Skip to Content Skip to Main Navigation
 

Marriage

Opposition to AB 2943 Among Former Homosexuals is Growing!

 Our Orange County press conference denouncing the Assembly Bill that would take away choice was held this week at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Santa Ana amidst the noisy efforts of LGBT protesters who refuse to accept that God can change lives.

This bill’s hostility toward consenting adults who have chosen to live a life in accordance with their faith and identity as a Christian will prohibit them from purchasing supportive books or from obtaining supportive counseling for their unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion.

During the press conference, we heard from several compelling men and women of varying ethnicities who are former homosexuals, former lesbians and same-sex attracted. They told about their own life-changing experiences and how, through the love and support of the church and the power of the Holy Spirit, they have benefited by the very services AB 2943 intends to ban.

One such young man was Florida Pulse Nightclub survivor Luis Javier Ruiz, who told us that, instead of living with pain and depression, he has found joy in the love of Jesus Christ and freedom from homosexuality! Another was 28 year old Southern California seminary student Neal Hardin, who says that his identity is more than just his sexuality. “My identity is that I am a Christian!”

          View the video to hear Advocates attorney, Robert Tyler explain why this dangerous and unconstitutional bill must not be allowed to become law.  Watch as black, brown, and white former homosexuals and church leaders representing over 700 pastors from throughout California speak out against AB 2943.

Plainly put, Assembly Bill 2943 (Evan Low, D-San Jose, LGBT Caucus) violates free speech, promotes viewpoint discrimination and denies the right to choose. It is scheduled to be heard by the State Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2018.

If you’re in California and you don’t want to live in a state that makes it illegal for someone to seek help from books and counselors of their choice – a state that denies Christians the right to choose their identity in Christ, not their sexuality, please take a moment to find your State Senator and call and ask them to vote NO on AB 2943.

          Please Click Here to Donate so Advocates for Faith & Freedom can continue to preserve our churches, our Bible and our religious liberties by fighting bills like these.  Especially so we’ll be able to help those who are in emotional and spiritual crisis through the loving support of the church and the healing power of the Lord.

Marriage – A Federal or State Concern?

in Advocates in Action, Blog, Cases, Marriage 0 Comments

Advocates filed an Amicus Brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week in a case regarding states’ rights in the matter of marriage.  We were requested by attorneys defending traditional marriage to file the brief.
Traditional Marriage
The case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, originated in the State of Nevada in 2012, when several same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses.  Attorneys for these couples claimed that Nevada’s state ban on same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Read More

ACLU and Lesbian Wedding Couple Lodges Complaint Against Minister

in Advocates in Action, Blog, Cases, Marriage 0 Comments

One of our new clients, The Clergy Network, is a marketplace ministry operated by a husband and wife team, Brian and Linda Trott, both are ordained wedding handsministers with doctorates in divinity. They officiate weddings, funerals and other special occasions. The Clergy Network provides referral services to like-minded ministers who view their profession as an opportunity to share their Christian faith by officiating special occasions in the marketplace.

As an added benefit to wedding couples, Brian is authorized to issue a limited number of confidential marriage licenses to couples on behalf of the County of Orange, California.

The Clergy Network was recently contacted by a woman looking for someone to issue a confidential marriage license and to officiate her wedding.  Brian had no additional confidential marriage licenses that he could issue at the time and was already booked for the woman’s wedding day.

The Clergy Network referred the woman to another minister who could perform the services required on the date requested. The woman refused the referral; she said that she did not want a “Hispanic” minister and wanted Linda Trott to conduct the ceremony. She then disclosed that she would be marrying a female. It was apparent to Linda that this was a “set-up” following the reversal of Proposition 8.

What do you suppose happened next? Read More

The Impact of the Marriage Rulings

Dear Partner,

We would like to share the goods news of the recent marriage decisions that you will never hear in the media: the Supreme Court did not rule that there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Although this specific issue remains open for a future case, the fact is that every state that currently prohibits same-sex marriage may continue to legally do so. This is significant because the primary goal of both the Windsor and Perry cases was to have the Supreme Court declare a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage that would apply to the entire country. That did not happen. Read More

Today’s Supreme Court Rulings in “Plain English”

We would like to share the goods news of today’s decisions that you will never hear in the media: the Supreme Court did not rule that there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Although this specific issue remains open for a future case, the fact is that every state that currently prohibits same-Bride_and_groom_hands_with_ringssex marriage may continue to legally do so. This is significant because the primary goal of both the Windsor and Perry cases was to have the Supreme Court declare a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage that would apply to the entire country. That did not happen. Read More

Advocates’ Attorneys Explain the Marriage Arguments

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two important marriage cases: 1) California’s voter initiative Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and 2) the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents federal recognition of state same sex Bride_and_groommarriages.

Now that the dust has settled, we want to give you a brief summary without the “legalese.” Read More