Twenty: the number of minutes that Esther had to meet her husband before she was engaged and married off by her parents. Seventeen: the age that Esther was when she was married. Ten: the number of years that Esther was abused by her "husband." During that span of time, not only did he rape her, but he allowed other men to rape her as well.
As a mother, my heart breaks for young women like Esther. My daughter is 17, and her current worries are over things like graduation and prepping for her first year of college. A forced, abusive relationship is the furthest concern from my daughter's mind. Yet, at her age (and even younger), some girls are literally fearing for their lives. The sickest part about Esther's story is that it was perpetrated by the people that a young girl should be able to trust: her family.
Or there is the story of Ali Irsan, a Jordanian immigrant to Houston, who together with his wife and son was charged with capital murder. Apparently, the family gunned down an Iranian activist because she was thought to have played a role in their daughter's conversion to Christianity. Irsan was also charged with killing Coty Beavers, his daughter's husband. According to Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson, more >>
WASHINGTON — Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced Monday the launch of an "aggressive" initiative to combat any state or federal legislation, or court ruling seeking to protect religious objectors of same-sex marriage from government consequence for living according to their religious convictions.
The organization, which advocates a strict separation view of the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment, has started the "Protect Thy Neighbor" project, which will monitor and battle all state and federal legislation and court challenges that pertain to giving individuals, business and religious institutions the right not to serve or participate in same-sex weddings on the basis that it would violate their religious beliefs.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on June 26 that it is unconstitutional for states to refuse issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses, the organization expects Christian conservatives to respond by introducing a plethora of bills, executive orders, regulatory and policy changes that are "designed to resist the Supreme Court's ruling." more >>
Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl says that despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, it cannot change the traditional understanding of marriage as defined by Scripture.
"The law of the land is the law of the land," said Wuerl in a WTOP report. "We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn't mean we change the Word of God. That doesn't mean we change the Scriptures, or the church's millennia-long tradition of what marriage is."
Wuerl's comments comes after a June 26 statement released by the Archdiocese of Washington which said that in light of the Supreme Court ruling, local churches in the diocese will have to make "moral evaluations" on how they will respond when there is a conflict between religious tradition and civil law. more >>
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015 has changed everything and nothing for Christians. For churches that have already capitulated on this issue the matter is settled. For Christians who oppose the issue, the matter is far from settled — it's only just begun.
Since the ruling I have read both pro and con responses to this historic action. One article basically read, "When will Christians get the point and move on? Same-sex marriage is now the law of land. These Christians don't get it." I respectfully and kindly disagree. We do get it, all too well. My fear is that you don't and may never. Or, at least you don't get Christians like me, per se. Let me explain.
First, what you may not get about biblically committed Christians is that we are called to be good, law-abiding citizens, just like you are, to the degree that our basic biblical beliefs and citizenship concur. Gladly, most of the time Christians can function in civil society without violating our conscience. more >>
During the past few days a number of commentators have discussed the numerous parallels between the Supreme Court's recent decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In neither case was the majority opinion grounded in the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, social conservatives are likely feeling a similar sense of disenfranchisement and betrayal. Social conservatives should, however, take heart. We are now in a much better situation today than we were in 1973. This is for three reasons:
1) Better Organization
When the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973 there were no single-issue pro-life groups based in Washington, D.C. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was still part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was not until May of 1973 that NRLC became incorporated as a separate entity. more >>
Oh, the injustice of five justices wearing black robes, so overwhelmingly endowed with special superpowers, they can read what's not written and create sketchy laws out of thin air, declaring something as a fundamental right, though it can't be backed by verbiage in the Constitution, according to Chief Justice John Roberts. But now, "it's the law."
America's founders did their best to safeguard against this type of tyranny with the separation of powers, understanding when a government goes rogue, liberty wanes. The legislative power to make laws was given to Congress, not judges. Judges are to determine whether or not a law violates the Constitution, not make judgments or create laws based on personal whim, political leanings or pop culture. Like the Bible, the Constitution is not something we need to update like the latest fashion trend.
In essence, the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision and President Obama's rainbow colored White House was a one-fingered salute to the Constitution and an enormous number of Americans who either believe in the traditional definition of marriage that is as old as Creation itself, or strongly agree with America's founders, that these decisions should be decided by individual states, not mandated by the federal government. more >>