Monday, January 11, 2010

Martha Stewart Doesn't Even Know What Marriage Is

Wedding blogger the Barefoot Bride was rightly disturbed when she opened the most recent edition of Martha Stewart Living (via Joe My God):
I have grown up in a home where Martha Stewart Living is one of the most oft-read magazines and, since I was old enough to truly appreciate weddings, have been a faithful purchaser of Martha Stewart Weddings. I have enjoyed the inspiration, the fabulous diy ideas, and the beautiful spreads. Martha Stewart Weddings, both the print magazine and the website, have been some of my greatest sources of wedding inspiration. As you well know, I often share information, ideas, and photos from MSW here on my blog.

However, I feel I would be remiss if I did not share my great disappointment with the current issue. As part of the large portion of the population who strongly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, I was rather taken aback to see a homosexual wedding featured in the Winter 2010 issue. I may not always agree with the lifestyles and life choices made by all the people featured in every publication I read, but I do not appreciate picking up my favorite magazine to see photographs of homosexual couples being affectionate. For someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, such articles and/or photos are offensive – and something I certainly would never knowingly pay money for.

I understand that one reader’s views, opinions, and purchases can not change the course of an entire magazine. However, I believe that I speak for a majority. A very large majority. As marriage amendments protecting marriage as between one man and one woman have been passed across the country, the facts speak for themselves – America as a nation does not support same-sex marriages. If you are also disappointed in this article as much as I am, I would encourage you to write to MSW and let them know. A magazine without input from its readers is not serving its readers.

Amen, Barefoot Bride, amen. But there are plenty of unanswered questions in this horrific scandal. Has Martha Stewart ever printed pictures of a so-called "remarriage" ceremony in which at least one of the participants has been married before? I'd be quite surprised if she hasn't.

We would all be remiss if we didn't look into this and make sure Stewart knows she should only publish pictures from real, Biblical weddings. One man, one woman, FOR LIFE--anyone who promotes these so-called "remarriages" that our wicked society has embraced is just doing Satan's public relations for him! Sadly, our society is filled with people who are happy to serve in such a sinister capacity.

The "Conservative" Case For Gay Marriage

So-called conservative Ted Olson recently wrote a lengthy opinion piece for Newsweek explaining why he is working to legalize same-sex marriage--here's an excerpt:
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

He also recorded this video for the magazine:

Olson's use of fancy trial lawyer "logic" and "reasoning" can almost seem convincing at first. But we must remember that this is not about being logical or reasonable. This is about following the Bible down to the letter. And the Bible is very clear (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) that marriage must only be between one man and one woman--FOR LIFE!

Enough with all the argument and debate, enough with all these so-called "facts" and "evidence," and (most of all!) enough with these so-called "rights." It's far past time for everyone to read their Bibles and for us all to restructure our legal system around its precepts. It's easy to do and requires no real independent thinking or reasoning of any kind. So just get with the program people and do what I tell you the Bible tells you to do!

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Is Bob Vander Plaats Serious About Saving Marriage?

Iowa gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats put this up on his Posterous blog:
Next week, the 2010 Iowa Legislative Session will open with an abbreviated schedule, a one billion dollar financial hole to dig out of, unacceptably high unemployment, an increasing push to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment, and a looming election not as far in the future as some may think.

On Tuesday, January 12th, Governor Culver will deliver what political prognosticators are already speculating will be his final Condition of the State address. He will be greeted by a crowd of Iowans from every corner of the state who are planning to travel to Des Moines and lobby their legislators to “Let Us Vote” on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

On April 3rd of last year, all the rules changed. People who had been happy to live their lives and largely ignore the political process were slapped in the face by an unelected, unaccountable, and out of control Iowa Supreme Court. The Court stepped outside their constitutional boundaries when they issued an opinion attempting to redefine marriage and then expected it to be treated as law. Anyone who has read the Iowa Constitution understands that courts don’t make law.

Then, the people of Iowa watched with sadness as Governor Culver, who had promised to take every action available to protect marriage, refused to represent the people of Iowa by using his office as a check and balance to the Court. Next, they learned that lawmakers like Jack Kibbie, who had always run as a pro-family candidate, was completely unwilling to use the power of his office to allow the people of his district to vote on the definition of marriage. Finally, Iowans were appalled by the utter arrogance of anti-family lawmakers like Mike Gronstal, who made it clear that they would use their office to oppose the will of the people and instead promote state sanctioned sodomy certificates.

Opponents of marriage have attempted to distract lawmakers by suggesting the budget disaster and the rising unemployment rates are the only issues that matter. They have done everything possible to downplay the constitutional and political ramifications of ignoring the actions of the Iowa Supreme Court. When those arguments fail to dissuade marriage supporters, they pull out their favorite red herring and say “the sky hasn’t fallen and your marriage isn’t impacted by what the Court did.” This short sighted and extremely self-centered argument ignores the fact that the Court’s opinion effectively forces the teaching of homosexual activity as acceptable and normal to Iowa’s 500,000 public school students. So, the people continue to respond with the same message, “Let Us Vote.”

Unwilling to allow radical homosexual activists and their out-of-state sugar daddies to dictate public policy without a fight, groups of everyday Iowans have begun to organize all over the state. This alliance of patriots actually believes Article I, Section II of the Iowa Constitution where it says, “All political power is inherent in the people.” They understand that if the Court is allowed to exercise legislative authority once, they will do it again. They comprehend the ramifications of judicial tyranny and are unwilling to watch their children become slaves to every whim of the Court. They are offended by the thought of elected Senators and Representatives who would stand between “We The People” and our constitutional right to vote. As a result, they are becoming increasingly engaged in the process.

So, as the 2010 session nears, the pressure on lawmakers to respond to their constituents continues to increase. Local LUV (Let Us Vote) Iowa groups are reaching out to their Lawmakers. Mike Gronstal has begun to bark about how he will never allow the people to vote. He claims that homosexuality is a constitutionally protected “right” but that Iowan’s right to vote is subject to his personal opinions. Still, the calls continue to come, “Let Us Vote.”

The most recent talking point to make the rounds among Democrats looking for a place to hide is to suggest that we support the Constitutional Convention that will be on the 2010 ballot. “You’ll have your opportunity to vote on a Constitutional Convention and that will be the only vote you get,” they say. Thankfully, Iowans understand that the two have nothing to do with each other. In fact, a constitutional convention almost certainly guarantees that the people will never have their voice heard again.

If the people of Iowa voted to hold a constitutional convention, people like Mike Gronstal and Jack Kibbie would play a major role in writing it. These same elitist lawmakers, who refuse to listen to their constituents or obey the constitution we already have, now want us to provide them the ability to write a new one? If Mike Gronstal is willing to stand between the people and their constitutional right to vote under the current constitution, why would we trust him to write a new one?

We do not need a new constitution. We like the one we have. What we want is a government that operates within the constitutional boundaries already established. We want a government where the people’s elected representatives are willing to say “No” to the Court when it overreaches. We are looking for a governor who understands his role in maintaining the proper separation of powers.

“We The People” understand that out-of-state special interest groups worked in Iowa for years to orchestrate the events of last spring. We know that the process of taking back our state from Mike Gronstal and the Senate Sodomy Caucus will take years. As long as we don’t allow him to rewrite the constitution, “We The People” still hold the political power. We intend to use it.

So, as the session begins next week, the people of Iowa will send a message to the political class. On Tuesday the 12th, when Governor Culver gives his annual address, many will drive for hours to stand and send that message together. Each day when lawmakers walk through the lobby or down to the Capitol cafeteria, there will be Iowans waiting to deliver the message again and again. For anyone having trouble getting the message, the people of Iowa will communicate it again next November. That message is clear and simple: Let Us Vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

For more information on the LUV Iowa campaign or Tuesday’s gathering at the Capitol, visit

By: Bryan English, Director of Public Relations for the IFPC Action

However, I have reason to believe Vander Plaats is just a typical poser politician. I have repeatedly asked him on Twitter about whether he would be willing to do everything necessary to save marriage in Iowa and join me in my crusade to ban no-fault divorce and remarriage. But he has thus far ignored me completely. This is very unfortunate. If a self-professed Christian leader like Vander Plaats won't get behind my plan to restore God's will to it's rightful place in the Iowa Constitution, then what hope do we have?

Even though Vander Plaats won't answer my questions, maybe he'll answer yours. Get on Twitter and ask him for yourselves! Why doesn't he support codifying the true definition of marriage as given to us by God himself? Who does he think he is to pick and choose selectively which parts of God's word to uphold?