Fraud in New Jersey governor's race? Sounds like it already.

Will or are we already seeing fraud in the New Jersey governor's race? That's what John Fund of the Wall Street Journal is already hearing. Here's what Gary Bauer wrote concerning Fund's concerns which were written the day before Election Day.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday that Democrats may already be trying to steal the New Jersey election. According to Fund, Garden State Democrats are taking advantage of a new law on mail-in voting, while pressuring local election clerks to not scrutinize the signatures on the ballots too closely – “the only verification procedure allowed.”

But, according to Fund, “On some 3,000 forms the signature doesn’t match the one on file with county clerks.” Nevertheless, Democrat lawyers are demanding that the secretary of state “instruct County Clerks not to deny applications on the basis of signature comparison alone.”

How bad is the potential problem? According to one campaign worker in Camden “more than fifteen times the normal number of voters are casting absentee ballots in Camden this year.” Worse yet, Fund writes that ACORN workers were spotted going into a hospital near Newark with blank absentee ballots and leaving with completed ballots. While these so-called “messenger ballots” may be legal, the potential for fraud and abuse is obvious. I hope Republican Chris Christie has an army of poll watchers and lawyers on duty today to stop another election from being stolen.

If the election in New Jersey is close, these ballots may determine the outcome – and we know how that is likely to go. Every time I see Al Franken in the Senate I am reminded of just how important it is for every conservative to vote.

Liberal news blog article highlights mindset of liberals who support marginalizing and privatizing religious liberties over homosexual marriage.

Andy Birkey with the Minnesota Independent a left/liberal news blog, takes issue with my assertion that religious liberties will invariably be attacked once homosexual marriage is legalized. He takes issue specifically with my recent blog post analogizing attacks to come from legalizing homosexual marriage with a recent New Jersey state discrimination ruling against a Methodist church group which refused to allow it's facility to be used for a homosexual civil union ceremony.

Rather than rebutting my concerns Birkey actually confirms them and provides an excellent example of the liberal mindset regarding privatization of religious faith and belief.

He begins by saying that these doomsday scenarios don't jive with the facts and the issue with the Methodist group in New Jersey is simply about getting tax breaks and benefits from the state not religious freedom.

But what’s missing from the story is that the church in question, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, got tax breaks from the state of New Jersey because it has for years allowed the public to use its Boardwalk Pavilion for secular and religious events. The church also received state funding to improve the infrastructure around the pavilion. Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster requested to have their civil union ceremony at that pavilion and paid taxes that went to the church to pay for the pavilion.

In other words, if the public endorses recognition of homosexual relationships, religious groups which operate in the public should recognize and endorse such relationships through the use of their facilities which are made available to the public. Yet that's the point concerning threats to religious liberties -- religious groups which operate in the public must sacrifice their religious beliefs and convictions in order to continue operating in the public.

He points to the decision by the New Jersey civil rights division which ruled that if a religious group wants to operate in public it has to sacrifice it's publicly expressed, religiously based convictions to do so.

But the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights was pretty clear when it handed down its ruling against the church on Dec. 29: “When it invites the public at large to use it, the Association is subject to the Law Against Discrimination, and enforcement of that law in this context does not affect the Association’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion.”

Birkey concludes by saying:

It’s another case of the religious right’s wanting its cake (taxpayer funds) and eating it too (denying rights to gays and lesbians).

So if religious groups want to operate in public they should expect to sacrifice their religious convictions or accept being treated as second class citizens, e.g. don't expect to participate as a tax exempt organization. But that's an example of the loss of religious liberties I'm talking about. The choice is either shut up about your religious convictions and be involved publicly or withdraw from public life. And of course, one can expect to face punitive fines under discrimination laws to insure you toe the line.

A good analogy for what will happen if marriage is redefined can be drawn from the treatment of organizations which opposed inter-racial marriage. (It's a faulty comparison because both practices are in fact anti-marriage -- the interracial marriage ban because it artificially kept some men and women from marrying due to their skin color and homosexual marriage because it eliminated the need for a man and a woman. But just the same homosexual marriage advocates love to make.) In the 1980s the US Supreme Court revoked the tax exempt status of a group which banned interracial marriage because the practice violated public policy. Well, if homosexual marriage is recognized as the law of the land then we should similarly expect churches refusing to recognize homosexual marriages to lose their tax exempt status.

I suspect Mr. Birkey would say churches should lose their tax exemption, because they're taking part in a public tax benefit. However, the founders viewed the power to tax as the power to destroy and the impetus for tax exemption was in part to encourage the public benefit churches and other religious groups provide, but also because they didn't want the state encroaching upon or controlling religious groups through the power to tax. Under Birkey's line of thinking it would seem reasonable to also limit a religious groups use of police, fire, sewer, water and other public services if they oppose homosexual marriage. Aren't these public benefits going to organizations which discriminate against homosexuals? And most churches welcome all of the public to attend their religious services.

Thus religious groups will be forced to sacrifice their religious convictions if they want to stay clear of governmental control through taxation, being fined or ultimately having their activities completely shut down.

Mr. Birkey's thinking logically reflects the privatized view of religious exemplified by the former Soviet Union. They had a clause in Soviet Constitution guaranteeing the separation of church and state and thus ostensibly guaranteeing religious freedom. Russians were free to practice their faith as long as it was totally privatized -- religious services and praying in their heads. But if they dared to act on their religious beliefs then they were in trouble with the state.

So too, today, in Mr. Birkey's world, you can practice your religious beliefs as long as it's done in private. But if you seek to practice your faith by helping the public through building a Boardwalk pavilion which can be of service for not only religious events but for the broader public then you will likely run into trouble with the state for acting on your beliefs.

In essence, if you step outside your private, cloistered religious world, be sure to leave your religious beliefs about public issues behind. Of course, that's impossible for the Christian believer to do. Faith without works is dead. The believer knows there is a higher authority than the state to which he or she owes allegiance. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his letter written in his Birmingham, Alabama jail cell during the battle for black civil rights.

What we'll have in store if civil unions much less homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land -- attacks on religious liberties.

A recent decision in New Jersey found a Methodist church group, which refused to rent out its property for a civil union ceremony, guilty of discrimination which will mean either fines or a requirement that they rent out the facility for civil union ceremonies. No doubt similar actions will be taken against churches once homosexual marriage becomes the law.

This decision merely highlights where society is headed if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land. There's no doubt in my mind that homosexual activists and their kindred spirits will impose acceptance on those who disagree with them.

Again, supposed claims of "tolerance" and "respect for diversity" are only a way one way street.

Another example of why a federal marriage amendement is necessary -- Push in New Jersey for homosexual marriage

New Jersey Governor John Corzine announced he will sign a homosexual marriage bill but it doesn't it need to come to his desk immediately; it can wait until after the 2008 election. The New Jersey legislature was forced, not too long ago, by the their state Supreme Court to pass a civil union bill which is homosexual marriage in all but name. So Corzine says lets go all the way and redefine the institution for everyone.

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine on Tuesday said he has "significant concerns" about whether civil unions give gay couples the same rights as married couples, but didn't back a quick change to state law.

A spokeswoman said the Democratic governor would sign a bill allowing gay marriage, but not until after November's presidential election.

"He will sign a bill, but doesn't want to make it a presidential election year issue," Corzine spokeswoman Lilo Stainton said.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of gay rights group Garden State Equality, said a state report that found civil unions creates a second-class status for gay couples boosts their claims that the unions don't work.

It found gay couples in Massachusetts _ the only state that allows gay marriage _ don't experience the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.

"New Jersey's civil union law segregates, discriminates and humiliates the very people it is supposed to help," Goldstein said.

This situation highlights a couple of concerns. First, civil unions and domestic partnerships are marital type relationships which lay the foundation for homosexual marriage by placing in law legal recognition of homosexual relationships on par with marriage relationships between a man and a woman. They are merely a pretext or stepping stone for homosexual marriage.

Second, it highlights the need for a federal marriage amendment. Having states develop various definitions of marriage is untenable for the entire nation. I believe it's analogous to the battle over slavery. Some thought we could compartmentalize slavery by allowing some states to remain free and others slave. Lincoln ultimately saw this as unworkable. The slave states demanded that slave owners be able to take their "property" with them wherever they went. Lincoln said we'll eventually be all free or all slave. So too, homosexual couples will demand recognition of their homosexual "marriages" when they move to states which don't recognize same sex marriage. So the entire nation will either entirely recognize homosexual marriage or stay with marriage between a man and a woman. There is no middle ground.

Some will say, as former Governor Ventura said to me when I ran into him recently, that the answer is get the state out of the marriage business. I asked how would it do this? By simply establishing civil unions for same and oppose sex couples. But isn't that marriage by another name? He didn't have a plausible response.

The fact is marriage is both a religious and civil institution. It's found in our religious traditions but also written on our hearts by our Creator. It's part of our DNA and is as much a part of the natural order as the law of gravity. Human race is dependent on a man and a woman procreating to insure there's a next generation. But also having those mothers and fathers raising children who in turn will be mothers and fathers themselves. When we deviate from this natural design untold problems result, e.g. messed up kids, crime, poverty, drug abuse, abortion, disease and on and on the list goes.

Homosexual marriage advocates believe marriage and the norm of mothers and fathers raising their children is merely a social construct we can change at will. The lessons of history, decline of past civilizations and cultures and our current social experiment in alternative family arrangements in the West and the US reveal how fatally flawed this notion is. (Our first experiment with family redefinition, e.g. encouraging single parent headed households has been an abysmal disaster.)

The outcome of the homosexual marriage experiment and with it the fundamental redefinition of family is not in question -- the destruction of our culture and society. The only question is will the United States veer away from the precipice before it's too late.

Bait and switch in New Jersey

They will never compromise.

In every state that has approved civil unions or domestic partnerships, same sex marriage supporters have insisted upon legalization of same-sex marriage - almost the very next day.

Don't expect anything different in Minnesota. Rest assured that if the Minnesota legislature had legalized same-sex marriage (domestic partnerships) for hospital visitation privileges in the 2007 session, OutFront Minnesota would be back demanding more in the 2008 session.

Just ask them.

N.J. Commission Expected to Push for Same-Sex 'Marriage'

From Citizen Link

Apparently, homosexuals are not satisfied with civil union law.

Gay activists are complaining that New Jersey’s civil union law is failing. Family groups say this is the next phase of getting what homosexuals want — full-marriage status.

The Civil Union Review Commission has launched its first of three biweekly meetings to hear complaints that civil unions are a “failed experiment” and carry a “second-class status.”

“The net effect of that law was simply to create a vehicle by which homosexual activists could run a dog-and-pony show, essentially to force the Legislature's hand to create same-sex marriages rather than civil unions," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

Len Deo of the New Jersey Family Policy Council said the commission is stacked. “Steven Goldstein is the head of Garden State Equality, which is the leading homosexual-rights activist group in New Jersey," he told Family News in Focus. "On top of that, he’s also the vice chairman of the Civil Unions Commission — which is basically the wolf watching the henhouse.”

The commission is expected to present its findings to lawmakers to justify a bill allowing same-sex marriage. John White with the Knights of Columbus said that was the plan all along.

“They haven’t been satisfied with domestic partnerships," he said. "That was supposed to be all they wanted. The next thing they wanted was civil unions, they got civil unions, and now that’s not enough.”