We gladly reprint the following appeal from Rena Lindevaldsen of the Liberty Counsel:

September 22, 2008

I know you are busy, but trust me when I tell you that the few minutes it will take to read this letter will be well-spent and life-changing. I’d like to tell you about Lisa Miller — my client, my friend, my sister in Christ, and mother of six-year old Isabella.

On October 27, 2008, a Vermont judge is holding a hearing to determine whether little Isabella will be stripped from her mother’s care and given to a woman, Janet Jenkins, who is openly living the homosexual lifestyle. You see, Lisa Miller is one of thousands across this nation who have left the homosexual life through the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. The problem is, however, that while Lisa was involved in a same-sex relationship with Janet, in Virginia, Lisa had a child, in Virginia, by artificial insemination. Now, because Lisa has refused to comply with a court order giving Janet liberal unsupervised visitation with Isabella, Janet has asked the court to transfer custody of Isabella from her only biological parent (Lisa) to Janet, who is openly living a homosexual lifestyle.

I know this story sounds confusing, so let me back up and explain how we are at the point where Lisa could be thrown in jail for refusing to expose her child to Janet’s harmful and destructive lifestyle and Isabella could be stripped from her mother’s care by Virginia law enforcement officials. Before I begin, I want you to know that I am not exaggerating when I say that Isabella will be harmed by visitation with Janet. During one of the few court ordered visits that did take place, Isabella tells us that Janet: made then five year old Isabella bathe naked with Janet; had Isabella watch R-rated movies that depicted drug use and bloody murder scenes; and had Isabella watch Janet go to the bathroom. Others have testified in court documents that Janet lost Isabella at a county fair and Isabella was being psychologically harmed by the visits.

The other thing you should know up front is that shortly after Lisa ended the relationship with Janet, Janet sought full custody of Lisa’s child. When she did that, Janet didn’t allege that Lisa was an unfit mother – because Lisa is a wonderful mother. Janet didn’t allege that the law clearly treated her as a mother – because it didn’t. No, she asked the court to create new law and declare her a parent even though she had no biological or legal relationship to the child. And that’s exactly what the courts did. Now, we stand on the brink of a court order stripping Isabella from her biological mother. With that said, let me start from the beginning of the story. At the end, I hope you will join in the efforts to stand up for, and intercede on behalf of, Lisa and Isabella.

After a very difficult childhood and a failed, abusive heterosexual marriage, Lisa, at near bottom, was told by a psychological professional that she must be a homosexual. As a result of that, Lisa plunged feet first into the homosexual community. Living in Virginia, Lisa met Janet Jenkins around 1997. It wasn’t long before Lisa moved in with Janet. The relationship wasn’t a healthy one, but when Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, Lisa and Janet traveled one weekend to Vermont to enter a same-sex civil union. The two women immediately returned to Virginia and continued their unhealthy relationship. In 2001, pursuing her desire to be a mother, Lisa became pregnant in Virginia by artificial insemination. In April 2002, Lisa gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, Isabella. Lisa is the only parent listed on the birth certificate because Virginia law did not (and still does not) treat same-sex relationships as valid. At Janet’s request, in August 2002, Lisa moved to Vermont, hoping the change of scenery would somehow make the relationship work. It didn’t, and in September 2003, when Isabella was only seventeen months old, Lisa ended her relationship with Janet. Lisa and Isabella returned home to Virginia; Janet stayed in Vermont.

After becoming a Christian, Lisa wanted to put her former life behind her. As a result, without the assistance of an attorney, in November 2003, she filed papers in Vermont to end her civil union relationship with Janet. She filed in Vermont because Virginia didn’t recognize the same-sex relationship and therefore wouldn’t terminate the relationship. To her surprise, Janet retained an attorney and filed papers in Vermont asking the court to give her primary custody of Isabella, with visitation to Lisa. Even more surprising, in June 2004, over Lisa’s objections, the Vermont trial court gave Janet liberal, unsupervised visitation. In fact, the June 2004 order expected Lisa to turn then two-year-old Isabella over to Janet for a two-week visit in Vermont. It also required monthly Vermont visits.

Because Vermont refused to address the obvious legal question of whether Janet was even a parent to Isabella (which she is not), in July 2004, Lisa filed papers in Virginia asking Virginia to declare her Isabella’s only mother pursuant to Virginia law. In October 2004, a Virginia trial court did just that, declaring that Isabella has only one mother – Lisa. Not happy with that ruling, the next month, the Vermont court declared Isabella to have two mothers – Lisa and Janet. The court was not shy about what it had done – it expressly stated that there was no law in Vermont that treated Janet as a parent because the legislature had not chosen to allow for two women to be a child’s mother unless the partner had adopted the child. Janet never even attempted to adopt Isabella during Janet and Lisa’s relationship. The court stated that it would create a law to determine who is a parent when a child is born by artificial insemination. It then created the new law and used it to declare Janet and Lisa to be Isabella’s mothers. Janet then brought the Vermont order to Virginia, asking Virginia to give full faith and credit to the Vermont orders that treated Janet as a mother and gave her visitation.

Fast forward to today – Lisa has lost every single appeal in Vermont and Virginia. As I sit here today, I can tell you that the Virginia appellate courts have decided that the Vermont orders are to be given full faith and credit in Virginia even though Virginia’s marriage laws — including the Marriage Amendment we passed in November 2006 — state that all orders coming out of a same-sex relationship are void and unenforceable. The Virginia courts made these determinations even though the Virginia Attorney General stated in court documents in Lisa’s case that Virginia cannot give full faith and credit to the Vermont orders.

Now, Janet’s attorneys have asked the Vermont court to switch custody from Lisa to Janet. They’ve made the request because Lisa has not given visitation for the past months out of concern for her child’s physical and psychological well-being. On October 27, 2008, Judge Cohen in Rutland County, Vermont will hold a hearing on Janet’s motion and decide whether to punish Lisa for disobeying the court-ordered visitation. Even before that, on September 29, 2008, the United States Supreme Court will hold a conference where it will decide whether to hear Lisa’s appeal from the Vermont decisions [the Court declined to hear the case—Editor]. A couple weeks later, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether to hear Lisa’s appeal from the Virginia decisions. Although we all know that the Supreme Court needs to take the case to protect Isabella (by reversing the Virginia and Vermont decisions), the odds are against Lisa since the court only takes one percent of all cases that come before it. The odds are even worse in Lisa’s case because the Supreme Court tends to only take cases where there is a conflict between the states. Here, because Virginia courts ignored Virginia law, Vermont and Virginia are in agreement – Lisa has to turn Isabella over to Janet for visitation (or even custody if on October 27, 2008 Vermont switches custody to Janet). We’ve asked the Supreme Court to do what every single court in Virginia and Vermont has refused to do in over four years of litigation: squarely address Lisa’s fundamental rights to raise her child. The Virginia courts have repeatedly failed to explain how a legal stranger can be given visitation to Lisa’s child without violating Lisa’s fundamental constitutional parental rights. The Vermont Supreme Court did look at the issue once, stating simply that because Vermont had declared Janet a parent, she now had equal constitutional rights to that of Lisa.

As you can tell, Lisa and Isabella need your help. Lisa’s desire to raise her child according to the truths of Scripture are under attack: at one point during the Vermont litigation, Janet’s attorneys argued that Lisa shouldn’t be allowed to keep primary custody of Isabella because Lisa believed that God had a plan for Isabella’s life and that God would protect Isabella. I’m asking you to consider whether you can commit to prayer on behalf of this family. At times like this, the Church needs to stand united before our Lord to intercede on Lisa and Isabella’s behalf.

I would also ask that you consider what you can do to let others around the nation know about this case. There are so many other women around the country who have left the homosexual lifestyle and are struggling to keep their children. The nation and Church need to know about this in order to do something to prevent this from happening in our courts to other women, and to come alongside these women and minister to them.

It’s at times like this that I recall one of my favorite quotes: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”

Again, thank you for taking the time to read this. I pray that each person receiving this letter will prayerfully consider what we can do to help.

Rena Lindevaldsen
Assistant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law
Special Counsel, Liberty Counsel

After a busy month of May, June was a fairly quiet month for marriage-related cases and law review articles. The June 2008 Marriage Law Digest, edited by Bill Duncan, is now available at http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MarriageLawDigest.June2008.pdf.

Washington, D.C. — The Virginia Supreme Court temporarily avoided locking horns with the state of Vermont today. The Commonwealth’s highest court did not rule on the merits of a case which would have determined whether Virginia will respect the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act (MAA), and Virginia’s own constitution, or whether it will allow the state of Vermont to redefine marriage and family in the Commonwealth.

The Vermont Supreme Court had granted Janet Jenkins, the former lesbian partner of Lisa Miller, parental rights over Miller’s daughter Isabella, even though Jenkins has no relationship to the little girl and is neither an adoptive nor a biological parent.

In 2006, Virginia decisively passed (with 57 percent of the vote) a constitutional amendment designed to protect families against this exact type of attack. That amendment specifies that Virginia “shall not create or recognize” “civil unions” or “same-sex marriages” from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such “unions” (like Vermont’s custody ruling).

Today, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that since the MAA and Virginia’s constitutional amendment were not before the court of appeals in this specific proceeding, it could not rule on those issues at this time.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “Although we had hoped for a more definitive ruling today on the key issues in question, we’re optimistic that ultimately the state of Virginia will defend its laws, its constitution and the federal DOMA and tell Vermont to keep its ‘civil unions’ to itself. As these issues make their way back through the system, we’re confident that ultimately God’s natural design for marriage and family will prevail.”

Jan Robey, State Director for CWA of Virginia, said, “Aside from the legal ramifications of this ruling, I am most concerned with a 6-year-old girl who is being exploited by ‘gay’ activists. What is the motivation behind this agenda? It has not been in the best interest of Isabella. What is best for Isabella is that she be raised in a Christian home by her biological mother.”

For Information Contact: Natalie Bell: (202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 15, 2008

CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), 703-683-5004

NOTE: The California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS PROP 22

“National Organization for Marriage-California Will Lead the Fight to Protect Marriage this November,” vows NOM-CA Executive Director Brian Brown

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court released its decision today overturning Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

“Thanks to the more than 1 million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch California judges will not have the last word on marriage,” says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California (NOM-CA), “California voters will.”

NOM-CA is a San Diego-based “primarily formed ballot initiative committee,” under California law, which worked with Protect Marriage to get a state marriage amendment on the ballot. NOM-CA raised almost $1 million and helped collect over 1.1 million signatures to put a constitutional amendment before voters this November; the signatures submitted April 24th are awaiting certification by the California Secretary of States’ office.

“A state marriage amendment is the only way to put Prop 22 safely from the reach of activist judges who cannot tell the difference between marriage and bigotry,” said Brown, “We call on gay marriage advocates to halt the divisive and intolerant rhetoric which cruelly and falsely labels millions of Californians as ‘hate mongers’ because we support marriage as the union of husband and wife.”

California is the only court to follow Massachusetts’ lead in ordering same-sex marriage. Courts in New York, Washington and Maryland recently rejected arguments that marriage laws are discriminatory, and voters in 27 states including Oregon and Wisconsin have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. State constitutional marriage amendments will be before the voters in both California and Florida this November.

“I’m very disappointed, but not surprised, that this divided and divisive California court chose the latest divisive PC-slogan over the 2000 years of human experience our marriage traditions represent,” said Brown, “We will take this fight for marriage to the people of California this November and we expect to win.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 15, 2008

FOR MORE INFORMATION: NATALIE BELL

(202) 488-7000, ext. 126

California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called “same-sex marriage” on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing “same sex marriages.”

NOTE: the California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

“On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

–30–

The quotation below was sent to us by Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan. Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight, describes the chaos that would result if California’s highest court were to mandate homosexual “marriages.” Rather than create public sympathy to rectify alleged anti-homosexual “discrimination,” as Besen hopes, we think the ensuing confusion would only heighten citizens’ awareness of the crisis caused by the homosexual lobby and arrogant, social-engineering courts.

Only a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would establish a national standard preserving the historic institution of marriage as one-man, one-woman — perhaps in name only if current trends continue. California becoming a “gay marriage” state would certainly breathe new life into the FMA. However, another cultural/legal/political battle would follow over “civil unions,” which — far from being an acceptable compromise — are merely another tactic advancing the “gay” activists’ goal of putting government power and authority behind homosexual couples and the creation of unnatural “families.” And as the people of Massachusetts and Vermont know well, lots of bad things (e.g., more pro-homosexual indoctrination in schools, curtailment of moral freedoms) flow from state-sanctioned homosexuality.

The only way to solve the same-sex “marriage” crisis permanently is to enact a civil-unions-precluding Federal Marriage Amendment to our Constitution. Assuming that the pro-family movement lacks the guts, competence and consensus to do that (or even attempt it), the next (or parallel) battle would be over whether and how “civil unions” are recognized state-to-state — or mandated nationally. Because the “civil unions” landscape suggests the same problem of varying definitions of “unions” and “marriage,” our biggest fear is that the question will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which — in all its magnificent wisdom — would attempt to create a “one-size-fits-all” solution to the problem that likely would be about as successful in ending the cultural debate over homosexuality as Roe v. Wade was in ending the abortion debate. — Peter LaBarbera

Besen writes:

“(T)he California Supreme Court may…come out in favor of same-sex marriage as early as May 23. …If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America’s largest and most influential state — and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment — it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all) will forever change this debate. It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples — often with children — migrate to states that still discriminate. The consequences of such relocations will force the entire country to grapple with this issue. No longer will the debate be theoretical, but will focus on the discrimination endured by families whose married status vanishes the moment they cross state lines.”
– Wayne Besen, “Observations,” originally printed April 24, 2008 (Issue 1617) in “Between The Lines News” [BTL is a homosexual newspaper in Michigan]); http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=30056.

Please pray for justice and protection of this innocent child. You can commit to praying for the Millers at www.cwfa.org/millersign.asp. Below is Matt Barber’s original column on this sad situation:

You’re Not My Mommy!

By J. Matt Barber

This article was published by CWA on August 1, 2007:

The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger.

Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)

Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.

By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.

In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.

In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”

In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.

About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.

And that’s when the nightmare really began.

Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”

Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”

So Jenkins, a woman entirely unrelated to Isabella, and her attorneys are alleging that because Lisa is now a devout Christian, she is unfit to maintain custody of her own daughter. They filed a motion requesting a hearing to determine whether Isabella should be taken from her mother and given to Jenkins. Unbelievably, the judge granted that motion. The hearing is scheduled to take place on Friday, August 3 [2007; the judge rejected that request -- thank God -- but the Vermont Supreme Court recently granted joint custody; the Virginia case will determine whether Lisa Miller will be bound by the Vermont ruling].

But that’s only one in a series of inexplicable rulings by this Vermont court. The court has additionally ruled, essentially, that its own judicial authority is superior to that of both Virginia — which defines marriage as existing only between one man and one woman — and the federal government.

Lindevaldsen further explains, “The Vermont order declaring Janet to be Isabella’s parent is inextricably tied to the underlying civil union. Virginia statutes and a recent constitutional amendment prohibit recognition of any rights arising from same-sex relationships. Those laws, coupled with the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), should have led the Virginia Court of Appeals to refuse to give full faith and credit to the Vermont parentage and custody orders. Instead, the Virginia court declared that Virginia must recognize the Vermont orders. In other words, the Virginia court rendered meaningless the DOMA and the recently passed Virginia constitutional amendment. Based on this recent decision, policy decisions in Virginia on family and marriage now will be set by states like Vermont and Massachusetts.” The Virginia Supreme Court [decided to take the case on appeal].

Lisa and Isabella’s story tragically demonstrates that it’s all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It’s the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God’s intended design for human sexuality and marriage — as reaffirmed by Christ’s teachings in the New Testament — and enter into counterfeit homosexual “civil-unions” or “same-sex marriages.”

Although Lisa and Isabella’s situation is both heartbreaking and unjust, it shouldn’t be at all surprising. In the name of so-called “gay rights,” the militant homosexual lobby has made its position crystal clear. The selfish individual interests of those who define themselves based upon a choice to engage in deviant homosexual behaviors supersede the best interests of everyone else … even children.

And certainly, where newfangled “gay rights” come into conflict with time-honored and constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment religious liberties, the demands of homosexual activists trump the First Amendment every time.

Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of this radical and aggressive homosexual code of conduct.

Regrettably, there will be more.

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

Edited by Bill Duncan, the Marriage Law Digest aims to provide readable summaries of key legal opinions affecting marriage and family life in the U.S., with links to the opinions themselves where possible.

Each month, the Marriage Law Digest will be available (free) online at www.marriagedebate.com. You can download this month’s edition here. If you don’t care to receive an e-mail notice when iMAPP’s Marriage Law Digest is published each month, please reply to joshua@imapp.org and indicate “unsubscribe” in the subject line.

But I think and hope you’ll find it as useful as I do each month.

Best,

Maggie Gallagher
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP)

Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV).

Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful 5-year-old daughter, Isabella, find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa at one time had been homosexually involved.

By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events – including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade-long struggle with alcoholism now overcome – eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.

In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.

In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” – mother and “mother.”

In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins – working as a nightshift security guard – grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.

About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.

And that’s when the nightmare really began.

Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”

Click HERE to read the rest of Barber’s column on WorldNetDaily

 Two Home Depot stores are on the Ft. Lauderdale “cruising for sex” listings used by homosexual men to hook-up for anonymous sex with other men. In both, “cruisy toilets” are cited, meaning that the store’s restrooms are used as a place for men to engage in sodomitic perversions. Of course, normal people and young children also frequent these bathrooms — as they do the public parks listed below — but homosexual defenders of ”public sex” discount any threat to children arising from their degrading acts.

By Peter LaBarbera 

The following are the ”Sex Listings” for Ft. Lauderdale from a popular homosexual “cruising for sex” website that lists specific locations all over the world – including public parks and department store restrooms — where homosexual men can find anonymous sex partners. Mayor Jim Naugle cited this list in his press conference Wednesday; incredibly, there are 13 printed pages on this perverse website just for the Ft. Lauderdale area alone.

This pornography-financed website and others like it (e.g., “Craig’s List”) illustrate the highly organized nature of male homosexual perversion. Certainly there are many homosexual men (and lesbians) who eschew this behavior, but there are also many who enjoy it, or at least participate in it.  And there is no parallel, hugely organized phenomenon for people seeking anonymous heterosexual sex in bathrooms, etc., (which is not to suggest that there is a shortage of heterosexually-oriented perversions).

Moreover, as some entries in this listing show, there are married or heterosexually-partnered men who do not identify as “gay” who engage in secret, anonymous, public sex with other men. These men serve as bridges for bringing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, to their unknowing spouses. We have never been big on identity labels, so the liberal argument used against Mayor Naugle — that some of the men participating in public sex are (married) “heterosexuals” — is moot: if a man engages in public or anonymous perversions with other men, it’s just as wrong whether he calls himself “straight,” ”gay,” or “bisexual.” (Ditto for men who molest boys.)

Having said that, it is telling that well-funded homosexual activist organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund — the nation’s leading homosexual legal group – facilitate or accommodate perverse “cruising” activity. Several years ago, the Task Force featured the webmaster for this homosexual “cruising for sex” website as a speaker at its annual “Creating Change” conference for grassroots activists. (I attended that lecture undercover until I was detected and kicked out of the conference by NGLTF staff.)

As for Lambda Legal, it publishes a “Little Black Book” that is linked to and recommended on the “cruising for sex” website as a helpful tool for “cruising” men to stay out of legal trouble. Typical irresponsible “gay” activism here: rather than tell men not to engage in such reckless depravities, Lambda Legal’s Little Black Book advises, “If you cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view, trust your instincts, be aware of your surroundings — and know your rights.”

The Lambda Legal booklet continues (emphasis added): “While Lambda Legal and other groups are fighting against the ways police target men who have sex with men, having sex where others might see you and take offense can subject you to arrest, publicity and other serious consequences. If you feel unsafe, you should leave.”

By associating “rights” with reckless sex perversions, homosexual activists are further distorting “civil rights” in general. But should we expect any less from a movement that has turned the immoral practice of homosexuality (under the guise of “sexual orientation”) into a protected civil rights category?

The following are Ft. Lauderdale excerpted “cruising for sex” listings — sanitized as best we could by removing vulgarities and explicit sexual descriptions. I have tried to keep as much of the original content as possible — despite the grossness of it all — to preserve its creepy essence as highly organized perversion. This pathological behavior is fueling a public health hazard — and there are similar specialized listings for every state and major urban area in the nation. (Even North Dakota has three pages of listings, including Turtle River State Park.)

One last note: by reprinting this information, Americans For Truth’s “gay” critics – in typical “shoot-the-messenger” fashion – will again accuse me of reveling in the homosexual perversions described below. (The actual website is loaded with the most vile homosexual porn photos imaginable.) To that all I can say is that while I have many problems, lusting after men is not one of them. Americans simply need to see the dark underbelly of the homosexual movement — the side that GLAAD and the media are determined to hide from the public — to comprehend this growing evil in our midst. My editorial comments are in red.

_________________________ 

“Cruising for Sex” Website “Sex Listings” for Ft. Lauderdale

Region: Florida
Metro Area: Fort Lauderdale
(Includes: Coconut Creek, Dania, Davie, Deerfield Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale, Hollywood, Las Olas, Lauderdale Lakes, Margate, Miramar, North Lauderdale, Oakland Park, Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Pompano Beach, Sailboat Bend, Sunrise, Tamarac, Wilton Manors)
Updated Jul 22, 2007

See Also [other "cruising for sex categories]:
Message Board for South Florida including Fort Lauderdale
Message Board for Central Florida
Message Board for Northern Florida
Sex Listings for Florida
Sex Listings for Key West
Sex Listings for Miami
Sex Listings for Orlando
Sex Listings for Palm Beach County
Sex Listings for Tampa Bay
——————————————————————————–

[Ft. Lauderdale area] Public Places
>> 24 Hour Fitness, 8333 Pines Blvd., Pembroke Pines. Cruisy healthclub. Take Pines Blvd. west of University Drive. The club is next to Pollo Tropical in the Plaza opposite Cafe Iguana.New comments added February, 2007:
“Cruisy gym full of young to middle-aged, white, black and Latin guys — most in shape or on track. Lots of cruising on the floor then hit the showers, which have no curtains….”

>> Arrowhead Golf Course, 8200 W. State Road 84, Davie. Cruisy park. Park at Davie Lanes Bowling Alley and the Entrance to the course is behind City Furniture. Add Comments

New comments added June, 2007:
“Cruisy after dark along the cart paths.”

New comments added June, 2007:
“I went there last weekend. Very hot action! I got [sodomized] by a huge chubby white guy. …”

New comments added June, 2007:
“There was a hot middle-aged guy walking his dog just past dark. We eyed each other, went into the bushes …[sodomy describedl This place is so private....  Read More...

>> Bally Total Fitness, at the corner of Commercial Blvd. and Dixie Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy healthclub.  

New comments added March, 2007:
"I have been attending this club for over two years. For a while it was really hot towards closing on weekends in the showers. There were three-ways and sometimes [masturbatory sessions] of four or five guys in…  

New comments added May, 2007:
“This place is still really cruisy! You have to be careful of the cleaning guy (short chubby guy). There are guys there who just stand around in the showers (not a smart thing to do).

New comments added July, 2007:
“I was at the gym on Sunday around 3:30 pm, went to the showers and found a hot uncut Latino guy [masturbating]

New comments added July, 2007:
“Sex … in the shower area.”

>> Bally Total Fitness, 10846 Pines Blvd., Pembroke Pines. Cruisy healthclub. Open 6 am to 10 pm.  

New comments added October, 2006:
“This place is great. I was there last Sunday and found lots of hot men in the sauna. … The best times are on the weekends… 

New comments added April, 2007:
“This Bally’s security is very tight, no time to mess around here.”

>> Bally Total Fitness, University Drive, Davie. Cruisy locker room. 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. M-F. University Drive exit off I-595 then one mile south on right side of road.  

>> Barnes & Noble, on Highway 1, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet on the second floor.  

New comments added September, 2006:
“The restroom on the second floor is very cruisy with lots of potential. You hear the door open so it gives you plenty of time. [sodomitic perversions described]…

>> Big Lots, 1003 W. Route 84, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet. Add Comments

New comments added September, 2006:
“There’s a gloryhole [hole in stall divider to facilitate anonymous oral sodomy] in the men’s restroom at the rear of store.”

New comments added October, 2006:
“I have been here twice in the last week and have [orally sodomized someone] both times. There’s a double door to get in bathroom so you can hear someone coming.”

>> Coral Ridge Mall, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet in the food court. From I-95 take Oakland Park Blvd. west to US-1/Federal Highway. The Mall is on the northeast corner.  

>> Cruisy beach, north of Sunrise Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. Located about a quarter mile north of Sunrise Blvd. across from Birch State Park. Parking on the west side of the street only. 

New comments added August, 2006:
“This section of beach is great for hooking up, especially on weekends. Weekdays are hit-or-miss. Meet then go across to the park where there are lots of secluded areas.”

>> Easterlin Park, off NW 38th, Oakland Park. Cruisy park, toilet. Located just west of Powerline Road, and north of Oakland Park Blvd. across from School Board Maintenance.  

New comments added September, 2006:
“This place was hot, hot, hot like ten years ago. Since then there have been a few police busts that have even made the news and a few years back the county installed a security booth and charged to…   

New comments added October, 2006:
“I always see cops driving through this park.”

>> Festival Flea Market, Turnpike and Sample Road, Pompano Beach. Cruisy toilet in the back of market. 

>> Fitness First, on Broward Blvd., Plantation. Cruisy healthclub. Located near 70th Avenue. 

New comments added January, 2007:
“It has a steamroom that is great for cruising. It’s hardly used so you can have great, quiet action.”

>> Gold’s Gym, 3650 SW 10th Street, Deerfield Beach. Cruisy healthclub.  

>> Gold’s Gym, 3120 Oakwood Blvd 3120 Oakwood Blvd , Hollywood. Cruisy healthclub. Located in Oakwood Plaza. 

>> Hallandale Beach, Beach Blvd. and Hallandale Beach Road, Hallandale. Cruisy toilet. Take Hallandale Blvd. east to where it ends at the ocean. 

New comments added February, 2007:
“Don’t even waste your time. There is a police station right next to it.”

>> Holiday Park, Sunrise Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy park. Open 5 am to Midnight. From I-95 exit at Sunrise Blvd. and head east toward the beach. The park is on right side at Federal Highway.  

New comments added October, 2006:
“I got some [sodomy described] here recently. You just have to be patient and not obvious. It’s mostly older guys but occasionally a hot younger guy comes along.”

New comments added March, 2007:
“Hustlers and homeless here mostly. There are a few men sitting in their cars in the front parking lot by the Sunrise Blvd. entrance from time to time but that’s about it…. 

[SPECIAL "HEADS UP!" ALERT FOR HOLIDAY PARK:]

Heads Up! … Fort Lauderdale (04/15/2005)

Holiday Park. Sunrise Blvd., Cruisy park Add Comments
“They have installed micro-cameras in the parking lots. They’ve had too many complaints about guys [engaing in sodomy] in cars, hustlers proposioning people and drug dealing. If you are caught, you will be prosecuted. They aren’t making any exceptions, and they aren’t taking any pleas. Last night they arrested thirty-seven men, some for hustling, and some for tricking [engaging in anonymous sex] in the park.”  

>> Holland Park, Johnson Street and the Intracoastal, Hollywood. Cruisy park, toilet.   

New comments added February, 2007:
“Since reading this was a cruisy spot, I have been there many times as it is close to my home it is a quiet. It’s a pretty park but unfortunately with all my visits and waiting there I have yet to see…   

>> Hollywood Beach, Surf Street, Hollywood. Cruisy beach and nearby woods.

New comments added November, 2006:
“Never seems to be anyone there.”

>> Home Depot, 1000 NE 4th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet. Located just east of Andrews. 

New comments added October, 2006:
“Last time I was in town I went to the toilet and in no time a hot white middle-aged guy came in [...sodomitic act described]

New comments added April, 2007:
“This is a very gay place. Once I was mauled by a bear [older homosexual man] in the nail aisle — and he worked there. Wow. Didn’t know the workers can stand so close to you there.”

>> Home Depot, 3183 SW 160th Avenue, Miramar. Cruisy toilet. Turn left onto Miramar Parkway. Turn left onto Dykes Road/SW 160th Avenue.

New comments added August, 2006:
“This place is very hot!”

>> Kmart, East Oakland Park Blvd. at NE 6th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet. 

>> Kmart, Pines Blvd., Pembroke Pines. Cruisy toilet near layaway. Located near Palm Avenue.  

>> LA Fitness, 1000 E. Hillsboro Blvd., Deerfield Beach. Cruisy healthclub. Take I-95 north the east on Hillsboro Blvd. It’s at the corner of Hillsboro and Powerline Blvds.

New comments added May, 2007:
“Very cruisy sauna. Start showing that you are interested in the sauna and take it to the showers (private showers). You can [sodomies described]

>> LA Fitness, 900 N. Flamingo Road, Hollywood. Cruisy healthclub. Located between Pine and Sheridan Streets.  

>> Laundry Lounge, 1950 Wilton Drive, Wilton Manors. Cruisy parking lot. Located behind the Dairy Queen. 

>> Life Fitness, Deerfield Beach. Cruisy healthclub. Located at Hillsboro Blvd and Powline Road. 

>> Lowe’s, Andrews and East Oakland Park Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. Cruisy toilet.  

>> McDonald’s, Lauderdale Lakes. Cruisy toilet. Between Oakland and Commercial just north of Denny’s on 411. 

>> Mills Pond, off 9th Avenue, Wilton Manors. Cruisy park. Take I-95 to Oakland Park Blvd and go east. Make a right onto 9th Avenue then the first right after 23rd Avenue.  

New comments added August, 2006:
“I saw two guys being arrested by undercover cops last week. Stay away!”  Heads Up!

New comments added August, 2006:
“They fenced up the cruising area. This place is no longer cruisy. The sign says ‘closed for renovations’. I’m sure it’s just closed due to cruising.” [... poor victimized "cruisers"... -- Ed.]

New comments added December, 2006:
“Ever since there was a big news report on all of the ‘lewd’ goings on here it has been pretty much closed up. Went there tonight and nothing is going on at all. Beware of police presence!”

New comments added December, 2006:
“Cruisy area is all gone. Some queens made it so blatant and outrageous that the county constructed a huge fence around the entire wooded area. No way back there now. Good job, girls.”

New comments added January, 2007:
“WSVN Channel 7 news did a scathing report on what the ‘bad men’ were doing in the park!. Interviews with cops, and blurry video of the ‘perverts’ being arrested. Hard to believe a station which has more homo and lez anchors than any other in south Florida would stoop to such yellow journalism. Not that they should win a Pulitzer Prize for any of their ‘news’ but please Channel 7, stick with important news like babies being born in taxis, and cars with eldery drivers making Walgreen’s a drive-thru!” … Heads Up! [Somebody alert GLAAD to this "anti-gay" media travesty! How dare those bullies at WSVN consider it newsworthy that grown men are copulating like animals, or worse, in a public park frequented by families and children. -- Ed.]

>> Pembroke Lakes Mall, Pembroke Pines. Cruisy toilet in the food court. Located off of Pines Blvd. Exit Pines Blvd from I-75. Pembroke Lakes Mall is on the north side of the street about five miles east of I-75.  

>> Pompano Beach Public Beach (16th Street Beach), Pompano Beach. Cruisy beach. Take Highway 1 north of Atlantic Blvd. about two miles. Go east on 14th Street Causeway over bridge and left at light to 16th Street. The beach is on the right.  

>> Pompano Farmers Market, on Atlantic Blvd., Pompano Beach. Cruisy toilet in truck stop.  

New comments added September, 2006:
“Usually someone is there in the evenings looking to suck [a male sex organ] through the gloryhole. [Can you imagine anything more degrading than this?--Ed.] It is in mens’ room in the hall on the north side of the restaurant. Usually very quiet there but I get [vulgar description of oral sodomy] … 

New comments added October, 2006:
“This place is hot. I have met some hot looking older men here. The gloryhole action is great. Just be discreet when you use the bathroom.”

New comments added February, 2007:
“The gloryhole has been covered up.” [How much of our taxpayer dollars are spent reconstructing bathrooms to obstruct and confound "public sex" perverts?-- Ed.]

New comments added June, 2007:
“Maybe I am confused but I don’t see any bathrooms here. I have driven around this place several times and it sure looks like it could be cruisy with all those truckers hanging around but it is not…  

>> Quiet Waters Park, Powerline Road, Deerfield Beach. Cruisy park, toilet. Located north of sample on the west side. 

>> Sawgrass Mills Mall, Sunrise. Cruisy toilet around the corner from Burlington Coat Factory.

New comments added April, 2007:
“This bathroom is no longer cruised. The new layout won’t let you cruise for anything but trouble.”

>> Sawgrass Mills Mall, Sunrise. Cruisy toilet by Target.

New comments added June, 2007:
“Cruisy toilet near Target. There are no partitions between the urinals.” [Oh, boy, opportunity calls!-- Ed.]

>> Wal-Mart, Hallandale Beach Blvd., Hallandale. Cruisy parking lot. I-95 to Hallandale Beach Blvd. left two miles on the left side at light before bridge at beach (A1A). 

>> Winn-Dixie, 3500 N. Andrews Avenue, Oakland Park. Cruisy toilet.  

New comments added July, 2007:
“Cruisy men’s room in the afternoons.”

>> YMCA, Hollywood. Cruisy healthclub. Take I-95 to Sheridan Street. Go east to the first light then go right (south). At the next main intersection go right and its under the I-95 overpass on the right side.  

New comments added October, 2006:
“This YMCA is excellent for the more mature men!” [So much for the Young Men's CHRISTIAN Association...-Ed.]
——————————————————————————–

Baths, Sex Clubs, Parties, Backrooms
>> BBG Private Men’s Spa, 1164 E. Oakland Park Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. …  Bathhouse with full facilities. Open Sunday to Thursday 11 am to midnight, Friday and Saturday 11 am to 2 am. Add Comments

New comments added July, 2007:
“New bathhouse in Fort Lauderdale a few blocks west of the ‘gay grey’ Clubhouse II.”

>> Cabanas at Wilton Manors, 2209 N.E. 26th Street, Fort Lauderdale. 866——–.   Motel with bathhouse-type action. 

>> Club, The, 110 NW Fifth Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. 954——–. … Bathhouse with full facilities. Open 24 hours. 

New comments added November, 2006:
“I’ve lived in Fort Lauderdale for fifteen years. This place used to be hot, not anymore. The staff are extremely rude and the hot guys aren’t there any more. It also has gotten very expensive. …

New comments added November, 2006:
“This place is new, large and expensive. Attitude abounds. There are no public sex areas except a sauna and steamroom. The freezing cold climate is because the laundry dryers are behind the front desk…  

New comments added December, 2006:
“I was here twice this weekend. The staff was very nice. The guests where a mix of all types — something for everyone. I had a great time with some local studs and a couple of travelers like me: four…   

New comments added January, 2007:
“I went there and had a good time but the staff was very rude. They demanded that I go back to the room to get the bed linens. I felt humiliated.” [...but of course this fellow was not humiliated at the idea of engaging in anonymous sodomies with other men...--Ed.]

New comments added March, 2007:
“It’s clean and fun but the hotter guys tend to be partying and sketchy. There are lots of old fat men. Where did all the hot ones go? Great gym and pool. …

New comments added March, 2007:
“I was last here a few years ago and decided to try it out again. Not a good thing! It was just awful. Rude staff, lots of modeling guys, and I am not a troll! Bitchy comments about other patrons…I was…   

New comments added April, 2007:
“Oh my god. I guess Viagra has revitalized all those old men! If anyone goes on a day there are hot, fit men there please post the time so we can try it then because it is like a retirement home. … 

New comments added May, 2007:
“I have been to many bathhouses and this one certainly ranks as a very good one. I don’t know what the other commenters expect of a bathhouse. I have been many times and find the staff neither rude nor… 

New comments added May, 2007:
“Had my first ever visit in April. Wow! This has got to be the nicest sex venue anywhere regardless of sexual activity. It has two gated parking lots. The steamroom should be called a ‘steam cave’…   

New comments added June, 2007:
“Recently went on a sunny Thursday afternoon. What a let down! There was hardly anyone there. I hooked up in the steamroom with a chub [sodomy described]…

>> Clubhouse II, 2650 East Oakland Park Blvd., Oakland Park. 954———-.  …  Bathhouse with full facilities. Open 24 hours.

New comments added November, 2006:
“This place is great. I always have a good time when I go. The bar is open on Friday, Saturday sat and leather night Tuesday. But the Staff on the 4 pm to 12 am and 12 to 8 am shifts are horrible. When…  

New comments added January, 2007:
“I waited thirty-five minutes last week for a room while a ‘cleaning’ sign was up; someone came in and got a room ahead of me then they took the sign down. I found a syringe on the floor of the room…   

New comments added January, 2007:
“Don’t waste your money! The place is old and dirty and so is the clientele is!”

New comments added February, 2007:
“Tuesday nights after 11 pm the place is hot with leather men. Usually a few muscle-bottoms in their rooms with doors and [vulgar description]. No stand and modeling here. These guys mean business.”

New comments added March, 2007:
“The staff are extremely rude. I don’t know why we are going there to spend the money. The place is not clean and then there’s all the attitude from the staff. The hot guys are not there. …

New comments added May, 2007:
“Went here in April after spending some time at The Club across town. It was my second overall visit and three and a half years since my previous visit. And like that first visit, I had a good time,…  

New comments added May, 2007:
“Recently visited on a Thursday evening. This is definitely a favorite for older men and those that prefer them. This place is hardcore! The place has a thirty year history and it’s easy to see why –… 

>> Coral Reef Guesthouse, 2609 NE 13th Court, Fort Lauderdale. 954——–.  … Motel with bathhouse-type action. Off of Bayview Drive, just north of the Galleria Mall.

New comments added April, 2007:
“This place is under new management, therefore it has gotten a lot better. Nude is optional, but not like a bathhouse scene.”

>> Deauville, The, 2916 North Ocean Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. 954———. Motel with bathhouse-type action. Located on A1A, two and a half blocks south of Oaklandpark Blvd. on the east side of street.  

New comments added January, 2007:
“This is a great place!”

>> Fort Lauderdale Eagle in Exile, 523 E. Sample Road, Pompano Beach. 954-590-4046. …  Sex club. Open Wednesday 8 pm to 2 am, Sunday 7 pm to 2 am.  

New comments added April, 2007:
“Legally licensed private men’s club with limited bar and BYOB setups.”

>> Inn Leather, 610 SE 19th Street, Fort Lauderdale. 954———.  …  Motel with bathhouse-type action. Located just east of US Highway 1.  

>> Slammer Club, 321 W. Sunrise Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. 954——–.  …  Sex club. Opens weekdays at 8 pm, weekends at 6 pm. Exit on E. Sunrise Blvd. from I-95 and go east to 3rd Street. Not far from local bar scene. 

New comments added April, 2007:
“Private, legally zoned and allowed club where men can play at peek-a-boo booths, and soft-play areas. It has a soft drink bar and will store your BYOB. Daily entry fee, reduced if you buy a three…  

New comments added April, 2007:
“It’s clothing optional and BYOB if you want. There are lockers, gloryholes, booths, dark areas, slings, [vulgar], and even a smoking area. The place is fully equipped to get into many fetishes.”

New comments added May, 2007:
“The Web site does not have pricing info (you have to call for that).”

New comments added July, 2007:
“This is a sexclub where bareback [condomless sodomy] is very popular but not mandatory. It’s hot, dark inside with stud Latinos, black and white guys. I was [sodomized] bareback by two black guys and two Latin studs. [Translation: this place is a disease factory--Ed.]
——————————————————————————–

Bookstores, Arcades, Theatres, Theatres
>> A To X Video Outlet, 1926 Stirling Road, Dania. Bookstore with arcade. 24 hours. Located on the north side of Stirling Road, a few blocks west of I-95. 

New comments added November, 2006:
“I’ve been to this place about ten times and it’s been hit-or-miss. Too crowded sometimes, but lots of good looking guys and hot action.”

New comments added April, 2007:
“Large, but not so clean place. It can be busy and your best bet is at rush hour, or nights. Most booths have gloryholes. The city is trying to close the place under the guise of zoning rules, and undercover cops have been in there observing over the past year — but it’s still going strong. Lots of married men looking for [oral sodomy].” [Another reminder of how female spouses become the victims of married men who engage in secret homosexual perversions -- made easier, of course, by the hypersexualized "gay" male subculture.--Ed.]

New comments added April, 2007:
“It can be hot at rush hour. Really needs to be cleaned, smells horrible and booth walls can use a sterilization. …”

New comments added May, 2007:
“This has gone through some remodeling and I must say it’s hot with guys who are attractive and ready to play.”

New comments added May, 2007:
“I strongly recommend that everyone avoid this place. I’ve had some fun times there but it keeps getting busted lately. Apparently the local community doesn’t want it there …

New comments added June, 2007:
“This place was nasty! The floors are dirty, there’s [feces] all over the booths and it [vulgarity] smells! You get all that for your entry fee and then you still have to feed the booths money …

New comments added June, 2007:
“Wow, it has been awhile since I was here. You pay to get into the video booth area and it looks like you can hang out all afternoon and night and the staff doesn’t bother you. Lots of gloryholes …

New comments added July, 2007:
“Save your money and don’t bother. Not for nothing, the attitude is yuck! This place is riddled with nervous types who give mixed signals and do nothing….

New comments added July, 2007:
“I was there this morning at about 11 am and it was rocking. The right hand side has no videos on so it’s really dark. [Sodomies described including through "gloryhole"]…

New comments added July, 2007:
“It’s crowded with nervous people pacing back and forth. I am a handsome muscle bear and couldn’t even pick up my socks here. I went a half dozen times in the past year and it’s always the same thing…   

>> Adult Books, 1700 North Federal Highway, Pompano Beach. Bookstore with arcade. 

New comments added February, 2007:
“I got the best [oral sodomy described] here. 

>> Adult Video One Stop, 2550 Powerline Road, Pompano Beach. Bookstore with arcade. Located 1/4 mile north of Copans Road.  

New comments added April, 2007:
“Stopped in after work the other day. The a gloryhole between booth 3 and 4 is sealed up. Hope a new one opens up real soon. Heard two guys going at it in the booth next to mine  …  

>> Adult Video Warehouse, 4500 North Powerline Road, Deerfield Beach. Bookstore with arcade. Located between Sample Road and Green Road on Powerline Road. 

New comments added December, 2006:
“I always find nice [oral sodomy] in this place. Last time it was this tall dark-haired guy with a wedding ring, maybe thirty-five years old… 

New comments added May, 2007:
“The night manager is harassing guys.”

>> Hollywood Book & Video, 1235 South State Road, #7, Hollywood. 954——-. Bookstore with arcade. Open 24 hours. 

>> Hollywood Spice, 600 N. State Road 7, Hollywood. 954——–. Bookstore with arcade. Open 10 am to 2 am. Located between Hollywood Blvd. and Johnson Street, on the west side of the street.  

New comments added December, 2006:
“This place is great! Tons of cuties, but mostly the thirty to forty year old [oral sodomy described] straight men. Lots of glory holes and some booths have one on either side. … 

New comments added May, 2007:
“Nice place to get off. The staff are friendly and there are plenty of gloryholes to [facilitate anonymous oral sodomy]. Good during lunch hours and after work.”

>> Leisure Time Cinema, 3917 South State Route 7, Davie. 954——-. Theatre showing porn. Open 9 am to 4 am. Located just south of I-595, next to the used car dealer. 

New comments added December, 2006:
“There are a lot of very old trolls but if you’re patient, nice things happen. I was there Friday night, bored. Then a [heterosexual] couple came in — both in their thirties.  … 

New comments added April, 2007:
“Sure the guys might be on the older side but there is also a good cross section of guys. Some appear straight but after watching the movie for a while gladly let you [orally sodomize them]. I’m mid-thirties and…  

>> Pleasure Emporium, 1321 S. 30th Avenue, Hollywood. 954——-. Bookstore with arcade, theatre. Open 10 am to 2 am. Take the Pembroke Road exit and head west. Prior to going over the train tracks make a right on 30th Avenue. It is visible on the west side of I-95 from the southbound lanes.  

New comments added February, 2007:
“I was at this place last August and saw different guys [engaging in sodomies] in the gay theater. My recent visit on a Tuesday afternoon in February was more subdued.  …

New comments added March, 2007:
“I just visited this place. Lots of old creepy guys. It was pretty gross. I was leaving and saw this cute young guy sitting in his car in the parking lot. We made contact, went back inside and [engaged in sodomy]…

New comments added March, 2007:
“Hit-or-miss. I don’t know why this place isn’t crowded every night. Great rooms, comfortable theaters, friendly staff, and very well-kept. Yet so many guys prefer the rancid A-X Video …

New comments added May, 2007:
“There is always a [vulgar sodomitic descriptions]. The best time is rush hour on weekdays and anytime on weekends.”

New comments added June, 2007:
“I walked in and didn’t know what to expect. There were only four or five other guys there and all of them dressed in business casual and only one was not attractive. One of them, a Latin guy [oral sodomy described] …

New comments added June, 2007:
“Went there yesterday after work around 5 pm and the place was packed — I could tell from the parking lot. However, once inside you wouldn’t have known it. The booths are cool and private but require a minimum purchase and it seems that people hookup in the theater and then head to a booth. … [multiple oral sodomies in 'gay theater' described]

>> Sensations Video, 106 S. State Road 7, Hollywood. 894—-. Bookstore with arcade. Open 9 am till 2 am. Located at the corner of Hollywood Blvd. and State Road 7, beside/behind the check cashing store. 

New comments added August, 2006:
“I love this place. I was there at the end of July and [oral and anal sodomies described]…

New comments added October, 2006:
“The big fat Indian (Pakistani) guy is generally cool. The other two older guys, who I think are Brazilian, are mean and nasty and they follow you into the arcade area. I’ve been there millions of times and I know the rules, and I always put money in the booths. But they still follow you. The action is the best in south Florida though so I keep going back.”

New comments added January, 2007:
“I’ve been going there for about a year and have no complaints. It’s true about the no-two-in-a-booth complaint, but I’ve done it. Where there’s a will, there is a way. …

New comments added April, 2007:
“This place is the best. Clean booths, good time-to-money ratio, newer videos, mail slot gloryholes, and bums kept to a bare minimum due to having to feed the machines. [oral sodomies described]…

>> Show World Video, 4205 State Road 7, Hollywood. Bookstore with arcade. Open 9 am to 2 am. Add Comments

New comments added August, 2006:
“Last week I stopped by and saw a beautiful trannie standing around. Honestly, I didn’t even know she had a [male sex organ] she was so beautiful! I had gone into a booth thinking she was a woman [oral sodomy with "trannie" using "gloryhole" described -- yuck]…

New comments added September, 2006:
“Not all of the booths here have gloryholes, only three sets have them.”

New comments added October, 2006:
“One of the best places for action in the area. Last week I went into a booth and found an ass up against the gloryhole. [Sodomy described]… 

>> X-Pressions Video Outlet, 3192 West Hallandale Beach Blvd., Hallandale. Bookstore with arcade. Open 24 hours. Located a few blocks west of I-95 in a small strip mall on the south side of Hallandale Beach Blvd. 

New comments added March, 2007:
“I had not been here in a while. When I last went I noticed the clientele had changed. It is now mostly African-American with some Hispanic.”

New comments added March, 2007:
“D-E-A-D. Years of rude, homophobic clerks; nasty, smelly booths; and bad trannie videos have taken there toll on this once hot place. This place is as quiet as a cemetery and has the clientele to match. 

New comments added May, 2007:
“This place is awesome. There’s never a large crowd but awesome to enjoy sex. It’s best from noon to 5 pm.”

New comments added July, 2007:
“Great place to [sodomies described] as many men as you want.”

We encourage you to sign up for Howard Center’s e-publication and request a sample printed copy of the “Family in America” newsletter, which is loaded with important, scholarly research on family issues. (You can call Howard Center at 815-964-5819 or e-mail info@profam.org.)

Common sense dictates that unnatural homosexual unions are more volatile than traditional marriages, and the research backs that up. Here are the Demography study’s two key findings on “gay” unions in Norway and Sweden:

1. Few homosexuals choose to “marry” or register their union with the government;
2. Homosexual unions end in divorce much more often than heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual Unions: Rare and Fragile 

Progressive activists in the United States have argued strenuously in recent years that giving homosexuals the legal right to marry will improve life for homosexual couples and will consequently benefit society as a whole.  A new study of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, however, casts serious doubt on such assertions.  For, as it turns out, relatively few homosexual couples avail themselves of this revolutionary right. And a surprisingly high percentage of those who do so end up in divorce court.

To analyze the demographics of homosexual ["marriages,"] a team of German and Norwegian scholars recently examined data collected in Norway and Sweden since these bellwether countries discarded centuries of legal tradition by authorizing homosexual unions (in 1993 in Norway and in 1995 in Sweden).  Both countries have thus now enacted laws granting homosexuals “the legal right to registered partnerships, a civil status that [the researchers believe], in practice does not deviate much from the concept of marriage.”  The legal equivalence of homosexual unions to heterosexual marriage indeed largely explains why the researchers use “the terms registered partnerships and same-sex marriage interchangeably.”   Similarly, the researchers “use the term divorce to refer to [homosexual] partnership dissolution because the divorce procedures of the marriage act [in both countries] apply to registered [homosexual] ["marriages"] as well.”

As the German and Norwegian scholars survey the available data for homosexual unions, they cannot avoid one obvious reality: “the incidence of same-sex ['marriage'] in Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.”  Between 1993 and 2001, while Norway recorded 196,000 heterosexual marriages, the country witnessed the legal registration of only 1,293 homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, while Sweden recorded 280,000 heterosexual marriages between 1995-2002, the country saw the formation of only 1,526 registered homosexual partnerships.  The researchers accordingly calculate “a ratio of around 7 same-sex ['marriages'] to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Norway and a comparable “ratio of 5 new partnerships to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Sweden.  The researchers remark that the numbers of same-sex ["marriages"] have run “considerably lower” than might have been expected by those relying on recent surveys of sexual behavior.  These surveys have indicated that “well over 1%” of women and between 1 and 3% of men have had a same-sex partner during the last year, with between 4 and 9% of men and approximately 4% of women reporting that they have had a same-sex partner at some time during their lives.  (The authors of the new study are too well informed to rehash the now discredited absurdity—promulgated by Alfred Kinsey—that fully ten percent of the adult male population is homosexual.) [Note: see Judith Reisman's website for more good information on Kinsey and his fraudulent research.--Peter L.]

The data for same-sex unions in Norway and Sweden indicate, however, not only that such unions are relatively rare, but also that they are remarkably fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than do the heterosexual marriages of peers.  The statistics indeed reveal “that the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the corresponding risk for heterosexual marriages and that the divorce risk for partnerships of women is about double (2.67) that for men (1.50).”   The researchers then re-examine the data in statistical models that take into account age, education, and other background characteristics, but these multi-variable models “do not alter the basic relation between divorce risks in different family types.”

The German and Norwegian scholars acknowledge that “divorce-risk levels [that are] considerably higher in same-sex marriages” than in heterosexual marriages would hardly have been predicted by those who have supposed that “the symbolic meaning of partnership formation for a group that has just acquired the right to marry [would have been] related to a higher commitment to this civil status and to lower divorce risk.”  On the other hand, homosexual couples’ distinctively high propensity to break apart would not have surprised those who recognize “the group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.”  Among homosexuals, the researchers predict, “past relationship experience” is likely to cause “lesbians and gay men…[to] have lower expectations of relationship duration than will heterosexual couples.” 

In their concluding comment on their groundbreaking study—the first such study of “an unambiguously defined population of gay and lesbian couples”—the researchers emphasize the applicability of their findings well beyond Norway and Sweden.  “Many of the demographic characteristics of our Scandinavian couples,” they remark, “resemble those found for other populations of same-sex couples, such as same-sex co-residents in the United States…. Evidently, some aspects of gay and lesbian lifestyles are common for different countries.”

Before American jurists and lawmakers press ahead with the dubious project of granting homosexuals a legal right to marriage or marriage-like civil unions, they should ponder this new study and its conclusions.  For the revolutionaries who congratulate themselves on having smashed centuries of tradition may soon realize that they have wrought this destruction for the benefit of very few couples, a high proportion of whom are soon separated.

(Source: Gunnar Andersson et al., “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriage in Norway and Sweden,” Demography 43 [2006]: 79-98.)

Excerpted from Millions At Stake In Gay Adult Adoption Case, published Jan 15, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…In 1991 Olive F. Watson used [a Maine adult adoption] law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971…

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Since RI doesn’t recognize gay marriages, gay divorce seems pointless. Could it be the couple wants another way to legitimize same-sex unions?

The divorce-seeking lesbian couple is working their way through the Rhode Island court system. A family court refused the case, referring it on to the State Supreme Court. Kris Mineau with the Massachusetts Family Institute believes this is a ploy to get the legal system to recognize gay marriage, through divorce.

“Isn’t that bizarre? They’ll seize at any opportunity, whereas in New Jersey and Maryland, they are seeking to marry, and suing through the courts. Here they’re seeking to divorce and suing through the courts.”

Attorneys for the gay couple say they aren’t asking Rhode Island to recognize same-sex marriage, just same-sex divorce. But Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth doesn’t buy that argument.

“I think if you recognize same-sex divorce, you’re recognizing same-sex marriage. It’s amazing how political the activists are. The problem here is we’re dealing with a very political movement and Americans on the side of decency and truth just aren’t as political as the gay activists.”

LaBarbera says this is more than a gay couple trying to make headlines; it’s an attempt to change the law.

“The modus operandi of the homosexual activists is to use anything possible, even divorce, to win approval of their lifestyle. That’s what the main agenda is. They are desperate for approval of their lifestyle and even if it means recognizing gay divorce as opposed to gay marriage, they’ll do that.”

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has yet to decide if it will take the case.