Bishop Darryl Husband is the Senior Pastor of Mount Olivet Church in Richmond.  I hope you will read his letter and share it with others, including your congregation and church leaders:

Dear Friends:

I must admit that I was reluctant to publicly share my perspective on President Obama’s recent statement regarding same sex marriage because too often his presidency has caused separation within the ranks of African American leadership.  And yet, what does an African American pastor do when his Africa American president makes a decision that eventually will destroy the foundation of not only the African American community, but the nation as a whole?  Does that pastor take a risk that he will be misunderstood and labeled as an “Uncle Tom”, a Republican Party pawn, or someone “the white man has bought out”?  If I do not take the risk, knowing that mentality in itself is as discriminatory as it gets, I become a co-conspirator in keeping us in bondage to our culture; suggesting that none of us is free to think or speak outside of what we are told.

I am neither a Republican, an “Uncle Tom” or bought out by anyone.  I am simply accepting my responsibility as a citizen and a prophetic voice crying out in the wilderness of this generation.  I decided that the risk is worth it.  It is my responsibility as a pastor to speak to issues both popular and unpopular which affect the moral fiber of our society.  I cannot be silent whether it comes from a Bush led, or an Obama led White House.  My response must be the same.  Tis true, the moral fiber of every generation is always challenged.  However, challenges to our moral core must not be ignored.  They must be met with bold correction or their seeds will suffocate us into chaos and extinction.  If we begin to grow up a society that condones sexual behavior that cannot reproduce life, what other result can we expect?  Our President is proof that politicians cannot set our moral agenda.  Too often they are co-opted by the polls of an ever changing culture or influenced by the latest voting bloc that could get them over the edge in an election.

Decisions that affect our moral fiber should not ever be made based upon voting blocs.  While we are indeed a democracy, we are like a family that’s supposed to have trained, skilled leadership, which makes decisions based upon what the outcomes of those decisions will be in our future.  Ideally, families have parents that are given to lead them to a morally, ethically, fiscally healthy or responsible end.  Every choice and intention should be based upon some foundational principles or truths for those expected results to come to manifestation.  An attempt to satisfy “one” child at the expense of the rest, for the purpose of popularity, is parental immaturity and has destructive implications attached.  It speaks strongly to that parent’s capability or incapability to lead.

While many of us have persons in our families whom we love dearly, that practice homosexuality, it is irresponsible for us to sanction it as a “norm” for family life.  To make it a norm will eventually change the thinking of every new generation to fight the principles of the bible, the core beliefs that keep us from being totally unrestrained as a people.  Standards of living are important.  They give us balance.  President Obama set a dangerous precedent from the highest office in the land with no spiritual counsel or future insight to the full ramification of his statement.  Or did he?  If he did, then we must deduce several things: 1) He has little to no regard for the church and many of its leaders;  2) He denies the foundational truth or at best misinterprets scriptures on what the Word of God says how a family is structured;  3) He seeks to weaken the voice of the once only, free voice in our society (The African American pastor).  Down the road, not to marry same sex couples will eventually spell the end of funding that so many depend upon to do ministry and eventually may end in jail time for violation of rights or discrimination accusations.  At the very least we will be spending unnecessary and needed monies in court to fight for principles we preach.

I am saddened as I write this, knowing many of our African American leaders will not take a bold stance, because we are still clouded in political and cultural power struggles, unable to see the future of our communities losing its one SURE foundation.  The one place that has always been free to fight for everything the African American people have had was the church.  If the church does not speak now, that voice will lose what is left of its waning authority.

No, I will not be silent and I challenge other leaders as well to let their voices be raised without thinking this attack is a personal, political party, homophobic or color issue.  By NO means is it.  This is a moral issue, period.  We must sound the alarm, “Mr. President, Rescind Your Remarks, Revisit Your Views and hear the voice of the Lord.  We need you to stand for what is right, not what appears to be popular.

At The Feet of Christ,

Bishop Darryl F. Husband Sr.

*Non-votes, ‘Rule 69′ defeated gay judge nominee

Facing long odds, Jackson makes charismatic case for Senate nomination

Protesters call attention to restrictions aimed at abortion clinics

Road project funding close to running dry in Virginia

But while the series depicts the gradual slide into America’s cultural abyss — though in one instance, a married woman pregnant by a man not her husband has a pro-life moment and leaves the abortionist’s office and eventually has her baby — it does not reveal the cultural divide. That is left up to the other half of the media — the critics and reviewers.

One of the characters is Betty Draper, the ex of series protagonist Don. Betty is a control freak, self-serving, manipulative, dysfunctional and a bit psychotic. Not that she wants to be that way. Don was the most philandering character in television history. There wasn’t an episode in which he didn’t cheat on and humiliate Betty, not to mention that he married her under a false name — it’s not so much complicated as it is extraordinarily intriguing, but you have to see it to adequately understand it — and so many other deceptions, I’ll leave it at that. Although he provides well for her, loves their children and is, in many respects, a better parent, Betty has many reasons for her defense mechanisms to go into overdrive. But she didn’t ruin the marriage and she didn’t destroy lives or use people for gain. That is Don’s world.

So, which character is hammered by the media elite? Certainly not Don. Played by the very photogenic Jon Hamm, he’s a lovable scoundrel, a fictionally pre-dated Bill Clinton, so to speak. It’s hard not to want him to succeed.

But after this season’s long awaited debut (production was delayed because of disagreements with the producers and network) in late March, the nearly universal opinion of the legions of Man Men reviewers was that Betty is “the least sympathetic character.” Really? The one who was cheated on repeatedly? Who had her family broken up? Who was humiliated? By a husband who stole another’s identity and married her under a false pretense?

As Meredith Blake of the Los Angeles Times’ Show Tracker Blog writes that Betty’s thyroid tumor makes her “condition one that makes Betty seem ever-so-slightly less pathetic” and her feelings are “infantile or delusional.” It takes a medical condition for her to be somewhat human, apparently. That’s how the media elites see life. Carry on affairs and destroy your family: That’s okay. Become not the most sociable person: You are persona non grata.

Victoria Miller, of the Examiner.com, calls Betty the show’s “resident ice queen.” While she grants that Betty’s vulnerability made her somewhat sympathetic, she returns to her normal self. Why, she doesn’t even call Don to tell him she doesn’t have cancer. Terrible!

Although television and pop culture in general deservedly get scrutinized for the pollution it pumps into the air of what had been wholesome societal norms, what tells us more about their affect is the response. In this case, those held up for praise and ridicule, worthiness and scorn, seem a little bassackwards. It’s telling as to what too many people find acceptable.

You see, after labor unions, Democrats, pro-abortion activists, education establishment types, and liberal activists of various and sundry types got by hook and crook the requisite number of signatures to force Governor Walker into a recall election, they thought they had it made. Wisconsin is typically a liberal state and, to them, it was a no-brainer gubernatorial pick-up that the DNC couldn’t resist. Surely, it empty some of its war chest into the Dairy State to help them finish the job.

But not so fast. Wisconsin also is the home to conservative Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, who is one of the leading spending hawks and tax reform advocates in Washington. In 2010, it convincingly elected Tea Party backed Ron Johnson to the U.S. Senate over long-term incumbent and liberal icon Russ Feingold. That year it also elected Mr. Walker. That’s three prominent conservatives in what is considered a proudly progressive state. Then, in last week’s primaries, Governor Walker got nearly as many votes in his GOP primary, even though he as basically unopposed, than the combined total of the four Democrats running to replace him! Now, in two polls, one by the extreme left-wing Daily Kos, Governor Walker is leading 50-44 (see Chippewa Herald).

With all this in mind, the DNC is sitting this one out to the anger of leftists everywhere. MoveOn.org blasted an angry e-mail Tuesday seeking signatories to an online petition to pressure the DNC to fork over the dough. It went out under the name of a Wisconsin activist named Mary Magnuson and read, in part:

. . . I’m shocked: The Democratic National Committee still isn’t giving financial support to the recall fight in Wisconsin. …

There is no more time for the Democratic National Committee to wait — if Walker wins, it would be a huge setback to Democrats in races across the country this year. We need the DNC’s support immediately!

It looks as if there’s infighting in liberal land. Why not? Finger pointing is one of the first signs of pending defeat. (Another is vitriol directed at your opponents.) With two national polls (CBS/New York Times and Gallup/USA Today) not only showing Barack Obama losing badly, but also negative numbers on the economy, among women, and on his same-sex marriage “evolution.”

The petition exhortation was followed the next day by a MoveOn financial solicitation, which read in part:

BREAKING NEWS FROM WISCONSIN: The Democratic National Committee is refusing requests to fund the massive get out the vote effort planned in Wisconsin to recall Scott Walker. 

Wisconsin is ground zero for Democrats this summer — and there are only three weeks before Election Day — which is why this breaking news just doesn’t make sense.

Scott Walker and his right-wing allies have spent millions, and they’ll spend millions more in the next few weeks. But Walker’s poll numbers won’t budge and if the Wisconsin Democrats can run the massive field program they have planned, we can win this. 

Obama for America organizers are hard at work in the state, but the DNC’s lack of support has left a huge hole in the get out the vote budget.

With what should be reliably liberal Wisconsin turning so red that the DNC won’t even help, North Carolina (another state the president won in 2008) all but gone and activists petitioning to remove the DNC convention from Charlotte, it seems the left can’t decide who its opponents are.

The infighting, coupled with left-wing hysteria over legislative defeats on fiscal and social issues in several states, have showcased the height of liberal dysfunction. While the Left can never be taken lightly, internal dissension and misdirected anger at its opposition may portend many bigger defeats than a Wisconsin recall debacle.

*Best State for Business — or Bigots?

*Virginia thrown into equality wrangle after rejection of gay judge

*Virginia thrown into equality wrangle after rejection of openly gay judge (UK)

*Virginia thrown into gay rights wrangle after rejection of openly gay judge

Bob McDonnell evolves on gay judges 

Virginia GOP complicates life for Gov. McDonnell 

GOP leaders demur on judge rejection 

Virginia Republican Senate hopeful angry over Ten Commandments lawsuit suggestion 

Obama campaign attempts to drag Romney into Thorne-Begland controversy

The ruling did say, however, that it was a state issue, and many states that did not have constitutional protections hurried to ratify the basic right of private property ownership into their state constitutions. But here in the Old Dominion, we did things the Virginia way . . . and dragged and dragged and dragged our feet some more. Finally, seven years after Suzette Kelo had her 100-year-old family home taken from her for an “economic development” project that was never built, this November Virginians will have the chance to ratify an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that will not only protect private property rights but also provide for just compensation for when eminent domain must be used for legitimate public uses.

We will provide more commentary and follow the ratification campaign as it develops this summer and fall. But for now, please view the video below (or click here) about Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach. Although a settlement with the city of Virginia Beach was reached a few days ago, this interview with its pastor and attorney Joe Waldo previous to the settlement shows just how important property rights are: In many respects, it is the first right, because without ownership of private property and its safeguard from the government, there is no guarantee of a place from which to speak freely, nor to worship, nor to make a living for one’s family.

For those who care about halting the growth of big government, of exercising restraint in government growth and limiting government’s power, this is the ultimate issue. With unchecked power of eminent domain, there is no limit on what government can take, how big it can grow or what it can do under the guise of “economic development” or any other expedient excuse it deems for the public good. Taking land is every bit a part of government’s addiction to expanding as taking families’ hard earned tax dollars.

Virginians will have the opportunity to end the tyranny of eminent domain in November by ratifying a constitutional amendment to the state constitution to protect private property rights from big government.

*Virginia General Assembly rejects openly gay prosecutor for Richmond judgeship

*Virginia House vote sinks openly gay judicial nominee

*Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney rips House of Delegates for “bigotry”

*Local Officials React After Gay Judge Nominee Denied

Va. Senate candidates clash over gay judicial nominee

Va.’s April revenue up 10.6 percent over April 2011

Opinion
———–
*Schapiro: Sex and the Southern governor

Editorials
————-
*Bigotry blocks a gay Virginian from the bench

*Bigoted lawmakers block gay judge

*Culture Wars: Bad judgment

As we posted late last week, Mr. Thorne-Begland has a long history of political activism and received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy after going on national television to announce that he had violated federal law, the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy enthusiastically signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in the early 1990s. More recently, he has made public statements that reveal a personal political agenda that runs contrary to the Virginia Constitution and statute. Many of these concerns did not come to light until after he had been deemed qualified to be a judge by the General Assembly’s Courts of Justice Committees.

Today, Virginia Democrats and Equality Virginia lashed out at General Assembly members and The Family Foundation for last night’s votes. Unable to answer the concerns about Mr. Thorne-Begland’s statements, they have predictably resorted to name-calling. Democrat Party of Virginia Chairman Brian Moran said:

It is difficult to consider last night’s vote without using the word “bigoted,” just as it’s difficult to consider this period of unified Republican government without using the word “disaster.”

Senator Donald McEachin (D-8, Richmond), who put forth Mr. Thorne-Begland’s name to be a judge in the first place, said:

The GOP took Virginia back to the bigotry and mean-spirited prejudice of the 1960s.

Delegate Mark D. Sickles, (D-43, Fairfax) said in a statement:

And, it shows that legislators are more concerned about the Family Foundation scorecard than Richmond’s District Court.

Equality Virginia also took aim at The Family Foundation, saying:

(The legislature) allowed fear mongering and shrill personal attacks by the Family Foundation … to derail Richmond lawyer Tracy Thorne-Begland’s election to the bench simply because he is an out gay man.

Of course, our position since this was first brought to our attention last week has been concern about public statements and political activity, and a violation of the military oath, that demonstrate a willingness to put a personal political agenda above all else. That was our concern. On Friday, Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas) also announced public concerns over the nomination and spoke in opposition to it during last night’s debate.

Former military members of the House of Delegates, led by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31, Woodbridge), Rich Anderson (R-51, Woodbridge) and Mark Dudenhefer (R-2, Stafford), spoke passionately during the House floor debate about their concern over Thorne-Begland’s violation of his military oath. Each made the case that the real issues here concerned integrity, truth, duty and an oath of office. The integrity of the courts was at stake with this vote, they argued.

Several legislators worked for several days to bring to light the concerns over this nomination. We thank each of those legislators who worked both behind the scenes and took strong public stands in the face of vile attacks by liberals.

As has been the case almost since the day after conservatives won majorities in the House of Delegates and Virginia Senate in November, Virginia liberals have been on the rhetorical attack. Regardless of the issue, they resort to mean-spirited name-calling, misinformation and bullying. They redefine issues and assert false motivations to their opponents. After losing election after election, you would think Virginia’s Left would finally figure out that they are on the wrong side of these issues, but with the help of some in the Mainstream Media and the editorial pages, they continue to attack pro-family legislators simply for standing up for the truth. Their hope is, of course, that Virginians will be bullied into silence on these important issues.

The General Assembly is tasked with reviewing and certifying judges. If that is little more than a rubber stamp, it means nothing. It has a duty to block judges deemed unqualified or unfit for the bench. Last night, legislators simply did their job.

Kaine’s answer was anything but clear. In fact, his obfuscation led the National Journal to label his attempted response “policy pirouettes” (see Shane Goldmacher at Hotline On Call blog). Kaine said:

The number one issue is should committed couples have the same legal rights and responsibilities and the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. I believe in the legal equality of relationships. Is it marriage, is it civil unions, is it domestic partners? I kind of let that one go.

The crowd and reporters kept pressing, but Kaine remained steadfastly vague. His remarkable press session is chronicled here at the Washington Post’s Virginia Politics Blog by Ben Pershing.

In 2006, then Governor Kaine publicly opposed Virginia’s marriage amendment, going so far as to campaign against the measure that eventually passed with 57 percent of the vote. Just a few months before, while a candidate for Governor, Kaine gave The Family Foundation Action the following response to a candidate survey question about the measure:

I have long supported Virginia law that declares marriage to be between a man and a woman, and I support a Constitutional amendment.

Incredibly, just days after being sworn in as governor, Kaine reversed his support for the ballot measure and urged the General Assembly to keep it off the ballot. (The legislation calling for the measure passed the 2005 General Assembly but had to pass again in 2006 to be placed on the ballot.)

At one point during the press availability last week, Kaine indicated that “marriage” is little more than a label, saying, “I think the labels actually get in the way of the issue.”

But marriage isn’t the only issue on which Kaine has shifted since running for governor in 2005. Relatedly, at that time, he told The Family Foundation and the media that he opposed homosexual couples adopting, but supported Virginia law allowing homosexual individuals to adopt. Late in his administration, however, he introduced a regulation that would have prohibited child placement agencies from considering homosexual behavior at all when choosing parents for adoption. Last year, he said that unmarried homosexual couples should be able to adopt if a judge determined it was in the best interest of the child (contrary to the Virginia Constitution and statute).

One has to wonder why Kaine continues to dodge the question if opinions on the issue of marriage are shifting — as constantly asserted as fact by same-sex marriage supporters and mainstream media. Of course, while progressives insist that Americans are shifting in their opinion on the definition of marriage, they are 0-31 when it comes to marriage amendments at the ballot box. Candidate Kaine knows that.

Conveniently in 2005, Kaine invoked his Catholic faith in response to his position on the death penalty. No mention of Church teaching on this issue. Hmmm. Our guess, however, is that whatever he says on the issue while on the campaign trail doesn’t really matter. History has proven that Tim Kaine’s position is likely to change as soon as Election Day is over.