer that issues the ticket is not wise. 

You will owe the state hundreds of dollars in fees before the law or the grassroots will side in your favor.

Repeated offenses will get your freedom to drive taken away. Too much to lose, not much to gain. 

Or...

In the case of Eric Garner, it was unwise to resist arrest, although under a biblical framework the police had no authority to arrest him, for they were enforcing petty tax laws, which I'd argued go over and beyond any biblical limit.

However, it is absolutely OK for that same police officer to overlook and not enforce those laws.

And such is the case with Kim Davis.

On Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis' alleged hypocrisy

If Kim Davis' story holds up (notice the "if") and she is a recent convert to Christianity, then liberals are simply hypocrites. 

You can't judge her according to standards she didn't hold yet. 

But let's see, according to liberalism, she can get divorced and married all she wants. It's only when you assume Christian standards that the question of hypocrisy arises.

Let's push this one step further: We must then ask do these fault-finders want to assume Christian standards when judging the institute of marriage?

Bingo.

I didn't think so.

But here's the thing...it's completely irrelevant.

This is simply a cousin of the "straights have ruined marriage so let us have the right to get married too" argument. It's a complete non-sequitur (the "tu quoque" fallacy). It does not follow. One's immorality is not a license for another's.

The dividing line here, as it always has been from the beginning, is the Word of God.

How Should Christians React to the Supreme Court's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Douglas Wilson explains here.  Here is an excerpt:

But in the meantime, we must use these enclaves, for however long they last, as places to gather, worship God, regroup, educate our children, marshal our resources, and counterattack.

How do we counterattack? By preaching the Word. These people cannot understand words because they will not worship God the Father through His Word. Given the nature of man, and the nature of the gospel given to save the natural man, none of this should come as a surprise to us. So what do we do? We preach the Word, whether or not anyone wants to hear it.

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2–4).

Taking all in all, this is a glorious time to be alive. Faithfulness to Jesus Christ is becoming more obviously meaningful by the day."

There is much more. If you are wondering why there is a picture of the Queen from Alice in Wonderland, then you have to read why Wilson says the character is relevant to figure out why I posted it.

Read the rest here.

Ted Weiland on the overturning of DOMA

Ted Weiland:

This ruling could have never occurred had the government not got into the (lucrative) business of licensing (making legal) heterosexual marriages, what was already lawful under Yahweh's jurisdiction. That which provides the license, ultimately makes the rules for what it licenses.

Had the framers not failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh's immutable morality, secular government would have never been allowed to provide licenses for marriage and this ruling would have never occurred. In fact, not one of today's Supreme Court Justices would be on the bench if Bible law were the rule and thereby Biblical qualifications the standard for judges.

For more, see online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

Original Comment here

The Pro-Gay Marriage Reader - A Constitutional Perspective

The Constitutional Case for Same-Sex Marriage || UnitedLiberty.org

A strong argument that, while acknowledging that the libertarian notion that the best deal would be for the government to get out of the marriage business, also acknowledges the Jim Crow-like 2-tier marriage system is here and needs to be dealt with. Marriage for me, but not for thee, it argues, is not how things should be until the government gets completely out. Perhaps its most powerful argument, however, is that "[b]y outlawing same-sex marriage, the states are essentially forbidding religious institutions to marry whom they with."

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage || Cato.org

The Chairman of the libertarian-think tank the Cato Institute argues that "equal protection of the law" applies to homosexual/same-sex couples as well. Levy says that no compelling reason why the government sanctions marriage for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals has been given. Additionally, he argues that reasons to ban same-sex marriage - it would weaken the institution of marriage - isn't helped by that very ban, and offers legal suggestions to strengthen conservatives beloved institution.

The take-away from both articles:

The strongest case, it seems, for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is to argue that banning gay marriage is a violation of the "equal protection of the law" granted in the 14th Amendment. Also, both writers are libertarians it seems they really wish - Levy uses the term "regrettably" - the government didn't get involved in marriage in the first place.

Bonus: Can We Really Get The Government Out of Marriage?

A piece giving a historical overview of the government's involvement in marriage, including property, taxes, and all sorts of benefits and protections, and acknowledges that "marriage licenses" are relatively new in human, or at least Western, history.

Bonus: When Did Laws Denying Same-Sex Couples Marriage Licenses Become Unconstitutional?

Another history lesson. This time, it answers when denying marriage licenses to gays became unconstitutional.

Put Hetero-Sexual Marriage on Every Ballot and See If It Passes

In an otherwise useless article, comedian Dean Obeidallah says that we should put man-woman/traditional marriage on the ballot and see if it passes:

So I say forget putting a question on the ballot about legalizing same-sex marriage. I propose we put a question on the ballot in each state asking voters whether straight marriage should be legal. I think there is a good chance straight marriage might not pass in every state (especially in those with high divorce rates such as Nevada, Maine and Oklahoma).

I'm against gay marriage--and straight marriage too || CNN

The Anti-Gay Marriage Reader - Written by Gays

Reasons to Oppose the Institution of Marriage || IndyBay.org

A progressive argument from a faction within the LGBT movement against the institution that, in their view, is the tool of power and privilege. Rails against pro-gay marriage proponents who want a slice of the imperialist pie.

The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage || Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo is a Rothbardian, atheist, and openly gay man. He is also one of the leading thinkers in the American libertarian movement and the anti-war right. Here he reminds gays that like its heterosexual counterpart, gay marriage existed before the state intervened in the marriage realm; and argues that gay marriage will hurt gays.

The take-away from both articles:

Both a hardcore old-school progressive and libertarian agree: in the early days of the gay rights movement, "[the prospect of freedom—not only from traditional moral restraints but from legal burdens and responsibilities—is part of what made homosexuality appealing." The modern gay rights movement is far from its anti-state roots on this issue. Somewhat ironically, old-school progressives are more for "limited government" on this issue than conservatives are.

Great Idea: Put "traditional" man-woman marriage on the ballot.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 3

"Uninsurables" fate pinned on Supreme Court decisions, the Associated Press reports.

A new Dept. of Agriculture study says that healthy foods can cost less than foods high in fat, sugar and salts, the Associated Press reports.

Stanford University scientists created a light-powered retinal implant, BBC News reports.

FLASHBACK: The health care law includes a provision tracking gold transactions, Washington's Blog reports.

Many businesses already offer health benefits to same-sex couples, Kaiser Health News reports.

FLASHBACK: CBO says health care law could result in 20 million people losing their coverage, The Hill reports.

A Constitutional Agenda for Social Conservatives by Gary North

Gary North agrees with me on so many things. He has the same solution to the same-sex marriage/homosexuality debate as I do. You have to read the article to find out.

Social conservatives need to decide: head-banging or the Constitution.

Social liberals want to free up head-banging in these five areas, so as to have more money to spend on head-banging in the areas of federal regulation of the economy.

The correct agenda for social conservatives is simple: vote for Congressmen and Senators who follow these rules: (1) Constitutional authorization of all laws; (2) reduced taxation; (3) budget in surplus; (3) debt reduction; (4) de-funding of the executive. In one phrase: Shrink the federal government. There is only one social conservative who favors this agenda.

It isn't Newt Gingrich.

A Constitutional Agenda for Social Conservatives by Gary North || LewRockwell.com

Christian Radio Host Michael Brown speaks at Family Research Council

I saw another one of my heroes in person today. I even said "hello" but not much more than that. I might say something next time around...if there is a next time.

Vox Day on Marriage and the State

I have always suspected that marriage wasn't always controlled by the state. Vox Day confirms my suspicions with historical evidence:

I further note that it was not until the 24th session of the Council of Trent, in 1563, that any church or state authority even seriously concerned itself with the question of overseeing marriage, the Codex Justinianus and Lex Papia Poppaea notwithstanding. For most of human history, men and women have successfully married, bred and raised families without the involvement or the permission of the state. Given the plunge in Western birth rates of the last 50 years, the more relevant argument is if the institution of marriage can survive the interference of the state, not if it requires i

Vox Day, In Defense of Libertarians