In the July issue of the William J. Murray Report I wrote extensively about the "gay marriage" issue. I pointed out, among other things, that if marriage between two men was legalized how could the government continue to forbid multiple partner marriages? With a moral line drawn in the sand rather than cement that line would move radically and quickly. Islam allows up to four wives per man. The government could no longer forbid this major "religion" from performing marriages of multiple women to one man. Without legal protection the nuclear family would soon cease to exist.

President George W. Bush understands the clear need for the traditional nuclear family to be defended by government. He made this point very clear on the issue of "gay marriage" during a Rose Garden news conference this July 30th, stating: "I am mindful that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country." He continued, "On the other hand that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other and we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

There are currently two venues open to protect the "sanctity of marriage" as the President put it. One such venue, a Constitutional Amendment to defend the institution of marriage, has firm and enthusiastic support in the Senate and the House. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) had previously stated his support for a Constitutional Amendment. After the President's statement Frist commented, "I support the President 100 percent." In the House, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has already introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment which is supported by the House leadership. The other venue is a Judicial Jurisdiction Act. Congress has in its power to limit which issues the Federal Courts may address. A Jurisdiction Act would forbid Federal Courts from mandating homosexual marriage.

There was angry criticism of the President's remarks from homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and other homosexual leaders. But most Democrat leaders, particularly the nine running for President, said little or nothing. Support of homosexual marriage by a Democrat presidential candidate at this point would doom election prospects. New Gallup polls show the public moving rapidly away from support of "gay unions" the more likely they become. Just this past May, 49% of Americans said they approved of homosexual "couples" forming "legal civil unions." By July those approving had dropped to 40%. Further, 60% of adults in May said "homosexual relations" between adults should be legal. But soon after the Supreme Court did make homosexual relations legal that figure dropped to 48% in July.

Among Democrats only 51% now approve of homosexual relations being legalized and even less approve of homosexual marriage. The problem for Democrat candidates is obvious. The most vocal supporters of the Democrat party are those of the far left when it comes to social issues such as homosexuality; yet, half the party does not even want homosexual acts to be legal. Only 35% of Black voters support legalization of homosexual acts. A Democrat presidential candidate must win the majority of the black vote, and bending over backwards for the 1% of the vote that is homosexual could jeopardize some of the Black vote.

On the Republican side support of the legalization of homosexual acts rests at 38%, and support for "gay marriage" is considerably less than that. Lawmakers facing upcoming election campaigns are bound to take note of these new poll results. What is so significant about these Gallup poll results is that every group, no matter the age, race, religious background or political affiliation, showed some degree of decline in support for the homosexual lifestyle once it became apparent that "gay" marriage was possible. This indicates a compassion on the part of Americans that does not extend to abandoning the social norm for the sake of the homosexual agenda.

The "Destinations" section of USA Today on August 1st had a large story on how friendly to "gays" the online travel company Orbitz is. The company is running TV ads targeting homosexuals which depict a gay marionette ogling a man sun-tanning by the pool. Orbitz's Jefrey Marsh told USA Today that, "Going on TV is the ultimate sign that you're a gay-friendly company." Orbitz justifies the ads by pointing out that the average homosexual spends $1590.00 a year on leisure travel versus $1,370 per heterosexual.

Orbitz apparently fails to realize that this statistic would be a useful business tool only if 50% of the population were homosexual. Although 10% of men have been homosexually raped by the time they reach adulthood, less than 1% of men are actually practicing homosexuals. Thus each homosexual would have to spend $137,000.00 per year on travel to match that spent by normal heterosexual men.

By the way, tickets purchased from Orbitz carry an additional "service charge" while those purchased directly from airline Internet sites do not. I have never found a fare at Orbitz that I could not match or beat by going directly to an airline site. If homosexuals want to pay more for their airline tickets using Orbitz because it is "gay-friendly," let them. As for me I will not buy any tickets from Orbitz knowing that the "service charge" is being used to finance the "gay culture."

There is more: all of the Fortune 500 companies give money to homosexual organizations or homosexual causes such as those related to AIDS. There is not a single Fortune 500 company that gives funds to social conservative organizations such as the Religious Freedom Coalition. While homosexual groups get grants of up to millions of dollars a year from big corporations, our funding comes in the form of $10 and $20 checks from individuals.

I am very sure that there have been homosexual Bishops in both the Anglican and the Catholic church in the past. However, the homosexuality was either hidden or in celibacy was not acted upon. Neither the Catholic or Anglican Church has ever promoted a man to the office of Bishop who was openly having sexual relations with another man. The Anglican church has never made a Bishop of a man who was sexually involved with a woman other than his wife. Until now.

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is a member of the Anglican Church fellowship. On August 5th at its General Convention the Episcopal Church voted to ordain as a Bishop a publicly practicing homosexual, Canon Gene Robinson. Robinson had been previously ordained as a priest by the very liberal New Hampshire Diocese. (Click here for conservative Anglican Interent site)

When told that the vast majority of Episcopalians in the United States did not want a "gay" Bishop, he said he didn’t care. When told that if he were elected there would be vast turmoil in the church and that more than half the churches may leave the denomination, he said he didn’t care. The church does not matter to the new Bishop; the only important thing is proving that his open homosexuality is right and proper. And what of the matter of Christ in his life? When asked about salvation in a recent interview, Gene Robinson stated, "I would be the last person in the world to try and put God in some kind of box." This man is not even a Christian. He is a homosexual activist bound on pushing his homosexual agenda forward regardless of the cost to his denomination.

Archbishop Peter Watson of Melbourne, Australia said yesterday that by appointing Canon Gene Robinson, "The American church has turned its back on our unity and must bear responsibility for the pain and disunity that will be felt throughout the communion," he said. The Archbishop is one of many who are appalled by the arrogance of the American Branch of the Anglican Church in forcing homosexuality as a church standard, in contradiction to the Bible.

This year will mark the high water point for the homosexual movement. Forcing their behavior upon the public schools and all other institutions including the church is beginning to ferment a backlash in the United States and even Europe.

There are only four religious groups in the United States that have official policies that allow ordination of homosexuals. One of those four, the Metropolitan Community Churches, was founded as a homosexual church in 1968. The Unitarian-Universalist Church, which is more or less atheistic in nature, began offering "job placement" to homosexuals in 1980. Reform Judaism has had some openly homosexual rabbis since 1990, but Conservative Judaism does not accept the concept of homosexual rabbis. The only Christian denomination known to me that allows openly "gay and bisexual" clergy is the United Church of Christ. The UCC has become an arm of propaganda for Yassar Arafat, and their diatribe against Israel borders on the anti-Semitic.

As I have mentioned in my last two updates, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which passed in the Senate on March 13th and in the House on June 4th, is being held up once again by Senate Democrats using an arcane rule. The main culprits are left-coast Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and abortion industry lapdog Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). These two have taken advantage of a small difference in the wording of the House and Senate versions and have blocked the appointment of members to a conference committee to iron out the differences.

Boxer and Harkin threaten to hold up the process until the majority of Senators agree to insert language endorsing Roe v. Wade. My sources in the Majority Leader's office told me that he would manage to get the conference committee members in place by the August 1st recess, but this did not happen. I would point out that so many Democrats voted to end the gruesome murder of late term babies that the final Senate vote in March passed with 64 votes. Despite this broad support for the end of partial birth abortion, Boxer and Harkin continue to block the will of the people, the Senate and the House. As both the House and Senate are in recess until September, no action will be taken and this gruesome method of murdering the unborn will continue.

The same group of Senators who continue to block the partial birth abortion ban are also holding up the Laci and Conner Peterson Act, otherwise known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The Act has passed the House several times in the past only to die in the Senate. This session conservative leaders are trying to push the bill through the Senate first. This may have been a mistake, since just one Senator can block legislation from coming to a vote.

The Senate version of the bill was authored by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Back on May 22nd I wrote a letter of support to Senator Graham in which I stated, "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is needed because under its provisions, the same federal laws which apply to other victims of violence would also apply to unborn children." The concept of protecting the unborn infuriates pro-abortion congressmen and Senators despite the fact that many "pro-choice" women support the bill.

Fox News recently ran a lengthy story about Tracy Marciniak who "supports abortion rights." Marciniak lost her baby just five days before it was due, when her then-husband punched her in the stomach. Although the husband received 12 years for attacking Marciniak, he was not charged with murdering the infant because it was not a crime under Wisconsin law.

Marciniak told Fox News, "His father got away with murder! He got away with murdering his own son. I not only lost my son, but now the state is telling me that my son didn’t exist." For more than six years she worked to pass an "unborn victims" law in Wisconsin and in 1998 then-Governor Tommy Thompson signed it into law. Now she is working to pass the federal level law authored in the House by Melissa Hart, (R-PA). Marciniak still refers to herself as "pro-choice."

Major abortion providers fight the Unborn Victims of Violence Act saying it will give "the fetus" personhood and thus legal protection in the future. According to Planned Parenthood, that living, kicking little baby in the womb is nothing but a mass of cells much like a tumor that is part of a woman’s body and can be removed and destroyed at any time by anyone for any reason without consequence. The president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, said, "It (the act) is about making the fetus have all the rights in law and taking the rights away from women." She forgets that half the unborn babies killed are females who had rights as human beings as well.

It is very difficult to explain how effective legislation is passed through the Congress. Most pro-life legislation passed since the Republicans took control of the House in 1994 has actually been in the form of amendments to one of the 13 spending bills Congress must pass each year. Often when I am promoting a bill that social conservatives want passed, it actually becomes an amendment to a spending bill rather than a free standing law. Why? Because the number one thing Congress is about is spending money. Often a President is forced to bow to the will of Congress because that body simply will not give him the funds he wants to follow a course of action. Congress can do the same with a court’s decision and last month did so vigorously on behalf of social conservatives.

Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN) offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Bill (HR 2799) barring any action on the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to ban "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. His amendment to this appropriations bill passed by 307-199 with virtually every Republican plus nearly 100 Democrats voting with him. The Amendment simply stated, "...None of the funds appropriated in this ACT may be used to enforce the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress 292 F.597 (9th Cir.2002). This effectively prohibits all the Federal law enforcement agencies from enforcing the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision against the Pledge of Allegiance phrase "One Nation Under God."

The Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Bill must still be voted on in the Senate and a final version must be agreed to by both Houses. It is highly unlikely, however, that the liberals in the Senate will bother to try to have the Hostettler Amendment removed considering the overwhelming vote by the House. This is not the end of the fight. After this legislation becomes law it is likely that atheist Newdow will file a lawsuit trying to find this law unconstitutional. This is unlikely as the Constitution gives full discretion in spending to the Congress alone and no court may order the Congress to spend one dime it does not want to spend. "Under God" ties and ladies’ scarves are available at the RFC Internet store!

Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) was on a roll this past month. After passing the "Under God Amendment he introduced a second Amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Bill (HR-2799). In his second successful amendment he effectively barred any Federal Marshal from removing the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court of Alabama on behalf of a Federal court. The text of the Amendment which was passed by a vote of 260 to 161 simply stated, "...None of the funds appropriated in the Act may be used to enforce the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Glassroth v. Moore, decided on July 1, 2003 ..."

Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court had ordered the Ten Commandments placed there in a very high profile case involving the ACLU and other organizations. Federal Marshals would have to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court because the order came from a Federal court. Since the Marshals receive their funding from HR-2799, and since the Amendment does not even allow them to use gasoline to drive to the Alabama Court building, the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court is bypassed.

Then, Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) successfully added an amendment to HR-2799 (same bill as above) to stop the patenting of human DNA. The concept of a company getting a patent on human DNA degrades and belittles life. Recently a research firm attempted to patent a "male-female" hybrid human embryo it had created in a test tube. The concept of experimenting on human life in this way is abhorrent and Congressman Weldon wants to make sure the firms cannot profit from such horrid experiments. The Amendment will be a part of the funding bill when it is passed and sent to the Senate.

I am often asked why an appropriations (spending) bill can have thousands of pages. The answer is above. Restraints and conditions on various government agencies and the courts are included in the appropriations legislation. Another example is the Defense Appropriations bill which has language forbidding abortions from being conducted in military hospitals. By the way, the bill also literally tells the Army how many bullets it can buy, and of what caliber.

Currently the fence is just 70 miles long, but there is a plan to add another 260 miles. The fence is actually two fences separated by a road patrolled by armed men. The fences have cameras and motion detectors to alert the authorities of those trying to gain entry. The fence has been condemned by various environmental and human rights organizations but the government says construction will continue.

I am not talking about the fence being built by the Israeli government to keep out terrorists, but rather the fence built by the United States to keep out Mexicans who want to work here. Yet, the US State Department has complained bitterly to Israel about their construction of a security fence to keep out terrorists. This paradox of U.S. foreign policy boggles the mind.

Just a few weeks ago we bombed a caravan of luxury SUVs in Iraq because we thought at the time that Saddam Hussein could be one of the occupants. We killed numerous people yet we had no idea who they were or where they were going. On the other hand, we condemn Israel for targeting with a missile a bomb maker, a man who had made bombs that had killed dozens of Israeli civilians.

Our State Department under Colin Powell has condemned Israel, Russia, and the Philippines for using the same tactics against Islamic terrorists that are used by us in Afghanistan and Iraq virtually every day.

Is the fence being built by Israel a "defacto border" as is claimed by critics? Probably, and so what? The border has to be someplace. Muslim terrorists cannot be allowed to wander over into Israel wherever and whenever they like. Can "the fence" be moved later if there is a permanent agreement? Of course it can. So what is the big deal? The big deal is that the "hudna" or three month cease fire that has been agreed to by the Muslims will probably not be extended. When it ends, terrorists groups such as HAMAS want to be able to easily enter Israeli cities to kill innocent civilians. The fence would interfere with murder and that is the biggest Muslim concern, a concern the new Palestinian "prime minister" takes to the White House constantly.

As of the printing date of this issue of the William J. Murray Report there have been more than 200 attempted terrorist attacks against Israel since the Hudna was declared. Most recently, a Muslim blew himself up planting a bomb near a road; a woman and her three children were shot in a car attack in Jerusalem; an Israeli teenage girl was kidnapped; an American teenage student was kidnapped. It appears that the Hudna means no suicide bombings but any other means of attacking Jews or Americans is OK.

A culture of death surrounds Yassar Arafat and his gang of thugs. Schools from kindergarten on not only teach hatred of Jews and Americans but how to make bombs and slit throats. There can be no lasting cease fire or peace until this culture of death is removed from the schools and the society and that can only come when Yassar Arafat, the head of the snake, is removed.

Our book selection this month is More Than a Prophet. There is grave misunderstanding in the Christian community about Islam. Everywhere I go, I hear tremendous misconceptions about the relationship between Islam and Christianity, many of those caused by media misreporting. The media claims that Islam and Christianity share a common heritage and that Muslims "honor" Christ. Actually Muslims see Christ as a Prophet who paved the way for Mohammed. While Christ lived a perfect life, Mohammed was a thief and a murderer.

The questions I am frequently asked about Islam do have answers. More Than a Prophet answers the common questions and misconceptions about Islam by two authorities who know and understand Islam because they were raised as Muslims. This is an important book and one that I highly recommend. You may suggest it be studied in your Sunday School class.

More Than a Prophet

The two brothers who wrote More Than a Prophet, Ergun and Emir Caner, are noted Baptist theologians who were raised in a Muslim family but converted to Christ as teenagers. After the publication of their last book, Unveiling Islam, they had to face a firestorm of questions and challenges from angry Muslims, skeptical journalists and liberal Christians. More than a Prophet is the result of their experience in fielding those tough questions.

They answer almost 150 questions about Islam such as: Is the God of Mohammed the Father of Jesus? Are Muslims the descendants of Ishmael? Are Palestinians mentioned in the Old Testament? Does Islam describe heaven in sensual terms? These questions and many others are addressed in this fascinating book.

More Than a Prophet is a great resource for anyone interested in understanding Islam. The book also helps Christians defend their faith in the face media portrayals of Islam and Christianity being similar, which they are not. Quality paperback - 260 pages. $15.00 per copy includes shipping!

Order at our site now More than a Prophet, or send $15.00 per book to:

Religious Freedom Coalition, P. O. Box 77511, Washington, DC 20013.

Credit Card Orders Please Call 1-800-650-7664