Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman? If your answer is “yes,” then you, dear reader, are a hate-mongering bigot — at least that is what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a self-described “civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” would call you. The scary thing is, a chilling new FBI video begs the question: Who’s spewing hate?

Remember the Family Research Council (FRC) shooting last year? Floyd Lee Corkins, a disturbed 28-year-old man dressed as an intern walked into the FRC headquarters and shot FRC security guard Leo Johnson. Corkins has stated, “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-Fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.” Thanks to the heroic efforts of Johnson, Corkin’s deadly plot failed.

In the FBI video, an investigator asks, “How did you [come to] this building, this organization. Did you, how did you find it earlier?  Did you like look it up online?”  Corkins then admits, “It was a uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh anti-gay groups.  I found them online.”

The FRC atrocity hits close to home for those of us at Concerned Women for America (CWA). FRC staff members are not only our allies in the pro-family battle, they are our close friends. These men and women are honest citizens with compassionate hearts and a career calling to uphold Christian values in public policy.  But these admirable qualities were conveniently overlooked by the SPLC when it deemed FRC a “hate group” on the basis that the organization respects the institution of marriage.

If any non-profit, business, or individual stands for the purity of marriage, the sanctity of unborn life, or the constitutional protection of religious freedom, then they are counted among SPLC’s “hate groups.”  In fact, the SPLC has named CWA as one of “a dozen major groups [that] help drive the Religious Right’s anti-gay crusade.”  Skeptical?  Then go to SPLC’s website and click on their “hate map.”

Even Bill Maher, the liberal HBO host known for his anti-conservative rants, doesn’t buy the notion that Christians are as “dangerous” as liberal society is attempting to paint us.  Maher invited Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, on his show to discuss hate and violence as a result of religious institutions.  When Levin tried to argue that Jews and Christians commit terrorist acts, Maher retorted:

“Um that’s liberal bull****. … Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. … So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”

One can only hope that those who profit from this type of misinformation would “keep it real.”  But they are not interested in truth.  The SPLC knows Christians are not “hateful,” but they know they can exploit the sentiments of a significant part of the population for their obscene profit with minimal work.  By simply labeling them “hateful,” they hope to intimidate Christians into silence, whatever the unintended consequences.  The FRC incident actually helps the SPLC’s cause.

But Christians, including those of us at CWA, will not be intimidated.  And we will never tiptoe around certain Biblical principles or cherry-pick our moral values.  No amount of harassment, demeaning messages, or preposterous labeling will ever cause us to renounce our faith and forgo the Christian principles that laid the foundation for our nation and its success. Ever.  

According to the Seattle PI, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts after owner Barronelle Stutzman declined to supply flowers to a homosexual couple’s wedding. Now, while the radical Left is screaming “discrimination,” “bigotry,” and “hatred,” it is important to note that Stutzman never denied service due to discrimination based on Richard Ingersoll and Curt Freed’s “sexual orientation.” In fact, the two men were pleased with Stutzman’s services, as they were repeat customers for nearly ten years.

No screaming matches or harassing phone calls or e-mails transpired when Stutzman declined to service Ingersoll and Freed’s event. Reportedly, Stutzman recalled, “He (Ingersoll) said he decided to get married, and before he got through, I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”

Peace, love, and civility, as it should be. Live and let live, as it should be. In the example of Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, “It’s a free country.” What’s the problem? You can buy flowers somewhere else, right? But the options — or opinions — of the Looney Left aren’t available to conservatives, apparently.

Ironically, the same liberal thinkers who infused my college experience with the important lesson of small business owners unquestionably rallied behind Starbucks, a multi-billion dollar “greedy” corporation, when its CEO implemented a company policy based on his ultraliberal worldview. But I guarantee they will not support this small business woman for simply choosing to respect the sanctity of marriage. Nor have they supported Oregon’s Sweet Cakes owners, a young couple with three small children who declined to fill a wedding cake order for a homosexual wedding. In retaliation, these “progressives” marched with hostile picket signs in front of this bakery every Saturday to picket and harass the owners, their customers, and their partnering businesses.

And it is not just small businesses. Remember when Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy merely mentioned his personal — not corporate — policy on same-sex “marriage?” Goodness knows we had city mayors threatening to ban Chick-fil-A stores from Chicago and Boston. (And we all know how successful that plan was.)

So, once again, let us all put our money where our mouths are. Buy your values. This time for the sake and sustainability of small business owners.

Do you ever wonder how the ancient Israelites frequently managed to mess up so badly?  Again and again, the Bible recounts their seeming inability to remember the basic commands repeated so many times in the early books of the Bible.

I recently read the speech that Joshua gave to the people of Israel before he died, urging them to be faithful to the Lord.  He reminded the entire assembly, one last time, about the benefits of obedience and the consequences of choosing sin:

Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.  But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:14-15)

Israel as a whole responded by resolving to follow God.  And, for a while, they remained faithful.

But in Judges, the next book of the Bible, God’s chosen people start to waver.  Chapter 1 begins with the tribes of Reuben and Judah working together to drive their residual enemies from the Promised Land.  However, this account is immediately followed by a detailed listing of how the various tribes had failed to drive out all the foreign peoples from the land, as God commanded.

When I consider this account a little more deeply, I realize I can be the same way.  There are areas in which I fail to submit to God entirely in my own life, and there are basic commands I can all too easily “forget” when convenient.

As I’m sure the Israelites did, I can come up with excuses about why I shouldn’t obey.  This very problem is addressed by Dietrich Bonheoffer in The Cost of Discipleship:

“When Jesus demanded voluntary poverty of the rich young man, the young man knew that his only choices were obedience or disobedience. When Levi was called from tax collecting and Peter from his nets, there was no doubt that Jesus was serious about those calls.  They were supposed to leave everything and follow him.  When Peter was called to step onto the stormy sea, he had to get up and risk taking the step.  Only one thing was demanded in each of these cases.  That was their entrusting themselves to the word of Jesus Christ, believing it to be a stronger foundation than all the securities of the world. … Simple obedience was required.”

A dose of reality, isn’t it?  For the original disciples (who were literally and verbally called by Christ) and for the first generation Israelites (whom God led into the Promised Land), there was no denying the reality of God’s will for their lives.  They were reminded of their God-given mission day in and day out.

In the same way, Christ followers must be reminded every day of God’s truth.  If we are not intentional about allowing the Word to speak into our lives, we start sliding down the slippery slope toward disobedience.

As John Owen has often said, “Be killing sin or sin will be killing you.”  Our souls must be consistently treated with heavy doses of Biblical truth — personally and in community — to remain healthy Christians.  Otherwise, we are doomed to lose our fight against sin.

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist.  So let’s jump into it.  The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.”  She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life.  Let’s just put that up front.  I love babies.  Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!”  If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go.  The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.”  But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.”  Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm.  Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women.  That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement.  Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child.  I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make?  Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life?  Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household.  Which parent does the child not need?  A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy.  It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.”  But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father.  Two men cannot produce a child.  Two women cannot produce a child.  And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father.  And, to me, that’s just sad.

Today’s guest blogger is Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America.

Independents finally woke up during last night’s presidential debate.

This debate wasn’t a popularity contest or one of those “let’s see who has the last word” kind of things. It was about providing Americans with real solutions to the ever-increasing fiscal crisis. Let’s face it, Romney hit this one out of the ball park as he reminded Americans of the limited role of government and the liberties endowed by our Creator, stating, “We are endowed by our Creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country.”

Obama appealed to his audience, wishing his wife a happy anniversary, but failed to woo all other women when he was unable to articulate his economic policies. Women make 80 percent of all consumer purchasing decisions and needed to hear how the president will overhaul the nation’s ever-increasing spending habits.

According to a Las Vegas-area focus group, America’s moms have a new perspective on this presidential election after watching last night’s debate. The focus group was comprised of moms who shop at the discount retail chain Wal-Mart (a.k.a., “Wal-Mart moms”) and have children under the age of 18. Such women represent 27 percent of all registered women voters. Many of these Wal-Mart moms were undecided before this debate, but they now favor Romney, saying that he “seemed more aggressive and very forthright,” and “I was undecided and [now] I’m more leaning towards Romney.”

For us Wal-Mart moms and all Americans across the country, this debate was about answers to jobs and desperately needed leadership.

Finally, we have some answers and direction. Even if you disagree with Romney’s policies, you must admit he successfully communicated his economic recovery plans and addressed the president’s failing policies over the last four years.

Yesterday, I gathered all of the Concerned Women for America (CWA) staff to pray that God would grant both candidates wisdom and peace of mind as they entered the debate. But above all, CWA prayed that truth would shine through the candidates’ answers. That prayer was answered.

One down, two debates to go.

Have no fear, the federal government is here! Wait… that isn’t right.

I’m no damsel in distress, and neither are you. The days of a masked hero helping those in need are, so it seems, nonexistent. But that is exactly what’s unfolding before our very eyes.

The government wants to tell “we the people” how to live. Citizens, if you think politics won’t directly affect you, think again.  New York City’s mayor decided to ban sugary drink sizes to 16 ounces, putting a limit on buying soda in order to thin out an obese New York populace.  Michelle “The Lunch Lady” Obama has implemented an Orwellian lunch program to regulate what American children can and cannot eat, and health (for the mother, not for the abortion-targeted baby) mandates are being shoved down citizens’ throats despite how deeply they offend citizens’ religious convictions.

And it doesn’t stop there.  As if forcing you to pay for abortions weren’t enough, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius blatantly ignored — and arrogantly violated — federal law by using her Cabinet position to tell Americans to vote for President Obama.

Where are the outraged media elites?  Where’s the lone, masked hero who fights against those who abuse their power?  As you’ve heard, time and time again, this election is one of the most important elections of our life time.  We cannot allow our government to keep implementing laws that go against “we the people.”

Americans, listen up!  If you want a government that will cater to your every need, you’re living in the wrong country.  This country — the one built on freedom and liberty, bought by the blood and sweat of our ancestors, and lusted after by the rest of the world — is not a country of equal handouts, but of equal opportunity to work hard to achieve our ambitions.  Yet, that is not what we are seeing.  Instead, we have an administration that has implemented more federal control over American citizens’ everyday lives, and what are Americans doing about it?  Nothing!

It’s the American citizens’ choice, but I urge you to take a good, hard look.  It’s time to bring our country back to its founding.  Ben Franklin once said, “It is a republic, if we can keep it.”  So, I ask, can we?

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is doing what it takes to keep our government accountable to the taxpayers.  CWA’s She Votes 2012 project is working to make sure Americans are registered to vote in this extremely important election.  Are you ready?  Are you registered?  With voter registration ending on October 8 in most states, now is not the time to idly wonder.  Click here now to see if you’re registered. … And if you aren’t, stay on the site and do something about it.

August 1: The staff of Concerned Women for America shares a Chick-fil-A lunch in the staff meeting room.

When we stopped on the way to work for breakfast at Chick-fil-A this morning, there was a long line both inside the fast-food restaurant and at the drive thru.  One Facebook friend asked, “Are there enough chickens in the world to feed all the people who will be at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday?”  Good question.  On my Facebook newsfeed, there are half-a-dozen pictures of long lines at the 1,615 locations across the U.S.  Why are all those thousands of people flocking to Chick-fil-A on this first day of August?

Chick-fil-A is standing firm in its support of traditional marriage after President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was “very much supportive of the family — the Biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Of course, Mr. Cathy did not say anything that most Americans didn’t already know.  It is well-known that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sunday, because of the Cathy family’s observance of the Sabbath and their desire to run their business according to Biblical principles. It is also well-known that the Cathy family’s views are shared by the majority of Americans.  Even President Barack Obama publicly supported traditional marriage until recently — ironically, until his re-election campaign began to heat up and he needed the support of his leftist political base and the enthusiastic support of those who are pushing the homosexual agenda and “same-sex marriage.”

Typically, the homosexual “rights” groups are going ballistic over Mr. Cathy’s remarks — calling for a boycott of Chick-fil-A, crying “homophobia,” “bigotry,” and “discrimination.”  But, facts are facts, and Chick-fil-A is well-known for treating its employees well and providing excellent service to anyone and everyone who comes into their restaurants.  In addition, they provide close to $2 million annually in college scholarships for their employees.  They also give back to the nation through their WinShape Foundation, providing camp experiences and assistance to disadvantaged, handicapped, and foster-care children and retreats for couples and families who are in crisis or have specific needs.  Plus, Mr. Cathy is an American and entitled to express his views anytime and anywhere he wants.  It is the First Amendment right of every American citizen; we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

None of that matters to those who single-mindedly demand not just the right, which they already have, but society’s approval for their lifestyle choices.  Leftist politicians have jumped on the bandwagon, with various mayors getting their 15-minutes of media attention, as they pontificate about there being “no place for discrimination” (Boston Mayor Tom Menino) or that “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values” (Mayor Rahm Emanuel).  Various companies are vying for the limelight, too.  Most notably, the Jim Henson Company broke ties with Chick-fil-A and will not only cease to provide toys for kids’ meals, they decided to twist the knife and are directing the revenue from the toys to GLAAD, a leading homosexual activist organization.

An Atlanta coed went public with her claim that she chose her university in part because it had an on-campus Chick-fil-A restaurant, but several campuses — Northeastern University, Indiana University, and New York University — are protesting the presence of the restaurants on their grounds.

The Left can protest; they, too, have the right to hold their own beliefs, express their values, and state their views.  Politicians can bluster, and those in governmental leadership positions can try — unconstitutionally — to stop freedom of speech and religion.  While the Left is harassing Christians, those who uphold America’s First Amendment rights may have the last word as they stand in long lines to buy their chicken sandwiches.  And, Chick-fil-A may have the last cluck.

It should come as no surprise that President Obama is already gearing up to translate his official endorsement of “gay marriage” into support for his campaign for reelection.  The campaign announced Wednesday the launch of the “Obama Pride: LGBT Americans for Obama” initiative to raise publicity and funds for the president’s 2012 bid.  The campaign will promote events across the nation, including phone banks, information distribution, local activist meetings, and voter registration drives.

With the NAACP now officially endorsing the president on his position regarding “gay marriage,” the Obama campaign is seeking to leverage his advantage with the LGBT community and like-minded individuals in key battleground states.  Not surprisingly, California will be a major focus for “Obama Pride,” but Politico reports that pivotal states, such as Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania will also receive extensive attention.

The Web page for “Obama Pride” openly boasts about the president’s long record of supporting the homosexual agenda since he was elected, touting more than forty of the administration’s top “accomplishments” on this front over the last three years.  A prominently displayed quote from the president says it all: “The work that we’ve done with respect to the LGBT community I think is just profoundly American and is at the heart of who we are.”

Whether or not the president’s pro-LGBT policies genuinely resonate with the average American (there is ample evidence suggesting they don’t), it is clear the president thinks the entire nation ought to agree with him.  This peculiar reasoning has apparently proved to be enough of a mandate for the administration to charge ahead in favor of the LGBT agenda, regardless of the morality of such policies and the actual will of the American people.

The National Encyclopedia building at Ångbåtsbron in Malmö (Sweden).

Right after International Women’s Day, a new pronoun, “hen,” was added to the online version of Sweden’s National Encyclopedia.  The entry defines hen as a “proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon].”  A heated debate was sparked by the publication of Sweden’s first ever gender-neutral children’s book, Kivi och Monsterhund (Kivi and Monsterdog). It tells the story of Kivi, who wants a dog for “hen’s” birthday.

Sweden takes pride in being “the best country to deal with gender equality.”  What they are doing, however, is more than creating gender equality or gender neutrality; the measures they are instituting completely eliminate gender distinction.

Social Democrat politicians have proposed installing gender-neutral restrooms, so that members of the public will not be compelled to categorize themselves as either ladies or gents.  Several preschools have banished references to pupils’ genders, instead referring to children by their first names or as “buddies.”  So, a teacher would say “good morning, buddies” or “good morning, Lisa, Tom, and Jack” rather than, “good morning, boys and girls.”  They believe this fulfills the national curriculum’s guideline that preschools should “counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles” and give girls and boys “the same opportunities to test and develop abilities and interests without being limited by stereotypical gender roles.”

According to Slate, one clothing store in Sweden got rid of its “boys” and “girls” sections, and a Swedish toy company, Leklust, has received attention for reversing the typical gender roles in its latest catalog — a boy in a Spiderman costume is pictured pushing a pink baby carriage, and a girl outfitted in denim is riding a tractor.  Boys will be allowed to have names like “Lisa,” and girls will have names like “Nick.”  The Swedish Bowling Association has announced plans to merge male and female bowling tournaments in order to make the sport gender-neutral — all will be unisex.

Jan Guillou, one of the country’s well-known authors, declared that the pronoun “hen” is “silly, because it doesn’t change anything. … And I don’t think that my gender has anything to do with my equality because that is a political matter,” she said in an interview.  She referred to gender-neutral lobbyists as “feminist activists who want to destroy our language.”  Others have suggested this new initiative could be both psychologically and socially damaging for Sweden’s children.

Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at the Swedish Confederation of Professions, worried that school-aged children would become confused by talks of a third gender, the one referred to as “hen,” at a time when they are developing both physically and mentally.  “Adults should not interrupt children’s discovery of their gender and sexuality,” Claeson insists.

In the kindergartens in Sweden, when pupils play house, they are encouraged to include “mommy, daddy, child” in their imaginary families, as well as “daddy, daddy, child”; “mommy, mommy, child”; “daddy, daddy, sister, aunty, child”; or any other modern combination.  This indicates that the Swedish social engineers not only want to educate children about gender neutrality, but they also want to teach children that homosexual families are acceptable, with a goal of eventually being an approved part of mainstream culture.

While the goal of teaching children to treat people equally is laudable (and Biblical), it is just as important to teach them that gender differences are natural, God-given traits that people are meant to celebrate, not repress.  

I will not pretend . I love my venti, non-fat, sugar-free, vanilla soy, double shot, decaf, extra hot, no foam, White Chocolate Mocha with light whipped cream and extra syrup.  Save your judgment.  I know I’m not alone.  And sure, I’ve known for a while that the founders of Starbucks were left-of-center.  But I convinced myself that, so long as they stayed out of public policy, I could remain a customer.  Sadly, this is no longer the case.

The drama began on Wednesday, at the annual Starbucks shareholders’ meeting.  OneNewsNow.com reports that shareholder Tom Strohbar chastised the company for endorsing a same-sex “marriage” bill.  Strohbar, who is also the founder of The Corporate Morality Action Center, reportedly told officials, “What concerns me is possible economic boycotts, shareholder resolutions, things that might affect the sales of our company, the earnings.”  He continued, “Is it prudent to risk the economic interests of all the shareholders for something that might affect the private lives of a very small percentage of our employees?”

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz responded, “We believe it’s defensible – but we’re not reaching that decision to in any way offend you or anyone else.  And I would say candidly, since we made that decision there has not been any dilution whatsoever in our business.”

What is most frustrating about Starbucks’ liberal support is that it totally disregards the traditional views of many customers and staff members.  Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Starbucks should heed Mr. Strohbar’s warnings.

Ponder the impact of lost business from loyal customers.  In this economy, I was willing to spend more on a cup of coffee than a gallon of gas!  Big Oil vs. Big Coffee; I’m not sure which would win.  Coffee-loving, traditional values voters deserve more respect.

I guess it’s time to bite the bullet and drink the overly strong office coffee.