The real battle over the same-sex marriage issue will be conducted in the media and it is there the battle may well be won or lost. For this reason the Religious Freedom Coalition is in the forefront of waging a media campaign against same sex marriage. It is only because the Religious Freedom Coalition is an influential organization in Washington, DC that we can participate in a media campaign.

Many individuals and organizations have strong opinions on the issue of same sex marriage. But, having a strong opinions does not warrant interviews on FOX or CNN. If individuals or organizations are not well known and have no influence in the political arena it is unlikely they will be able to share their views on the national media. The Religious Freedom Coalition is well known to the media elite.

The day of the court's decision I appeared on a CNN prime time news show anchored by Paula Zahn. A transcript of my debate with a homosexual activist lawyer is available on our Internet site located at www.rfcnet.org. I also appeared on numerous radio talk shows including the nationally syndicated Point of View hosted by Marlin Maddoux.

In all I spent several hours on major radio talk shows defending marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The CNN show was noteworthy in that the segment featured five homosexual activists and one straight guy--that being me. That is the way the media presents a "balanced" view.

The media battle must be waged continually by all those who support the institution of marriage as being reserved for one man and one woman. Think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation have issued scholarly papers showing the damage same sex marriage would do to our society. Papers such as these, however, are rarely read outside of intellectual circles. The mass media, including talk radio and the TV news networks, is where we must win the battle for the hearts of Americans.

I regularly receive letters from individuals asking, "What is the big deal, if homosexuals get married so what?" The answer lies in the schools. If homosexuals can marry, then sex education classes will be giving instructions on safe anal sex. They will be telling your sons and grandsons that having sex with a man is no different than having sex with a woman.

Your boys will be told that if they are asked out on a date by a man, they should consider it. Is that what you want for your kids? Also, once homosexual marriage is allowed, there is no way that polygamy can continue to be outlawed. Muslims will demand their "religious right" to have four wives and they will win in court.

This is not a war over marriage; it is a battle for the heart of the society. Marriage is the citadel of Judeo-Christian civilization. Once that citadel falls, our civilization will fall. Most Americans realize that fact. Just a few days after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, a Fox News poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. found that only 25% of Americans favor same sex marriage being legalized. On the political spectrum only 13% of Republicans and 36% of Democrats favored same sex marriage.

In really bad news for Democrat Party leaders, the survey found that just 22% of Independent voters favor same sex marriage. In spite of being a small minority, homosexuals are a big and wealthy part of the Democrat Party base and are putting pressure on the Democrat leaders to oppose any Constitutional Amendment to defend traditional marriage.

Democrat Senator Biden of Delaware said of same-sex marriage, "It’s going to be something we have to go through as part of a maturation process of the nation." In other words, the Bible is immature and men having sex with each other is "mature." Fortunately, President George W. Bush has a different view.

President George W. Bush was traveling aboard Air Force One to London at the time the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that same sex marriage should be legal under that state's constitution.

Immediately upon landing in London the President released this statement: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The President was forceful in his statement about defending marriage as a "sacred" institution, meaning that he firmly believes marriage is an institution ordained by God. The White House has now joined Republican leaders in the House and Senate working to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, I believe the President, along with many well meaning leaders, mistakenly believes that civil unions will solve the problem of the legal status of marriage. I will explain more about how dangerous this is, but first let me recap what is happening in Congress.

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced the Senate version of the Federal Marriage Amendment (S-26) before leaving town for the Thanksgiving holiday. The Senate Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) he offered is identical to the House version offered by Congresswoman Musgrave (R-CO).

Many conservative groups are unhappy with the current amendment language which they believe actually may promote "civil unions." On the other hand, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has forced the issue and there is little time for debate. The Weekly Standard, which is very influential in the White House, has taken the position that passing a Federal Marriage Amendment is virtually impossible to do. In recent weeks The Weekly Standard has published several articles either critical of the Amendment or supportive of the idea of civil unions.

In a column by Dennis Teti entitled The Federal Marriage Amendment Is Hopeless, the author points out that just to pass the Senate the FMA would require the vote of every Republican plus 16 Democrats. The situation is similar in the House, where every Republican plus 60 Democrats would be needed for the required 2/3 vote on a constitutional amendment. (I might add that a big problem arises in the Republican Party itself. Many Republican Senators and House members are firm believers in "State’s Rights" and believe marriage is a state not a federal issue.) Therefore, as Mr. Teti maintains, it is unlikely that all Republicans in the House and Senate would actually vote for a constitutional amendment. But should the amendment pass these monumental hurdles in the House and Senate, it could still be defeated by only 13 state legislatures either voting against it or not voting at all over a period of seven years.

The author concludes that enacting a "marriage privilege protection statute" is the only viable option considering the time restraints. The statute could be passed prior to the next election by a simple majority in each House and signed by the President. Would protecting the "privileges" of marriage bar states from instituting a second class of marriage called "civil unions?" Probably not.

A week or so later The Weekly Standard printed a column by Maggie Gallagher who is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and the author of The Case For Marriage.. The article was in effect an argument for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex "marriage". Her conclusion in favor of civil unions centers around drawing voters to the GOP. She believes that most moderate Democrats and independents "...can be persuaded to move from supporting gay marriage to opposing gay marriage and supporting civil unions." She adds, "Do we want to push these Americans away from our coalition or bring them in?"

So, if passing the amendment will be such a long and difficult process, and if we don’t want Republicans to settle for a rational sounding but dangerous compromise as proposed by Ms. Gallagher, what then is the answer?

I believe the best solution has been offered by Congressman Hostettler (R-IN), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, and who has proposed the Marriage Protection Act of 2003. His bill would strengthen the already existing Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by restricting the jurisdiction of federal courts. In Hill lingo this is referred to as the "super-DOMA" because it uses Article III, Section I & II of the Constitution to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

A "jurisdiction act" is not an unusual act and the Congress passes several bills a year with language attached that forbids Federal courts from interfering with congressional acts. Most Americans believe there are three "equal" branches of government. This is false. All power rests with the Congress. The Congress can fire judges, or the President, for that matter. The Congress has the power to shut down any Cabinet office or to restrict the courts in virtually any manner. Because the Congress is often politically divided, the power is rarely used.

I fully support Congressman Hostettler in his efforts to pass the Marriage Protection Act. The Religious Freedom Coalition will work on two tracks to protect marriage. We will support an Amendment to the Constitution and we will support strong legislation such as the Marriage Protection Act. If nothing else, we can have Congressman Hostettler's legislation in place while the lengthy process of a constitutional amendment plays itself out.

Why have not Republican leaders jumped on the bandwagon with Congressman Hostettler to pass the Marriage Protection Act? The answer, unfortunately, is because this would be an easy victory. The bill would pass both the House and the Senate by an overwhelming majority. Yet, Republican leaders favor a constitutional amendment vote this year because they know it cannot pass either House of Congress with a 2/3 vote, but it will generate voter guides.

The Republican leadership will present an Amendment to the Constitution knowing that most Democrat Senators will vote against it. Then they will be able to use this when different organizations prepare "voter guides" pointing to those Democrat Senators as anti-marriage in hopes of using the issue as a wedge to elect more Republicans to the Senate. While this may not be a bad thing in itself, it allows the progress of same-sex marriage in the United States to march forward in the meantime at the state level.

Further, the Republican leaders want icing on their cake. The constitutional amendment they propose would allow civil unions at the state level. Thus they can claim that they are pro traditional marriage, but at the same time seek the "gay vote" by claiming to support civil unions at the state level.

Republican leaders and the President need to know that the vast majority of the American people want strong legal protections in place to defend traditional marriage. Have you signed the marriage petition to Congress at www.nogayweddings.com.

I have mentioned The Weekly Standard several times as the semiofficial voice of the White House. The Weekly Standard is published by the parent company of Fox News, the News Corporation. While the magazine has virtually no paid advertising it does have the reputation of being very influential in the White House. Indeed it is widely read in the White House and appears on the President’s desk every week. But, insiders know it does not so much influence the White House as it parrots their views. The Weekly Standard prints each week what it believes the President and his staff want to hear.

During the last half of 2003 The Weekly Standard began a serious of attacks on the Christian right and what it stands for. This included a column by Dick Morris concluding that it was time for the GOP to dump the "religious right." Now, The Weekly Standard runs columns almost every week that promote civil unions. The pro-civil union article by Maggie Gallagher mentioned above was entitled, Massachusetts vs. Marriage and was featured on the front cover with dolls of two women on top of a wedding cake. The obvious conclusion is that the best way to save marriage is to establish civil unions that give marital privilege without the name "marriage" attached.

On paper and without forethought as to human nature, civil unions sound harmless. Yet one major problem with civil unions is that they cannot be reserved for "same sex" couples. The California and Vermont civil union laws because they are contractual laws, could not pass legal standards unless they were offered any two people. Many heterosexual couples, when they see that civil unions offer financial advantages while being very easy to dissolve, will choose this alternative to marriage.

Thus, civil unions will promote cohabitation not only among homosexuals and lesbians but among heterosexuals as well. The civil unions grant privilege without responsibility. The group most likely to utilize civil unions is not same-sex couples but rather the elderly. About one million elderly adults in America currently cohabit, about half a million couples. They do not marry because of inheritance, taxes, and other mostly financial issues. Civil unions will legitimize these relationships in the eyes of the States and allow medical and social benefits they do not now have. For example, one partner may have superior medical insurance benefits because of having worked for the federal government or for a large corporation. His or her partner would become eligible for those same benefits under the terms of a civil union.

Civil unions will also quickly become popular with young couples as well. A man will be able to share his insurance benefits with his live-in partner but can ask her to leave at any time because they are "not really" married.

Within a few decades civil unions could overtake marriages as the preferred arrangement of those who want a live-in relationship. Sound impossible? Right now only 60% of marriages are conducted in the church and sanctified. The rest, 40% of marriages, are conducted by government officials such as judges. These marriages are secular in nature and have nothing to do with the Biblical base of marriage vows. Why would these 40% bother to marry at all if they can have the same "privileges" of marriage in a civil union, without the potential difficulties of divorce? This group will move toward the civil union.

The fact is the vast majority of homosexuals will not want to use civil unions. Maggie Gallagher rightly points out in her article mentioned above that General Motors with more than 342,000 employees has only 166 people who have applied for health insurance for a same-sex partner. What will that figure be if the plan is opened to heterosexual couples that are simply shacked up together in civil unions? These figures should also give us pause in understanding how few homosexuals there really are compared to the power of their voices in Washington.

The problem with civil unions does not just lie in giving same-sex "couples" the privileges of marriage, but also in establishing a second class of marriage using another name that will bestow benefits to couple who want to shack up without ever really getting married.

The homosexual aspect of civil unions that is perhaps most dangerous lies within the confines of our public school system and what will be taught in sex education classes. If same sex civil unions are legal, will the educational system which is basically run by the radical National Education Association (NEA) force "how to" homosexual education on the youth of the nation? The answer is of course the NEA will do just that. Already the NEA is working to promote "safe" homosexual sex classes in the schools. Civil union laws will empower that organization to push for more illustrative classes.

Lastly, even though civil unions go by a different name than marriage, they do give an important legal stamp of approval to homosexuality, which is why the majority of homosexuals are pushing this issue, even though they wouldn’t actually want to be involved in a civil union. Once same sex unions are sanctioned by law, it becomes very difficult to voice any disapproval of homosexual behavior in the schools or the workplace. Will a boy who refuses to date another boy be singled out for psychological treatment by school authorities because he is "homophobic?" Will a teacher who voices any disapproval of homosexual behavior be more likely to face lawsuits and loss of employment? Will refusing to date someone of the same sex prove prejudice and result in workplace discipline? We have already seen cases of federal employees being threatened and punished for refusing to attend pro-homosexual seminars.

Republican leaders are beating a drum that says only the word "marriage" is important and as long as that word is protected they have won the battle. This is far from true. Creating a second class of marriage by another name is dangerous to our society.

Back in April I said the pro-sodomy decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas would be used by polygamists to gain legal status. At the same time Senator Santorum (R-PA) predicted what this case would lead to when he said that with Lawrence v. Texas as a precedent: "You have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." It appears we were both right.

Now, an attorney for a convicted polygamist who has five wives and thirty children has filed an appeal based on the Lawrence v. Texas case. A second Utah man is also filing an appeal based on the Lawrence v. Texas lawsuit. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that sodomy should be legal because the state has "no compelling interest" in forbidding it, because sodomy does not bother anyone. Defense attorney John Bucher stated, "It doesn’t bother anyone ... " and there is "...no compelling interest in [criminalizing] what you can do in your own home with consulting adults."

On the Fox News Network’s Bill O’Reilly Show on December 2, 2003 a homosexual activist attorney from the Human Rights Campaign actually stated that polygamy was a danger to society while homosexual relationships were not. He stated that homosexual marriage should be allowed but polygamy was a social threat that should be denied. How twisted! Regardless of how vile, at least polygamist relationships provide for a future generation.

Supreme Court Sandara Day O'Connor admitted that she bases many of her decisions not on the U. S. Constitution but on "international law." This admission includes the overturn of sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. No one is sure what international law she refers to because most of the nations in the world still outlaw homosexual activity. In any event it was her vote based on law not in the U.S. Constitution that now moves us down the path of sexual anarchy and the elimination of marriage in the United States.

Before the 9-11 Jihad attack on the United States many Republican leaders, even those in the White House, were actively recruiting Muslims into the party because of "their strong moral values." Many Republican leaders honestly believed that Muslims were social conservatives. They are not. The Muslim religion is not only repressive to women but allows each man to have up to four legal wives if he can support them. In many Muslim nations about 10% of the men have four wives, leaving 30% of the men with none. These are the young men who are recruited into Jihad. Without families and with no hope of ever having a wife, many turn to violent aggression against Christians and Jews as an alternative.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage the case for Muslims to have four wives in the United States comes to the forefront. Our President as well as Democrat and Republican congressional leaders praise Islam as a religion of peace and state publicly that it is equal to Judaism or Christianity as a religion. Why then cannot a Muslim man be allowed to follow his faith and have four wives in the United States?

The Utah polygamist may not win his appeal this year; however, at some point under the case law as it is, a Muslim will win the right to have more than one wife in the United States. Already federal and state authorities look the other way when Muslims bring several wives to the United States. Hotels at Disney World set aside suites of rooms for wealthy Saudis who bring their wives and children. No state has ever arrested any Muslim, Saudi or otherwise, who has brought numerous wives into the United States as tourists.

MUSLIMS AN THE MILITARY

What I have reported numerous times and spoken of on radio talks shows has finally hit a mainstream newspaper. In a front page article on December 2, 2003 the Muslim school from which the Army recruits chaplains was exposed as having ties to terrorism. What a shock! There is not a Muslim school in the United States that does not preach Jihad and hatred of Christians and Jews.

The Institute of Islamic and Arabic Studies located in Fairfax, Virginia is funded by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep in mind that there is not a single Christian school allowed in Saudi Arabia and that foreign workers, including Americans, who are found with Bibles are arrested, tortured and imprisoned. It is unlawful for a Christian to even be buried in Saudi Arabia because the ground is for Muslims only. The U.S. postmaster will refuse any Bible or Christian material from being mailed to our military personnel in Saudi Arabia. Thus, our government assists the Saudis in their vile aggression against Christians on the Arabian peninsula and then recruits military chaplains from the schools funded by the Saudis in the United States.

What a war on terrorism we have! We have intelligence agents and soldiers spread all over the face of the globe trying to stop terror from coming to our shores. At the same time we allow Islamic schools financed by the Saudi government to teach Jihad and hatred of Christians and Jews just a few miles from the site of the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon.

There has been a lot of controversy over the Ten Commandments the last few years. In Alabama, Chief Justice Roy Moore has been removed from office for displaying the Ten Commandments in the court building.

I display the Ten Commandments in my office and I have been searching for a Ten Commandments tie to wear but as yet have not found one. I have located a copy of the Ten Commandments etched in Jerusalem stone, however. Jerusalem stone comes only from the Holy Land. Because the plaque is real stone it is not cheap to etch and not cheap to ship. The Ten Commandments plaque is  9" by 4.75" and weighs almost two pounds. It is framed in antique gold and has a hook on the back for hanging.

We are not merely selling these, we are helping Christians who live and work in the Holy Land as well. The funds from the sale of these Ten Commandments Plaques are used to fund Religious Freedom Coalition activities in the West Bank including financial aid to Christian schools.

The plaque comes with a certificate of authenticity that it is indeed genuine Jerusalem stone. This Ten Commandments plaque is well worth $40.00 and there is no shipping fee! A wonderful gift!

Click here to order! Or send a gift of $40.00 or more to: The William J. Murray Report, P. O. Box 77511. Washington, DC 20013.