So he set to work, and in short time he had recruited some four dozen leaders of various Christian groups to begin rallying the church nationwide in defense of marriage.

'Nothing we cannot accomplish'

"There's nothing we cannot accomplish if we stick together with the power of God," he told WND. "This is going to be a powerhouse that's going to shake up a lot, starting with marriage."

The campaign's decision to defend marriage came after the U.S. House of Representatives took up the defense in court of challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The law specifies that for federal purposes, marriage means the union of one man and one woman – an anathema to the social-innovation activists who want to force society to acknowledge and approve of same-sex "marriage."

Most notable in that bitter fight has been the conflict in California in which voters twice have approved the traditional definition, only to see activist judges, including one who openly is homosexual, overrule them.

Part of the plan assembled by the new coalition, which includes high-profile leaders such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and James Dobson of MyFamilyTalk.com, is a petition to Congress urging members to uphold the law.

"President Obama and his Justice Department would have us believe that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional," the petition introduction states. "I oppose the Justice Department's political decision to reverse its policy of defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal statute passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. The duty of the Justice Department is to enforce and defend laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.

"The president and his Justice Department have abdicated his responsibility to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed," it continues.

No longer defending DOMA

Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, announced since they didn't like the Defense of Marriage Act, they would no longer defend the federal law itself, even though their official duties include defense of the nation's laws.

Perkins called the decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice "appalling."

"The president's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'" he said. "What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress," Perkins continued.

"With this decision the president has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit."

The U.S. House has approved plans to defend the federal law and now is coming under attack from leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is challenging them over the costs of the defense.

Hutcherson told WND the administration's decision reflects the nature of those adopting it. But the message to Christians is that the White House formally is attacking their biblically defined values and beliefs.

"It's time for the church to wake up and get serious," he said.

He said the precedent already has been established across the U.S. – by the 31 times in 31 opportunities that states' citizens have voted to protect the biblical definition.

'Enough is enough'

It's time, Hutcherson said, for Christians to stand up and say, "Enough is enough."

His initial invitation to different ministry leaders was met, without exception, he told WND, with the response, "What kinds of things can we do?"

He said the fundamental issue of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" is not one of "rights" but of following God.

"It is a sin," he said. "It's not a man choosing this or a woman choosing that. It is a sin. It is like any other sin. If you try to pass a law that I have to drop my moral viewpoint, that's not going to work for me."

He said the perspective just reflects what is going on in the U.S., that people no longer are following standards but are making life decisions based on how they feel about an issue on a particular day.

Christians, he said, need to follow the Bible itself, not how they feel about an issue.

"That's why God wrote the Bible. It gives man boundaries. It tells what's best for man, even though we may not like it," he said.

Further, he said the campaign is assembling around the issue of marriage, but there are other issues that also will be addressed in the future.

The campaign also features a wealth of information on the issue of same-sex "marriage" for those who have questions.

For example, even a sociologist at Princeton, Sara McLanahan, has written, "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."

The alternatives, according to studies, spread seeds of doubt, confusion and misunderstanding to children.

Marriage not created by law

Marriage is not, as some believe, the creation of the law, the petition website explains.

"Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists," it explains.

"If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny 'marriage' to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution."

The issue of same-sex "marriage" in the United States appears headed toward the U.S. Supreme Court where the vote is anything but certain. While the California Proposition 8 case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it likely will be moved higher.

But there was a victory for traditional marriage in the latest state-level dispute. In Maryland, a proposal with the backing of celebrities up to the ranks of Bill Clinton was expected to make same-sex "marriage" legitimate but failed.

The measure had been on track for approval and was running under the radar when it swept through the Senate. Then it moved to the state House, where Democrats hold 98 of the 141 seats, and collapsed, said Delegate Don Dwyer, a leader of the opposition to homosexual "marriages."

Already, same-sex duos can obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, noted the National Conference of State Legislatures. In some of those places the law has been imposed by judicial fiat.

Dwyer said the Maryland legislation was described to him as a "done deal" by homosexual activists who thought they had lined up support.

The sudden turnaround came after the bill was approved in the Senate and moved to the House, where supporters of traditional marriage have been working on a constitutional amendment for their state.

The first signal of defeat came when a committee chairman ruled that the bill would be held instead of being voted on immediately. Three days later, the bill had failed to advance.

The reason, Dwyer said, was the thousands of telephone calls, emails and other contacts from constituents informing lawmakers of their opposition..

"Nobody thought we could really [stop the bill]," Dwyer told WND, especially once it advanced – barely – from committee to the House floor.

"It was a tremendous effort to create public pressure that this was not the constituents' [desire]," he said. "I've got to tell you, the black churches were tremendously responsible for stepping up to the plate."

The calls, emails and other contacts from citizens, prompted by church groups, networks and others, changed the bill's outcome, he said.

When Obama and Holder announced they no longer would defend the federal law as their official duties include, Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., suggested members of Congress cut the budget for Holder – and instead use that money to mount a congressionally directed defense of DOMA.

California fight remains hottest

Probably the hottest battle in the war between marriage definitions is raging in California.

There, state Supreme Court judges created same-sex "marriage" and were immediately rebuffed by voters who adopted Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The dispute then went into federal court, and the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are considering whether to uphold a decision by a homosexual judge that said voters had no right to amend their own state constitution.

The judge, Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual, in September overruled more than 7 million voters to banish Proposition 8, which had been approved by voters in 2008.

His 136-page ruling said, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Walker also wrote:

• "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

• "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

• "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."

• "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."

• "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."

• "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."

His decision essentially ignored a warning from California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, who dissented when his court created same-sex "marriage" in the state.

Baxter wrote, "The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

In Iowa, the state Supreme Court had created homosexual "marriage" for the state, and voters responded by firing all three justices who were up for retention in the 2010 election.

---

Related offers:

How did this happen in America? Read "Sexual Sabotage" for the explanation of the dark secret's of Alfred Kinsey.

"HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

"See how Americans and their Constitution have been betrayed by judge-made law"

April 9, 2011