Anticipated Common Core Vote Fizzles in Legislature
After nearly 30 hours of testimony in three Summer Study Committee hearings, select legislators from both House and Senate education committees were expected to make some kind of recommendation on the subject of Common Core Standards. When it came to making that recommendation yesterday, the committee was apparently split 6-6 down party lines on recommending that Indiana return to our own education standards which we control and determine locally.
For procedural reasons, the vote was not taken. My assessment above was taken from discussions with members. It is possible for the committee to hold another meeting for the purpose of a vote if a 7th vote can be secured on some kind of recommendation to the 2014 General Assembly.
Proponents of Common Core seemed pleased with a stalemate. Conversely, those concerned with parts of the national program were disappointed after hour upon hour of testimony with seemingly no legislative purpose.
Yet, there’s little doubt that much more is known (both good and bad) about the education plan than when the legislature adjourned this spring. Whether Indiana is a leader in backing away from the program and asserting our state sovereignty remains to be seen. It is possible that the State Board of Education could review the Common Core. The fate of Common Core may ultimately hinge upon the actions of other states that are also responding to concerns of parents and looking deeper into the program.
For more on this subject, the Indianapolis Star has a good overview of yesterday’s study committee here: http://www.indystar.com/article/20131001/NEWS05/310010060/Indiana-lawmakers-can-t-reach-agreement-Common-Core
No Middle Ground in the War Over the Future of Marriage
In case you missed it, another judge has legislated from the bench in an effort to force a state to redefine marriage. This time the unraveling of marriage is occurring in New Jersey. Like so many other states that wound up with same-sex marriage through the fall of a gavel, New Jersey put itself in this position with “civil unions.” As the Judge clearly noted this recognition of homosexual marriage by another name undermined the state’s public policy ideal of natural marriage.
There is no middle ground in the war over marriage. Civil unions are merely a stepping-stone toward the unraveling of marriage. It is why the Indiana Marriage Amendment is written as it is, and why liberals here are attempting to block it, or confuse people over what it does. (We know what it does and does not do because the Indiana amendment is exactly the same as several other states that adopted it in 2004 and 2006.)
Taking Steps to Protect Religious Liberty & Freedom of Conscience
Over 60 members of the US House have signed onto an important new bill authored byCongressman Paul Labrador, including Hoosier Representatives Todd Rokita and Marlin Stutzman. The bi-partisan bill H.R. 3133, is the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.” It is designed to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience as well as prevent discrimination through the federal tax code and agencies like the IRS, against individuals, institutions or churches that express their views or exercise their religious conscience concerning marriage as what it is – the union of one man and one woman.
In light of the IRS targeting non-profit groups that defend natural marriage, Congress needs to make it clear that the federal government should not punish people for their religious beliefs.
One need not look far to see a need for this legislation. In neighboring Illinois, Catholic Charities has been forced to close one of its adoption agencies following state endorsement of “civil unions.” A Christian family owned bed and breakfast is being sued for their support of natural marriage. Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski (D), a co-author, correctly observed, “The idea that individuals, churches and institutions could be penalized for not endorsing a practice in opposition to their core beliefs goes against the fundamental principles espoused by our founding fathers. I ask my colleagues in the House to act on this legislation swiftly to discourage the potential discrimination against those who simply choose to exercise their rights as Americans.”
Co-author Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) homed in on the problem posed by radical activists behind the push for genderless marriage. “The Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage may embolden those in government who want to impose their views of marriage on faith-based organizations. We need this strong legislation to protect freedom of conscience for those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. [Rep. Labrador's] bill does exactly that, ensuring respect and tolerance for those who affirm traditional marriage.”
The passage of this important bill in the House, and perhaps even more so in the Senate, is certainly an uphill battle. Yet, churches need not wait for legislative action. There are steps your church can take today to protect itself from lawsuits for adhering to God’s clear view of marriage and human sexuality. I have an outstanding church email explaining why a central Indiana church has decided to amend their doctrinal statement on marriage in possible anticipation of a request by homosexual activists to use their facilities for a wedding or event.
As this church explained, “According to Erik Stanley, a leading attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, ‘We are in a day when every church needs to have a statement in its by-laws or it’s doctrinal beliefs on marriage and sexuality. This is a proactive approach that churches can take to head off any claims of discrimination in the future, should they occur.’ Addressing this issue by amending our doctrinal statement doesn’t mean we won’t ever face a lawsuit or a complaint, but it does mean that we will be in a much better position to defend ourselves legally should such an action be taken.”
Churches and individuals need to realize that should marriage be unraveled, a new, unbiblical, view of marriage will be forced upon churches, institutions, schools and individuals. They will not be exempt from the power of government or an emboldened homosexual demands crowd who will move to make examples of people who believe that a mom and dad, husband and wife matter to children and serve as the ideal setting for marriage.
If you would like to see the policy announcement and doctrinal statement of this particular church to use as a model for your church, let me know.
If your member of Congress is not a co-author of H.R. 3133, the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” ask them to sign on in support of it.
You Can Make a Statement for Life, Women and Adoption
The Central Indiana Life Chain is this Sunday, Oct. 6th from 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. Individuals and families can come and pray for and take a stand for the unborn. Information tables are at every other block from North St. to 38th St. along Meridian Street in Indianapolis. Signs are provided. For more information on various Life Chain events and details in more than 30 cities around the state click on the Indiana link on the left side of this site: http://lifechain.net/
In Their Own Words:
“If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.”
– Attributed to Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull, in a letter to the Board of Trade in England. Trumbull was the British Governor who had been appointed by King George III. Trumbull became sympathetic to the American cause in 1773. At that time, Trumbull, whose son of the same name was a famous Revolutionary war painter, observed, “It is hard to break connections with our mother country, but when she strives to enslave us, the strictest union must be dissolved. ‘The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitudes of isles be glad thereof’ – the accomplishment of such noble prophecies is at hand.”