The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT pride,” employees are ordered:

• “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still believe in objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

• “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

• DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
• DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to compel managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

• “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

• “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

• “DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
• “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that's a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you're a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

Lovely.

But even as the Obama administration is busy validating lifestyle choices and values that fly in the face of Christian sexual morality, this president is just as busy undermining the free exercise of the very Christian faith that dares to acknowledge morality even exists.

In a statement released last week, President Obama’s Pentagon threatened military personnel: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense … Court Martials and nonjudicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis.”

Although the Pentagon has walked back its new anti-Christian “proselytizing” policy within the realm of public relations (a policy drafted in concert with foul-mouthed atheist and anti-Christian bigot Mikey Weinstein) the DoD has yet to offer evidence that it intends to walk it back within the realm of application.

Merriam Webster’s defines “proselytization” as an attempt “to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause.” Sounds an awful lot like the Pentagon is threatening to court-martial any service member who obeys Christ’s central command to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15).

Hard to read it any other way.

And so, to any member of the armed services who is harassed, demeaned, reprimanded or charged by this Obama Pentagon with obeying Jesus – with endeavoring to “recruit or convert” others to His exclusive saving grace – we at Liberty Counsel are delighted to say, “We’ve Got your back!” Pro bono. Free of charge.

How are we able to do this? Through the generous financial and prayer support of more than 1.2 million Liberty Counsel donors and supporters. So please, get this information to every member of the armed forces you know. If you (or they) are being persecuted in any way, at any time for sharing the love of Christ, let us know. Call us right away at 1-800-671-1776, or by emailing us at liberty@lc.org.

“Making it a crime to share your faith is outrageous and morally unconscionable,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “There has never been an administration more committed to its secularist philosophy at the expense of religious liberty. Liberty Counsel will do whatever is necessary to defend the religious liberty of our men and women who defend our liberties in the armed services,” promised Staver.

You’re trained to fight. So are we. You risk your lives to defend us every day. Let us risk our time and money to defend you. It’s the least we can do. We’d count it a high honor.

I’ve got news for Barack Obama. In America, serving God and serving country are not mutually exclusive. They never have been. In fact, until this president came along, the two went hand-in-hand.

In his farewell address, George Washington underscored the critical role religion and morality play to our nation’s survival. He warned of people like Barack Obama and Mikey Weinstein. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports,” he said.

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

It seems the central goal of this president and his Pentagon is to do that – to “subvert religion and morality” wherever they find it. George Washington called that unpatriotic.

I agree.

Mark Twain once wrote, “The secret of success is making your vocation your vacation.” Twain’s sage advice seems a slight variation of Ecclesiastes 9:10: “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might …” In short, if you want to find happiness, find what God created you to and do it well. Do what you love and you’ll love what you do.

I love working for Liberty Counsel. I’m incredibly blessed to part of one of the fastest growing (if not the fastest growing) civil rights organizations in America.

Every brave service man or woman I’ve ever known loves serving this great nation. Every Christian I’ve ever known loves serving the one Holy and Sovereign Creator of the universe – King Jesus.

If President Obama or any other anti-Christian radicals believe the American people are going to just lie down and allow them to rip God from country, they’ve got another thing coming.

I’m always proud of what we do at Liberty Counsel, but, having served 12 years in the military, I’m especially proud right now. It can’t be easy, laboring under an incompetent commander in chief who, over and again, has displayed overt hostility toward Washington’s “indispensable pillars” of religion and morality. It can’t be easy to serve under a president who constantly attacks your faith and freedom.

“It is beyond ironic that this administration chose to attack the religious liberties of the men and women who are charged with defending our nation’s freedom across the country and around the world,” Staver said.

“The military has a unique relationship with chaplains in order to meet the spiritual needs of our soldiers. To threaten court-martial to anyone who shares their faith is reprehensible and un-American. This absurd policy will undermine the military and destroy morale. It must be rescinded immediately, and those responsible for instituting it should be disciplined.”

But until then – and once again – to those in the military, don’t forget: Stand tall and proclaim your faith loudly and proudly. If Obama tries to muzzle you, don’t sweat it. Liberty Counsel’s got your back.

What callous soul wouldn’t be moved by this youngish man’s gallantry? Who wouldn’t shudder at his sacrifice?

Merriam-Webster’s defines courage as “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.” Think of it. Just as his middling basketball career was coming to a close and he was preparing to fade into relative obscurity – joining millions of others in the Obama unemployment lines – Jason Collins stood tall and said, “No! I will not take the easy road!”

This selfless giant of a man put everything on the line and valiantly announced to the world (Optional: may or may not insert theme to “Battle Hymn of the Republic” here) – announced to the world: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.”

With everything to lose and nothing to gain, Jason Collins, in one single, selfless act, has rushed forward to jump on that “homophobic” grenade of persecution each of his LGBT brethren, sistren and whatever-else-tren face daily. For every oppressed dude-digging-dude, chick-digging-chick or cross-dressing whatchahoozie, Jason Collins has “taken one for the home team.”

Danger? Fear? Difficulty? One can only imagine.

Have you ever tried to fend-off a herd of undulating, adulating media-types and Hollywood celebs? Me neither. Guy could get slobbered on – might even skin an elbow.

And just as he was ready to move to the next level of his basketball career (couch, Cheetos and NBA 2K13 on his PlayStation), Jason may now have to contend with millions in product endorsements, speaking fees and, potentially, even a renewed NBA contract. Have you ever dealt with lawyers? I have. I am a lawyer. We’re a pain in the butt.

But then it occurred to me. Collins had a girlfriend of eight years. In fact, they were engaged to be married before he dumped her. This would make him “bisexual,” then, wouldn’t it? So – and bear with me here – if being “gay” makes him a hero, does being “bi” make him a superhero? That. Is. Awesome! I don’t know: “Captain Switch-Hitter”? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

Then again, if he’s “bisexual,” might that actually diminish his heroism? Would it make him only half a hero, or would it just cancel out altogether, making him ordinary again?

It’s all so confusing.

How do you get a call from the White House? Sandra Fluke? Jason Collins? I see a theme developing here. Declare sexual liberation from all that archaic “morality” stuff and – ring, ring – “Barack on line one.”

Oh, sure, a bunch of those “Christians” and conservatives are up-in-arms over the president’s “bizarre priorities” – that he would personally call Jason Collins to congratulate him over “the love that dare not speak its name,” while completely ignoring a guy like Cameron Lyle.

Who is Cameron Lyle, you ask? Well, little chance you’d know. And why should you? He’s just some attention-grabbing track and field star from the University of New Hampshire who sacrificed his athletic career to undergo the excruciating process of donating bone marrow to a total stranger dying of leukemia.

Yeah, I know. What a prima donna. They call that “heroic”? Puhleeze. Sure, like in a 1950s kinda way. We’ve evolved. We’re talking “gay pride” here. So, naturally, Collins gets the call – a little “one-on-one” if you will – while Lyle gets the shaft.

And all is well in the “progressive” time-space continuum.

But, lest you worry about Jason Collins’ incredible act of courage going otherwise unlauded by this president and his mainstream media, I shall hasten to comfort you. For Mr. Obama also heaped spoonfuls of sparkly-sweet sugar upon Jason’s hate-tattered brow at a frenzied news conference. CBS News describes it thusly: “President Obama told reporters he ‘couldn’t be prouder’ of NBA player Jason Collins, who one day earlier announced he was gay. Mr. Obama said Collins is ‘a role model’ to be able to say, ‘I’m still 7-foot-tall and can bang with Shaq, and deliver a hard foul.’”

Um, right, exactly. If we can’t be proud of sodomy, what can we be proud of?

Seriously, I’d encourage the next pro athlete engaged in some other hitherto-considered-deviant-sexual-lifestyle to ride the wave.

Who knows, in today’s ever-”progressive” culture, I could see President Obama awarding the Medal of Honor to the first polo player courageous enough to admit having a thing for his horse.

I mean, why are we surprised that an abortionist and his staff would, behind the walls of an always-lethal abortion clinic, commit one of the most horrific serial killings in American history? What did you think abortionists do, heal people?

Why are we taken aback that there was no oversight, no regulation, or that Planned Parenthood, though privy to the clinic’s filthy, medieval conditions, refused to report it to the Department of Health? After all, Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama and the DNC have vehemently opposed all laws – such as those in Virginia, Mississippi and elsewhere – designed to prevent exactly the same kind of squalid conditions found in Gosnell’s clinic (and others), laws that simply direct abortion mills to meet the same minimal safety standards required of all other medical facilities.

You didn’t really buy that whole “women’s health” nonsense, did you?

Sucker.

Seriously, there are so few sociopathic doctors left willing to hack alive those inconvenient little buggers; so you anti-choice nuts need to just chill. Who cares about “blood smeared walls,” or babies left to drown in toilets, or snipped spinal cords, or dismembered body parts kept in jars, or screaming, crying newborns silenced by decapitation? What did you think women were “choosing” with abortion, some kind of medical treatment? We’re not removing a tumor here. You’ve got to kill a few babies to make a “reproductive freedom” omelette. Besides, there’s billions to be made in the death racket.

Let’s keep it real. The only difference between what happened in Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic and what happens every day in Planned Parenthoods across the country can be measured by a matter of inches – by the child’s proximity to her mother in the room. Whether the baby is in the womb or 12 inches removed, a dead baby is a dead baby, right? So why all the drama? Relax. You know, Roe v. Wade and all.

Besides, what’s an abortionist to do (wink, wink) if that resilient little pest does survive, if she’s born alive? I appreciate President Obama’s candor on the matter. Like he said, laws preventing abortionists like Gosnell from finishing her off are “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Snippety-snip, eh, Barack? You know, choice and all.

Or, as Gosnell attorney Jack McMahon noted during the trial, it’s “ludicrous … to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time.” You anti-choice zealots don’t get to define the terms here. One man’s “alive” is another woman’s “unwanted pregnancy.” Potato, potahto.

And why are we stunned that the mainstream media have spiked a story with all the bloody and salacious newsworthy trappings that – had abortion not been involved – would have filled the news cycle 24/7?

You think some now-barren, 40-something copy editor who’s had five abortions wants to draw attention to its grisly reality? You think she wants to be reminded of her own string of dismembered little choices? No, better to sip appletinis with the boys down at the National Press Club and pretend it never happened.

Now that’s reproductive freedom! That’s freedom of the press!

In reality, to the media, this stuff is old news. Gosnell is on trial for doing something nearly indistinguishable from partial-birth abortion – a “never necessary” procedure (according to the AMA) Obama vocally endorsed. He said that banning it was part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.”

Furthermore, why are we surprised that this rush-to-judgment-when-it-suits-his-political-agenda president suddenly “can’t comment” on Gosnell “because it’s an active trial”? Remember? This is the same race-baiting “community organizer” who said that Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when arresting a combative black Harvard professor who, as it turned out, was himself acting stupidly. Don’t forget; this is the same president who had no problem laying guilt on a “presumed innocent” George Zimmerman, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Funny, I actually do have a son and, when he was born, he looked a lot like those little boys Gosnell and Planned Parenthood kill every day. Come to think of it, most of them looked almost identical to Trayvon, skin color and all.

Curious.

Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., called Obama out on his refusal to address Gosnell: “Mr. President, your silence on this issue is deafening,” he said.

I agree. The left’s silence – to include the mainstream media – speaks volumes. It’s a tacit endorsement of Gosnell’s gruesome practices. And why shouldn’t it be?

To “pro-choicers” it’s not that old Kermit did anything wrong; it’s just that he got caught doing it. He was careless. He pulled back the curtain of “reproductive freedom” to reveal abortion’s house of horrors. Kermit Gosnell is liberalism personified, and liberalism relies on deceit. The “progressive” culture is a culture of death. Moral relativism is as moral relativism does.

Speaking of moral relativism, on Friday the first sitting president in United States history gave the keynote address at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Nice timing. Even as the Gosnell mass-murder trial wraps up, Obama was lending the full weight of his presidency to a mass-murder celebration.

His message? All you Planned Parenthood-hating, anti-Gosnell right-wingers better listen up: “No matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing that the past few years have shown,” he promised. “That Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”

Yeah, we’ll see about that, slick.

– Genesis 1:1

Be they theist or be they atheist, on this most scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

And then, bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we too popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.”

Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not.

And then they were.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists, whether they believe in God or deny Him, is that the “Big Bang” moment of singularity is the only feasible explanation to account for the universe and everything in it. All things material must have a beginning and an end.

Still, scientists disagree over the who, what, when, why and how of it all. The Genesis account ascribes manifestation of this incomprehensibly complex and precisely honed universe to a benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God who transcends time and space. This is, as it goes, the only way to account for a universe teeming with evidence of design, painstakingly engineered and clearly crafted by a superior intelligence that far exceeds man’s finite ability to comprehend.

Everything cannot come from nothing.

Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

Others say it ain’t so. Secular materialists and atheists claim it can’t be – that such explanation is a “God of the gaps” supernatural explanation and, therefore, must be banished from the realm of scientific inquiry. They demand that anything beyond the known natural is off limits. Atheists attribute all of existence to, well, nothing. It just kind of happened. Genesis 1:1 of the materialist Bible might read: “In the beginning nothing created the heavens and the earth.” Fuzzy math. Nothing plus nothing equals something. Zero times zero equals everything.

And so, they have reasoned themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.”

Reader, meet God.

In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

Scripture admonishes: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1) It never ceases to amaze me the spectacular hoops through which God-deniers will jump to rationalize God’s existence out of existence.

I got a chuckle the other day from one such God-denier. Stephen Hawking is, no doubt, a brilliant physicist. He’s widely considered one of the most intelligent men alive.

Which makes his abject foolishness all the more puzzling.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” Hawking threw the “M-theory” Hail Mary during a recent lecture titled “The Origin of the Universe.”

According to NBC News, “M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

This is also known as the “multiverse” theory. It is, essentially, the God-deniers last best attempt to explain away a universe that exhibits smoking gun evidence of intelligent design and fine-tuning clearly intended to support life. The multiverse theory – to the extent it can be called a theory (there’s exactly zero evidence to support it) – conjectures that our universe is merely one universe among an infinite number of invisible, parallel universes. It just so happens that we live in that one spontaneously self-created universe wherein, against astronomical odds (quite literally) – everything fell right in to place.

Poof – here we are.

In other words, we won the cosmic-parallel-dimension lottery at a-bazillion-to-one odds.

And they say we rely on blind faith?

1 Corinthians 1:18-19 says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’”

Indeed, how frustrating it must be. So bright, yet so dull – “fearfully and wonderfully made,” yet in stubborn denial of the Maker.

Romans 1:20 observes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Yet excuses they make; silly, unsupported, irrational excuses. According to Scripture, atheists like Hawking are fools. They are perishing. But even as they perish, they futilely grasp at multiverse straws, willfully blind to the loving Creator-Redeemer who reaches with nail-pierced hands to save them.

I feel sorry for Stephen Hawking. He’s had a very difficult life. Fifty years with Lou Gehrig’s disease, confined to a wheelchair and unable to move. A brilliant mind trapped in a failing body.

Pray for him.

Still, brilliant though he may be, Dr. Hawking is only human. “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” (1 Corinthians 1:25)

I would encourage Dr. Hawking – all God-deniers for that matter – that, in and through Jesus Christ, they can be made new in body, mind and soul.

They need only ask.

Because, for now at least, we do live in time and space.

And time is ticking.

Our next time is eternal. Our next space we now choose.

Choose wisely.

See the WND Superstore’s large selection of products dealing with Evolution and Creation.

“Gay pride” necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. “Gay marriage” and other “sexual orientation”-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

According to the unequivocal moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition – explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.”

I know; it’s not popular to speak such simple truths in today’s politically correct world. But I’m not out to win a popularity contest.

Neither is Ms. Barronelle Stutzman. Ms. Stutzman is the Christian owner-operator of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash. She is, by all accounts, a lovely, sweet, elderly woman who both employs and regularly serves open practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle. Sadly, she has become the latest victim in a fast-growing string of secularist attacks against Christians and other morally minded people. If “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, I can assure you that we will soon see a virtual explosion in the same kind of anti-Christian persecution Ms. Stutzman now suffers.

Recently, one of Ms. Stutzman’s frequent homosexual customers requested that she provide flower arrangements for his same-sex “wedding.” She politely declined, saying that her Christian conscience and “relationship with Jesus Christ” prevented her from any involvement with counter-Christian “same-sex marriage.” She was, quite simply, a Christian being Christian. The two hugged and parted ways.

Unfortunately, in our ever-”progressive” culture, being Christian has fast become a most dangerous proposition. As each homofascist demand is checked from liberals’ sin-centric wish list, it only gets worse.

As a result of her constitutionally guaranteed religious free exercise, Washington state’s newly elected Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed charges against Ms. Stutzman, seeking both a monetary judgment and an injunction to physically force her to violate her Christian conscience. He would compel her to either lend her artistic expression in support of counterfeit “gay marriage” – something Christianity steadfastly recognizes as mortal sin – or face further charges.

Speaking of steadfast, to her credit, Ms. Stutzman has stood firm. She has refused to cave under Ferguson’s tyrannical torment. Ferguson, on the other hand, has revealed himself a creep and a coward – a “progressive” bully who apparently gets off on abusing elderly women. He’s a disgrace to Washington state and should be thrown out of office and disbarred.

Still, this type of government persecution must be expected. Ferguson is a liberal. The liberal viewpoint is that any viewpoint, save the liberal viewpoint, must be criminalized and prosecuted.

Like many of us, Joseph Backholm, with the Family Policy Institute of Washington, has long warned about the consequences of radically deconstructing the institution of natural marriage. “Now that the law says marriage is genderless,” he recently wrote of Ms. Stutzman’s ongoing abuse, “those who think otherwise [must] … conform or be punished. … Now liberals believe they are legally entitled to someone else’s labor.”

To homosexuals I say this: Yes, you are equal in God’s eyes. You are loved. These things are true, not because of your homosexual lifestyle, but, rather, they are true in spite of it.

Most homosexuals know intuitively, I think, that their lifestyle is unnatural and immoral and that the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is a silly farce. Thus, they must force others to affirm both their self-destructive lifestyle and their mock “marriages” under penalty of law. They must physically compel everyone to engage their “emperor’s new clothes” delusion, so they can feel better about bad behavior.

Well, my friend, making everyone else “call evil good and good evil” won’t fill that dark void in your soul. Only repentance and redemption through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can do that.

When we give deviant sexual conduct preferred status in law, Christian morality becomes illegal. If you think government-recognized “gay marriage” is harmless to society, you’re playing the fool. It places the Christian sexual ethic and free exercise of religion in direct conflict with law. It’s my sense that many liberty-minded people are finally coming awake to this disturbing reality.

Although we all sin, Christians are commanded to neither support nor engage in evil. Hence, Christians – true Christians – cannot engage in nor condone the unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior. Neither can we support sin-centric “gay marriage.”

This rudimentary equation is built upon the natural laws of moral physics. Christianity is magnetically charged truth. Homosexual behavior is a magnetically charged lie – a spiritual and biological falsehood. Christianity and homosexual sin are as north to south. Polar opposites cannot occupy the same position in time and space. They repel one another. It’s physically, spiritually and legally impossible for religious freedom and preferred legal status for sexual sin to coexist in harmony. Ms. Stutzman’s persecution is just the latest example of this timeless reality.

Why are Christians so afraid to call sin sin? It’s time for invertebrate believers to grow a backbone. Truth, in love, is the balance. Yes, the world will hate you, because it first hated Christ. So what? Count it a blessing – even unto death.

Here’s my recommendation: When those who are lost to the world hate on you, laugh at them. Then cry for them. Then pray for them. Follow Christ’s example and ask, as did He, that God “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Then get up, dust yourself off and get back in the fight.

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

Barronelle Stutzman followed this advice and – though she currently faces government persecution for her choice – she has also become an accidental hero. Pray for her. I know God will surely bless her faithfulness.

Still, know this: If you are a Christian in today’s America, you too will almost certainly find yourself with a similar decision to make. When man’s law violates God’s law, you will have to choose which to obey. Choosing God can mean persecution.

I’ve made my choice.

How will you choose?

Travis will be in his full Muhlenberg character at The Awakening 2013 on April 19-20 in Orlando, Fla. The Awakening is a life-changing, spiritual-political revival.

But more on that later.

At breakfast, Travis and I were discussing the man Muhlenberg and what he stood for.

One early Sunday morning in January 1776, Rev. Muhlenberg was preaching what seemed his normal weekly sermon. His Scripture for the day focused on Ecclesiastics 3, which observes, in part, “To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.” Muhlenberg continued: “In the language of the holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.”

With his voice reaching a dramatic crescendo and his congregation now captivated, a fiery Pastor Muhlenberg then declared: “There is a time to fight, and that time has now come!” He then tore away his clerical robes, revealing, underneath, the crisply pressed uniform of a Colonial Army officer.

His congregation gasped.

Pastor Muhlenberg then marched to the rear of the church building, turned and shook the walls, declaring, “Who among you is with me?” That very day, 300 brave men from his relatively small church stood with Peter Muhlenberg to become the 8th Virginia Regiment.

Frederick Muhlenberg, the good pastor’s brother, questioned, in a letter, whether it was Peter’s place to fight. Peter wrote back with words as true today as they were then. “I am a Clergyman, it is true,” he wrote, “but I am a member of the Society as well as the poorest Layman, and my Liberty is as dear to me as any man, shall I then sit still and enjoy myself at Home when the best Blood of the Continent is spilling? … so far am I from thinking that I act wrong, I am convinced it is my duty to do so and duty I owe to God and my country.”

I think Peter Muhlenberg set an example for each of us to follow. I think we all owe a duty to God, country and one another to stand up and fight for liberty, regardless of our station in life.

Like then, we find ourselves today in the midst of a revolutionary war. Not a war with guns, but a war of ideals. We battle not against a foreign king, but a man among us who thinks he’s king. We struggle not against a tyrannical foreign government, but a government of our own making – a government that tilts toward tyranny.

We desperately need revival in this country – spiritual, cultural and political revival. It’s time for the next Great Awakening.

To that end, I invite you to be part of The Awakening 2013: Fighting for the Soul of America, in Orlando, Fla., at First Baptist Oviedo, April 19-20. It is our intention to begin the next Great Awakening.

While there, you will hear from over 60 of our nation’s top religious and policy leaders, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of the TV show “19 Kids and Counting,” Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and many more.

The early colonialists like Muhlenberg came together in meetings just like The Awakening and looked to God, not government, to guide public affairs. These boldly committed leaders understood that God has given us certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that any government that transgresses against what God gave us has disqualified itself to lead. It has become tyrannical.

Today we face unprecedented threats to our faith and freedom as the government is forcing religious organizations and businesses to provide abortion drugs through the Obamacare mandate. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Our basic liberties and moral foundations are under violent assault.

We have come to a critical crossroads. The future of America will be determined in our lifetime by our actions. What we do now will echo throughout history.

Like Muhlenberg, I ask, “Who among you is with me?” We’re calling for an army of citizen activists – peaceful warriors for Christ, ready to take back America. The Awakening 2013 provides a powerful blend of spiritual, patriotic and grass-roots training that will have a lasting effect on your life and on America. Take a stand for righteousness and justice and join the next American Revolution.

John Adams, our second president, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Indeed, in contrast with the deeply held religious and moral values embraced by our Founding Fathers – men like Peter Muhlenberg – today’s America is governed by an “immoral” and “irreligious” chief executive. Barack Obama is the King George of secular-socialism. He seeks to undermine – if not altogether dismantle – the American exceptionalism that, hitherto, has been fundamentally woven throughout our national fabric. He aspires to the lowest common denominator. He seeks to uproot Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and relocate the “land of the free and the home of the brave” to a much lower altitude, alongside those Euro-Marxist nations he so admires and wistfully desires to emulate.

Yes, for everything there is a season.

Now is the season to fight.

To register or for more information, please visit TheAwakeningUSA.org or call Liberty Counsel at 800-671-1776.

“Well, no, Bill,” replied Congress. “Actually, things just ‘is’ what they is.”

Here’s what marriage is: The God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage – real marriage – represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not: Anything else.

In short, marriage is what it is.

That our nation has fallen so far, so fast in its embrace of empty relativism makes the head swim. It’s at once perplexing and heartbreaking that we have a U.S. Supreme Court seriously considering inventing a newfangled “right” to that chicane aberration tagged “same-sex marriage.” This is true particularly when one considers that the defining behaviors central to “gay marriage” were, for hundreds of years and for obvious reasons, legally and properly classified as “crimes against nature.” Though our postmodern zeitgeist may have changed, objective reality has not.

Indeed, American culture, while casting aside that which is just, moral and true, has, instead, taken-up that which is unjust, immoral and false. This abject rejection of absolute truth provides compelling evidence that the good ‘ol USA – the greatest nation on earth – is on the fast track to becoming “the late, great USA.”

So-called “gay marriage” is a counterfeit – a mockery of legitimate marriage. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Same-sex marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange. It’s mock marriage.

One of the best appraisals I’ve read on marriage was presented in 2003 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Among other things, the future pontiff explicitly recognized the empirical fact that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Following are excerpts from his treatise titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”:

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman … in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. …

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united. …

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

To be sure, “marriage equality” already exists. It is, quite simply, the self-evident truth that both husband and wife are co-equal, indispensable partners essential to the formulation of a marriage covenant. While moral relativists clamor for their propagandist version of “marriage equality,” the rest of us live in marriage reality.

Every single mentally competent adult enjoys the right to marry within exactly the same parameters required by natural law. Thus, “equal protection under the law” is afforded to all. As long as your spouse-to-be is 1) not too closely related, 2) of legal age, 3) only one person, 4) of the opposite sex and 5) a biped of the genus homo-sapien – then you’re golden. Marry away.

If you remove one requirement – in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite – then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements. If we yank one foundational brick from the marriage wall, then, as in the days of Jericho, the whole danged thing comes a-tumblin’. That is to say, if the Supreme Court rolls out “gay marriage,” then legalized polygamy, incestuous marriage and heaven-knows-what-else must inevitably follow.

Even still, the willy-nilly left loves to suggest that “gay marriage” supporters are “on the right side of history.” This is utter nonsense. Natural marriage has, for all of history, been on the “right side of history;” and so it shall remain.

Another rotten apples-to-oranges false equivalency is to claim that precluding “gay marriage” is akin to banning interracial marriage. Again, this is nonsense. Liberals, in making their case for the former, are quick to cite Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that invalidated anti-miscegenation laws.

By comparing “gay marriage” to interracial marriage, leftists endeavor to draw a parallel where none exists. The Loving Court both recognized and affirmed the fundamental man-woman nature of marriage while simply – and rightly so – removing arbitrary and truly discriminatory racial barriers. While Loving left the institution of natural marriage fully intact, a pro-”gay marriage” ruling by the High Court would thoroughly deconstruct it.

In sum, proponents of counterfeit “gay marriage” pretend that normalcy, biology, history, morality and sanity are all irrelevant to the debate. They are not. As counterfeit money devalues the dollar, counterfeit “gay marriage” devalues the institution of legitimate marriage.

Scripture reminds us that, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Ultimately, the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is nothing new. It’s both rooted in man’s age-old rebellion against God and ancient pagan sexual morality.

So, I’ll leave you with this fundamental question: Since God undeniably designed marriage to be the exclusive union of man and wife – who, or what, then, do you suppose manufactured the absurd notion of “same-sex marriage?”

I think the answer is pretty clear.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end.

And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

As LifeNews.com reported in January: “CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited – a clear pro-life majority.”

Indeed, the winds of life are blowing free the foul stench of a pro-abortion culture of death.

This is why President Obama and his fellow pro-abort zealot, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, have unilaterally, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally forced, through Obamacare, every taxpaying American citizen to fund “free” abortion-on-demand.

This draconian overreach is in perfect keeping with the 2012 DNC platform, which, for the first time, admits without shame: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to … abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

Psalm 8:28 commands: “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.”

To be sure, there can be none more oppressed than the tens of millions who, over four short decades, have been – and will continue to be – slaughtered within the safe haven of their own mothers’ wombs.

With its 1973 Roe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then, the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. They, “pro-choicers,” are the bad guys, while pro-lifers are the good guys. It really is that simple – that black and white. It’s good versus evil.

History will reflect as much.

To the unenthusiastic mother, politically motivated abortion violence is deviously portrayed as an acceptable escape from what may seem a desperate situation. To the innocent child, it is – without fail and without due process – execution by torture.

Consider the horrific practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, innocuously tagged “Intact Dilation and Extraction.” This is a practice so brutal and so needless that even the liberal American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances.

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully “viable” child – often kicking and thrashing – feet first from her mother’s womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion, rather than committing murder.

He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. He then opens the scissors to enlarge the wound, inserts a vacuum tube and sucks out her brains, thereby collapsing her skull.

Her now limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.

Appalling, isn’t it? Infanticide by any objective measure.

So, naturally, Mr. Obama, reasonable fellow that he is, agrees with the AMA, correct? He and other “pro-choicers” were the first to applaud the high court when it upheld a ban on this Hitlerian practice, right?

Wrong.

Barack Obama unbelievably called the Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.” In so doing, he revealed to the world that leftist support for abortion “rights” has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science or “health care.”

Moreover, consider Mr. Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It passed both houses of Congress in 2002 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to save her life.

Yet, incredibly, this president, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed the bill’s Illinois twin. He complained that requiring efforts to save the live victim of a botched abortion is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Barack Obama’s solution? Finish off the little pest.

So prepare for Obama and other pro-aborts to go utterly berserk now that Arkansas has passed the Human Heartbeat Protection Act. It requires that when an abortion is performed at or after the 12th week, doctors must test for a fetal heartbeat before an abortion is performed. If a heartbeat is detected, a woman cannot have an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or if a mother’s life is in danger.

This is common-sense stuff. The human heartbeat has long been indisputable proof of life both within and without the womb.

Still, and not surprisingly, even as the state legislature was overriding the Democratic governor’s veto of the new law – SB 134 – the ACLU and other pro-abort radicals were vowing to challenge it in court.

Mathews Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, has vowed to preserve it: “If asked, Liberty Counsel will defend this law without reservation, free of charge for the people of Arkansas, born and unborn,” he said.

“In keeping with medical advances, history and common sense, the Arkansas legislature has said that the life of a 12-week-old unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is protected under the law.”

And well it should be. SB 134 is just the beginning. Brave lawmakers in Arkansas have provided the template for other states to follow.

They’re on the right side of history.

Indeed, history has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision.

In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe v. Wade ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right: life.

As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate, I believe, is certain. It’s just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as Dred Scott.

Call yourself “pro-choice”? Shame on you. You’re no better than a modern-day slave master. Dump the garbage and join the right side of history.

There’s plenty of room over here.