What does the AFL-CIO and gay activists have in common? Opposition to marriage.

The marriage protection amendment is producing an interesting alliance of groups on the left.

A coalition of groups have publicly stated their opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot in November 2012.

OutFront, Project 515, and Human Rights Campaign naturally headline the groups opposed to the amendment. Then there's the ACLU, NOW, MPIRG, and a litany of DFL associated groups like DFL Party, DFL Feminist Caucus, DFL Veteran's council, and DFL Senate Districts 38, 62.

Then several religious groups: Unity Unitarian Church, Shir Tikvah Jewish Synagogue, Lutherans Concerned, Catholics for Marriage Equality, and First Univeralist Church of Minneapolis. Their opposition to the amendment neutralizes the left's efforts to marginalize involvement of religious conservatives.

Then the Green Party, Libertarian Party and Independence Party of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits which tries to portray itself as nonpartisan.

And let's not forget the pro-abortion NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

And of course the Minnesota Atheists.

And then there's the labor unions. Minnesota AFL-CIO, MAPE, St. Paul Federation of Teachers, AFSCME-Minnesota Council 5, and SEIU. Here's a good reason for the public and union members to become disillusioned with organized labor. They're not just concerned with work place conditions and issues but promoting a leftist social agenda.

Who's on the other side of the issue? The majority of Minnesotans.

Evidence of gay activists motivation in Anoka-Hennepin School controversy. Looks like they want homosexuality promoted in district.

A call from the Star Tribune reporter on the Anoka-Hennepin sexual orientation policy controversy got me digger a bit deeper. I found an interesting February 2009, Star Tribune article on the change in its sexual orientation policy, to its current form. The new policy includes neutral language regarding discussion of sexual orientation by school personnel.

Back then gay activists praised the policy change.

From the February 2009 Star Tribune story.

OutFront Minnesota and the Midwest Office of Family Equality Council, two of the state's leading gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) advocacy groups, praised the vote.

Phil Duran, a staff attorney for OutFront, said since the policy was enacted 14 years ago his office has received several inquiries from students and parents who said it led to censorship in journalism assignments and GLBT awareness training for teachers.

"It was a very odd situation," Duran said. "We're grateful the board put some thoughtful effort into moving forward and balancing the district's obligation to serve all students and recognize there was some sensitivity about this issue."

The old board policy "made teachers nervous," said Mary Pedersen, a Champlin Park High School teacher who advises the school's gay-straight alliance. "They didn't want to overstep the boundary of that board directive."

What's changed? I think it's quite clear they want homosexual advocacy in the district.

Minnesota homosexual marriage advocates want whole enchilada now. Is it inevitable? I don't think so.

Homosexual marriage advocates are giving up their incremental strategy of civil unions as a stepping stone to redefining marriage to include homosexual partners. According to a Star Tribune news story, " Big push for same-sex marriage coming in '09", OutFront Minnesota and Senator John Marty plan to introduce and hold hearings on a homosexual marriage legalization bill.

To date, lots of homosexual groups, figured they should push for a recognition of homosexual marriage by the incremental approach. That's what they did via special legal protections under discrimination laws and domestic partner benefits proposals. The logical next step would be civil unions. Well, the new head of OutFront Minnesota told a reporter that civil unions are unacceptable. They're a separate but unequal counterpart to marriage and they don't want it. They want traditional marriage to be eliminated and replaced with a fundamentally different definition recognizing homosexual couples. They think it will take them not too many years to achieve.

Frankly, I welcome more public discussion and debate on the issue. The more there is the better off we are on the marriage side. Why? Because homosexual marriage is build on a lie that somehow homosexual unions can constitute and fulfill the purposes of marriage as established by God and rooted in nature. In other words, the truth is not on their side.

It's like the legislature seeking to define a cat as a dog by passing a law saying it's so. We may want to believe it's so and even act on that belief but it doesn't change the reality of the way things actually are.

I think homosexual marriage advocates say time is on their side. It's inevitable we'll have homosexual marriage in our nation, they say. In the long run, time isn't on their side. In the short run, they may have some successes but in the long run it won't work out. An analogy is the failed experiment of the Soviet Union. They thought they could create the workers paradise through socialist, government ownership economic system. It looked like they might succeed with the growing power of the Soviet empire. But alas, it collapsed after 70 years, because the system was based on lie. The system was rotten at its core.

The same will be true with homosexual marriage whether in Canada, Europe or other parts of the world. Marriage is foundational to the health of society and the well-being of people, particularly children. Homosexual partners can't replace a mom and a dad. The notion is built upon a lie; it will fail. The question is when.

Even in the short term, I don't believe homosexual marriage is inevitable in Minnesota or our nation. The reality of homosexual marriage as revealed in other states will only become more evident as time progresses. The problems children experience. The fragility of the homosexual relationships and health implications will only gain broader societal awareness.

And I think this will only become more apparent to young people. In today's culture, it's cool to be for homosexual marriage. But when one looks a little closer at the true nature and purpose of marriage, the picture changes.

I think that's what has happened with the abortion issue. Young people are becoming pro-life. They see the pictures and hear the horror stories of post-abortion effects. They see it isn't the answer to personal difficulties or circumstances.

The same will happen with homosexual marriage. When they capture a vision of benefits of marriage, the nature of the man and woman relationship, and the impact of homosexual marriage in undermining the marriage vision, they'll go the other direction.

Again, there's power in the truth which none of us can change whether we'd like to or not. That goes for marriage as much as anything else. If we're smart as individuals and a society, we'll find out what the truth is and line our lives up with it.

OutFront Minnesota 2008 legislative agenda is as controversial as 2007

In their incremental strategy to obtain same sex marriage in Minnesota, homosexual activists at OutFront Minnesota will take another run at the state legislature in 2008. They're describing their efforts as a less controversial approach than last year. They say they are merely seeking to authorize cities, towns, schools and counties to offer marriage benefits to homosexual couples and establish a marital type status for homosexual couples for purposes of public assistance.

In either case, these two proposals are just as controversial as their proposals in 2007. The goal remains the same: establish in state law a marital-like status for homosexual couples.

The PR side is to create the most empathetic situation. Last year it was homosexual partners of hospitalized partners. They alleged homosexuals, because they couldn't marry, were denied hospital access to their partners. (The only problem was homosexual partners weren't excluded from visiting their partners by Twin Cities hospitals we contacted. And proponents wouldn't accept a proposal which would allow any adult to decide who could visit their partner. Thus showing both the discriminatory nature of their proposal and their intent was exclusively getting a homosexual marriage type status embedded in state law.)

This new proposal will be just as discriminatory as the ones they pushed last year. Why should homosexual couples be given special recognition exclusive of other people who care for someone just because they aren't homosexual? Say elderly siblings? Long time non-homosexual friends who live together? An elderly parent living with a disabled adult child?

The reason they aren't interested in helping other people in similar situations is because they're only concerned about moving towards homosexual marriage recognition in state law. These initiatives are merely the first step towards the eventual goal of recognizing homosexual marriage whether through the courts or the legislature.

That's why these proposals are every bit as controversial, notwithstanding their claims to the contrary, as their proposals last year which Governor Pawlenty threatened to veto.

Minnesota Monitor and OutFront Minnesota seek to reinterpret the Bible on homosexual behavior

The liberal news blog Minnesota Monitor in a post last weekend highlights efforts of homosexual activists who want to set the record straight on "The Biblical Roots of GLBT Oppression." The article and the activists say biblical texts addressing homosexual behavior don't really mean what they say and the consistent interpretation of those texts for thousands of years have gotten it all wrong.

This concern with the biblical arguments is inspired by incoming Archbishop Nienstedt's recent public statements of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior.

Who's pushing this respond to traditional biblical teaching on homosexual behavior? None other than OutFront Minnesota. The author of the story says:

I provide very brief interpretations as presented at a Bible Self-Defense Course organized by OutFront Minnesota; the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance; and Soulforce, as well as information from progressive religious websites. These are not the only interpretations, and are simply my understanding of the progressive arguments presented.

The material includes the usual revisionist work on the Apostle Paul, Leviticus passage and the Sodom and Gomorrah account.

An excellent resource for the orthodox, biblical view of homosexual behavior is Professor Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Society. His webpage and links provides a treasure trove of information on the topic.

Frankly, I welcome a debate on the biblical views of homosexual behavior. Discussing the topic on the moral, philosophical and theological level will only heighten and deepen the debate. While OutFront Minnesota wants to arm their activists with quick rejoinders to biblical arguments, I think it will only serve to more clearly reveal the fundamental flaws in the arguments and thinking of homosexual activists.

I believe the Bible articulates fundamental truth about human existence, truth, and justice. The more the Bible is discussed the better.