This is the obvious difference between Obama’s “families” that social liberals refuse to acknowledge, or make relevant to public policy. “Queer” parenting and “gay” adoption are a part of radical social experiment in progress — and innocent children are the guinea pigs. Who can know the effect on a young child being raised by two homosexual men like Gay Adoption Poster Boy Dan Savage — who boasts of the “three-way” sex he and “husband” Terry engaged in while parents of an adopted boy. (News flash for the naive: “gay monogamy,” at least for men, is largely a farce.)

It seems that whether he aspires to it or not, President Obama is America’s first anti-Christian president. He does all he can to help pro-homosexual-”marriage” forces even as he claims to support traditional marriage; gets spiritual counsel from notorious homosexual activist Episcopal bishop V. (as in Vickie) Gene Robinson; he distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer; arrogantly (and ignorantly) dismisses Scriptural prohibitions against homosexual practice as “obscure”; and smears opponents of homosexuality as having “worn arguments and old attitudes.” Now, Obama manages to stick it to the traditionalist Christians (and Jews, Muslims and Hindus) once again by including homosexual “parents” in an otherwise forgettable proclamation about families. Thankfully, much of the country is becoming numb to Obama’s secular preaching — because whatever homosexual-led “families” are, they are by definition not the ideal for children. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_____________________

Here is Obama’s Sept. 28 “Family Day” Proclamation (emphasis added):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FAMILY DAY, 2009

——-

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Our family provides one of the strongest influences on our lives. American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things. Today, our children are confronting issues of drug and alcohol use with astonishing regularity. On Family Day, we honor the dedication of parents, commend the achievements of their children, and celebrate the contributions our Nation’s families have made to combat substance abuse among young people.

The 21st century presents families with unprecedented challenges. Millions of women and men are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs with the needs of their families. At the same time, our youngest generation faces countless distractions in their social environment. They are coming of age in a world where electronic devices have replaced the playground, televisions have preempted conversation, and pressure to use drug and alcohol is far too prevalent. Parents bear significant stress and burdens to protect their children from harmful influences.

It is our responsibility to talk with adolescents about the risks of abusing alcohol, tobacco, or prescription and illicit drugs, and other harmful behaviors. These substances can destroy the mind, body, and spirit of a child, jeopardizing their health and limiting their potential. Active parents, voicing their disapproval of drug use, have proven themselves to be the most effective preventative method for keeping our children drug-free. A strong and engaged family can make all the difference in helping young people make healthy decisions.

By coming together as a family and discussing the events of the day, parents can foster open communication, share joys and concerns, and help guide their children toward healthy decisionmaking. A strong nation is made up of strong families, and on this Family Day, we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every American family has the chance to build a better, healthier future for themselves and their children.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2009, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation’s families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine,

BARACK OBAMA

ALL GAY, ALL THE TIME: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force leader Rea Carey urged fellow homosexuals to promote “gay marriage” to family and friends over the Thanksgiving holiday. Carey is wrong: homosexual unions are NOT equal to real marriage — as proven by the fact that homosexual couples cannot produce children without help from heterosexuality.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

I suppose if you are a pro-homosexuality activist, there’s never a time that’s not appropriate to promote the acceptance of your lifestyle. In the e-message below, the new head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, Rea Carey, presses her group’s followers to turn Thanksgiving into a persuasive moment for homosexual “marriage” and same-sex “equality.” If only Christians were this “evangelistic”!

Carey’s letter is wrong and troubling on many levels. First, note how she chalks up as a Task Force “accomplishment” that the California Supreme Court is reviewing a ballot amendment voted in by the citizens of that state on November 4. The Task Force spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defeat Prop 8 and lost — even after the California Attorney General changed the ballot language to make it more favorable to the homosexual side. Now the Task Force and other “gay” organizations are fighting democracy itself and undermining the integrity of a statewide vote. If they prevail and a few judges overturn the people’s expressed will, there will be a constitutional crisis in California that reverberates across the country.

Second, let’s address the misleading “gay” mantra of “equality.” Carey and fellow LGBT activists — and straight fellow travelers like libertarian Margaret Hoover (who masquerades as a conservative commentator on FOX) — like to plead for “marriage equality” for homosexuals. But it is easy to demonstrate that whatever homosexual “marriages” are, they are NOT equal to natural, God-ordained marriages. For one thing, there is the simple, indisputable fact that same-sex unions cannot produce children on their own. They can acquire children only with the help of heterosexuality and procreative-enhancing science, but they can’t reproduce or “have children,” as homosexual activists like to say. In contrast, normal marriages produce children and families without any help from homosexuality.

In their desperation to answer this obvious point on marriage and procreation, “gay” activists point to infertile hetero couples, who also need the help of science and adoption to create a family. “Should conservative commentator Pat Buchanan and his wife Shelley be denied marriage because they are childless?” they ask. But this is a silly argument. For one, infertile normal couples meet the basic requirement of marriage: a man and a woman. Secondly, when they seek to adopt children or benefit from reproductive science, they are merely mimicking the natural, complementary, mom-and-dad family — not creating intentionally motherless or fatherless homes and subjecting children to a radical reinvention of “family,” with two “dads” or two “moms.” Lastly, such straight, infertile couples desiring children turn to bountiful, procreative heterosexuality — not homosexuality, or apple trees for that matter — to fulfill their dream of a family.

So here’s a challenge to our homosexual critics: prove that same-sex “marriages” are EQUAL to the real deal given their procreative deficit, or stop this nonsense about “marriage equality.” (I understand that this is an unrealistic request;  if homosexuals and their liberal allies cared about the real meaning of words, they wouldn’t have called homosexual unions “marriage” in the first place.) As my friend John Shepard writes, “Aristotle may have been the first in recorded history to say in his Politics, ‘It is unjust to treat unequal things as equal.’ This is why it is patently unfair to treat homosexual sex as marriage. Heterosexuality is intrinsic to marriage. Marriage is consummated by heterosexuality, not sodomy.”

But back to Thanksgiving Day, which was established for Americans to give thanks to God for all His blessings in our uniquely blessed nation. That same God — the God of the Bible — opposes homosexual behavior as a sin (see Leviticus 18:22 in the Old Testament and 1 Timothy 1:10 in the New Testament). And He celebrates when someone trusts in Him and leaves sin behind (the sin of homosexuality, or any sin). Conversely, the advance of sin (e.g., the pro-homosexuality, -abortion, and -pornography agendas) in the United States or any society is not a “blessing” but a repudiation of our loving God. To use Thanksgiving as a homosexual lobbying day is a symbolic act of defiance appropriate to a movement that elevates its same-sex feelings and errant sexual desires over the revealed wisdom of our Creator.

One more point: people are tired of hearing pro-homosexuality messages all the time — at home, at work, during the holidays, on TV, at the movies — it’s “all gay, all the time” as we are bombarded with anti-God, anti-nature messages that equate a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex with “civil rights.” (The youth have it worse: now MTV is marketing a reality TV dating show involving beautiful bisexual female twins who each will choose their partner from a bevy of male and female contestants.) Enough already: the ubiquitous promotion of deviance is obnoxious and homosexuality is not a civil rights issue — as 70 percent of African American voters in California affirmed loudly and clearly by casting Yes votes for Prop 8.

The next time you are confronted with immoral homosexual advocacy, hold your ground, defend God’s wonderful created order of man and woman uniting in marriage — and if you are a Christian, defend your Savior. The God who made the universe can help people overcome sexual addictions and gender/sex confusion — but they have to humble themselves, lose that selfish “gay pride,” and repent of their sins as part of receiving God’s miraculous gift of transforming grace.

I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving as we enter the season that celebrates Jesus Christ’s birth.

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth about Homosexuality
www.aftah.org
______________________________________

Here’s is Rea Carey’s “Thanksgiving Gay” message:

Dear [Task Force Follower],

It’s amazing what we’ve accomplished together these last few weeks.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to review the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and the protests and the actions of thousands in our community have forced the public eye on the inequality that LGBT people face every day.

But our fight is far from over. In fact, there’s one thing you can do this week to help move the needle even further.

Talk.

Talk to your family and friends when you sit down to Thanksgiving dinner. Talk to your co-workers when they ask what you are doing for the holiday. Talk to your neighbors when you stop to chat outside your apartment or home.

Tell them about your life, your relationships, how you feel about the state constitutional amendments. It seems simple, but far too many of us know how hard it can be to talk honestly about our lives. Telling our stories is what will make a difference in our pursuit of equality. Hearing from you, hearing about your life is what will change the hearts and minds of every American, one by one — starting with those closest to you.

So take the time this week to talk. Your story is important to this movement and it truly matters.

From all of us at the Task Force, I’d like to wish you and your loved ones a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you so much for your ongoing support.

Sincerely,

Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

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

Guadalupe Benitez (right) with her twin daughters Sophia, left, and Shane, and her lesbian partner Joanne Clark and son Gabriel, at their Oceanside, Cal., home. Benitez sued two Christian doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her. Playing the victim, Benitez said after winning her case before the California Supreme Court: “It’s wrong and shocking that some doctors felt their religious beliefs allowed them to ignore the law and discriminate … Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people.” (photo: Sandy Huffaker)

Folks, if California is truly a pacesetter for the nation, then America is in big trouble. How ironic that pro-homosexual so-called “nondiscrimination” laws are the new tool for activist-minded judges and liberal legislators to DISCRIMINATE against people of faith.

This astonishing 7-0 California Supreme Court decision is further proof that homosexual agenda laws — which create newfangled “rights” based on deviant sexual and gender preferences — are incompatible with our cherished, historic American liberties, in this case, the right NOT to violate one’s own religious beliefs.

The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights?

The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org (see below for Pacific Justice Inst. release)

_____________________________

Pacific Justice Institute release:

Cal. Supreme Court Rejects Doctors’ Rights of Conscience

Sacramento, CA, August 18, 2008

In a major decision likely to re-draw the battle lines of the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court today ruled against two doctors who declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

The doctors, who are Christians, strongly believe that children should be raised whenever possible by a mother and father. To that end, they did not want to participate in the deliberate exclusion of a father as sought by Guadalupe Benitez and her partner, Joanne Clark. Instead, the doctors paid for a referral of Ms. Benitez to other fertility specialists who did not have any moral objections to administering the treatment, and she now has three children. Nevertheless, Ms. Benitez was so offended by the doctors’ stance that she sued them under California’s sweeping civil rights laws.

Today, California’s highest court unanimously ruled that the state’s civil rights laws offer virtually no exceptions for people of faith. Unless the ruling is eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court – which only hears about one percent of all the cases appealed to it – or is modified by the gay-friendly California legislature, its implications appear to be far-reaching. For instance, the ruling probably means that, regardless of their beliefs, everyone in the state’s wedding industry must service gay weddings, California family law attorneys must handle gay adoptions and same-sex divorces, and so on.

Pacific Justice Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the doctors and will continue to participate in the case if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, “This case starkly demonstrates the take-no-prisoners approach of the gay rights movement. They will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them. In light of this and similar rulings, PJI is redoubling its efforts to defend people of faith who will not compromise their moral values.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600
Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org

Savage is not a Christian — I once heard a fascinating interview he did with the late Jerry Falwell in which he respectfully disagreed with the Gospel — but in many respects he puts Christians to shame with his frank truth-telling about our American culture, which is on life-support, morally and religiously speaking. In a country where even self-professed evangelical Christian leaders and Catholic bishops are now joining the “gay-positive” bandwagon (see this item on evangelicals Tony and Peggy Campolo, and this one ), sometimes it takes an outsider to tell the hard truths. One of those truths is that pro-homosexual activists have indeed invade the schools and youth culture (MTV is now a “gaycame in and indoctrinated a nation of children in a couple of generations, while mom and dad were at work saving up for their plasma TVs.

You can contact Savage here:

Michael Savage Is Right — Children’s Minds Are Being Raped by the Homosexual Mafia

Savage: “The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806180005

Responding to a caller who said, “I had to explain to my young son why these two men were holding hands the other day,” radio host Michael Savage stated, during the June 16 broadcast of The Savage Nation, “You’ve got to explain to the children … why God told people this was wrong.” He went on to say, “You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that’s going on. The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that’s my position. They’re raping our children’s minds.”

During a discussion about gay marriage with a previous caller, Savage said: “It’s not a joke when you pervert an institution like marriage, which is in trouble enough. It’s not a joke.” He added, “Our children are being destroyed by this.” He went on to say of gay marriage, “It’s a very important story. The children don’t know what to make of it. Children nine, 10 are saying, ‘I’m gay.’ They don’t know what it even means.” He added: “It’s a giant propaganda machine trying to pervert children.”

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage’s show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the June 16 edition of Talk Radio Network’s The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: San Francisco, Tina, welcome to The Savage Nation.

CALLER: Well, you make a really good point, Michael, and you have a great show, but I still think that you’re not wise in being so adamant about these gay marriages. What difference does it make what they do? You’re going to work yourself to a big heart attack like Tim Russert and –

SAVAGE: No, I won’t work myself into a big heart attack. I’ll tell you why: because the truth will set me free. It always has.

CALLER: But –

SAVAGE: Aren’t you tired of the propaganda that every newspaper you pick up today shows old, ugly women getting married?

CALLER: Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I think that should be a private thing. But I also think –

SAVAGE: Well, why do you suppose every newspaper in America is showing this story?

CALLER: They have an agenda, of course, but still –

SAVAGE: Well, I have an obligation as a social commentator to say enough is enough, I’ve had enough of it. Just as I had enough of the Tim Russert worship on Friday. I had enough of it. I had enough of Obama a year ago — he looks like Alfred E. Neuman to me.

CALLER: It’s a joke, whether you’re gay or straight, it’s mostly a joke, but the thing is we don’t want you to get all –

SAVAGE: It’s not a joke when you steal an institution as fragile as marriage and you pervert it with a mockery. It’s not a joke. It’s not a joke when you pervert an institution like marriage, which is in trouble enough. It’s not a joke. Our children are being destroyed by this.

CALLER: Well –

SAVAGE: I disagree with you totally. It’s a very important story. The children don’t know what to make of it. Children nine, 10 are saying, “I’m gay.” They don’t know what it even means. It’s a giant propaganda machine trying to pervert children. That’s my opinion.

Monterrey, California. Tom, what’s you’re opinion?

CALLER: Yes, I’m calling from the People’s Republic of Monterrey, and I had to explain to my young son why these two men were holding hands the other day and he said, “Dad, didn’t they say that that’s wrong in the Bible?” And I said, “Yes, they did, and yes it’s wrong” and yes to everything that he had to say about it. And I told him, I said, “That’s the wrongest thing you’ve ever seen besides the rest of the politicians and the media and CNBC.” Because –

SAVAGE: You’ve got to try to explain to the children why the — why God told people this was wrong. You’ve got to explain to them, to the children, how it twists everything. Just take them down to a duck pond and show them a boy duck and a girl duck and then show the ducklings and say to them, “There must be a boy duck and a girl duck for there to be babies.” It’s the same with a dog, puppies come from a mother duck — a mother pup, a mother dog. There needs to be a boy dog and a girl dog. You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that’s going on. The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that’s my position. They’re raping our children’s minds.

CALLER: I’m not buying into it, which is — I found was pretty neat, but, hey I enjoy your show, keep –

SAVAGE: Well, good, unless somebody else does. Well, OK, you don’t care about it. To me it matters. To me it matters. It’s just that the media is afraid of them or owned by them, and everyone’s catering to them. It’s like catering to Al Sharpton. You see the story that came out on him? You haven’t seen the story all over the media? Can’t report it, why? Because he’s not a white man? So suddenly he’s allowed to do things to companies like Jesse Jackson did for years — without producing a product or a service? Just by threatening a boycott, they give him money? Well there was a name for it when Al Capone was around. I guess that’s gone, gone with the wind, everyone’s afraid in the corporate world, plus it’s not their money anyway. They’re not playing with their money, they’re playing with your money. So the CEOs who run the companies do whatever they want to do with the money including buying off potential boycotts.

Perhaps the reason why so many homosexual activists are so unreasonable and vicious is that they’re trying in vain to justify the unjustifiable: sex between two people of the same sex will always be wrong and unnatural, no matter how many court victories the Homosexual Lobby wins. (The good news is homosexuals can change.) And don’t forget these three words if you are tempted to allow American judges to decide your morality: Roe versus Wade. — Peter LaBarbera

Click HERE or on the YouTube video below to play the Lewis and Lewis music video “Come on Down to the Farm”:

Photo appearing on homosexual group Equality California’s website. The group will be leading efforts to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage as one-man, one-woman in that state.

By Peter LaBarbera

One of the factors that makes the homosexual activist agenda so peculiarly evil is its habit of glomming on to humanity’s most noble institutions and truths — parenting, marriage, love, honesty, justice and “equality” — and putting them in the service of its starkly ignoble cause of winning acceptance for immoral and unhealthy homosexual behavior.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Either I’m going nuts or the sentence in blue below is one of the strangest ever to begin an opinion piece — especially one titled, “Ordinary, Like Us.” Lesbian writer Jennifer Vanasco writes in the homosexual newspaper Chicago Free Press:

Young gays and lesbians want to be married. And have kids.

That’s what the first survey of the aspirations of gay and lesbian youth discovered.

Rockway Institute reported that more than 90 percent of the lesbians and more than 80 percent of the gay males they surveyed “expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30.”

About two-thirds of the males and just over half of the females said they thought it was very likely they’d have children.

What’s extraordinary about this is just how very ordinary it is….

Gay and lesbian youth want stable marriages and children?

Of course they do.

Because they have grown up in an America where being gay is starting to seem unremarkable. Where being gay doesn’t need to mean living a particular way. Where being gay doesn’t have to mean putting limits on your future.

Young gays and lesbians don’t want to destroy “traditional marriage” the way social conservatives fear. They want to be traditional – and one state, Massachusetts, allows them to do that. Hopefully others will follow. … [Click HERE to read the whole piece reprinted on the Independent Gay Forum website]

Now, Vanasco’s entire piece deserves a response point-by-point, but here I only want to discuss the calculated semantic distortion by her and fellow homosexualists of using the words “having kids.”

Think about it: what’s the phrase we use regarding infertile couples? “Oh, have you heard? John and Nancy can’t have children.” In this context, to “have” means to beget, to produce, to procreate, through God’s wonderful plan of conception and pregnancy. The context is always people who normally could produce children, but something has gone awry preventing Nature from taking its course.

So why do Vanasco and so many homosexual apologists use the phrase “have kids”? Because they are appropriating normal, ancient language to advance the abnormal — their latest theft in a series of lexicographical heists of which the word “gay” is only the most infamous. (Pity the poor people whose parents named them “Gay” before the word was linked to homosexuality.) Homosexual strategists seek to fool people by invoking traditional family values and justice — hence their mantra demanding “marriage equality” — even as they agitate to overturn centuries of understanding and God’s revealed purpose for both family and marriage.

What about straight infertile couples?

When we bring up the fact that homosexual couples are far from “equal” in part because they cannot produce children, pro-homosexuality activists swiftly turn to the many straight couples that are infertile. This polemical trick is as deceptive as comparing counterfeit, sodomy-based “marriages” to interracial marriages. Black-white couples — a man and a woman joined together as one — produce beautiful children. Past laws banning such marriages were wrong. (Yes, Christians and others sinned in using the Bible to rationalize racism and slavery.) In contrast, homosexual sex acts are a biological and anatomical dead end — in addition to being a rebellion against our Creator that grieves Him as He is grieved by all sin.

Homosexuality, a human wrong, has nothing to do with marriage, or civil rights for that matter. Only a fool, or perhaps a manipulative social crusader, would argue that the modern tragedy of “gay” parenthood — intentionally (and selfishly) placing helpless children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design — is “equal” to natural, mom-and-dad parenthood and should be treated as such in the law.

Unlike homosexuals, infertile straight couples are not mocking God’s plan. In fact, they are trying desperately to fulfill it, and copy it, using methods both high-tech (invitro) and low-tech (adoption). The fact that homosexual couples have access to the same technology and also can now easily adopt babies does not make the plight of children placed in same-sex households any less tragic, or more “moral.” Rather, by turning the perversion of homosexuality into “just one more kind of love” (to quote the homosexual children’s book, Daddy’s Roommate), they are putting THEIR wants above the best interests of children.

LaBarbera, you brutish homophobe, how can you say that adopting children, with all its required sacrifices, is selfish?

That takes me to this point: one of the factors that makes the homosexual activist agenda so peculiarly evil is its habit of glomming on to humanity’s most noble institutions and truths — parenting, marriage, love, honesty, justice and “equality” — and putting them in the service of its starkly ignoble cause of winning acceptance for immoral and unhealthy homosexual behavior.

They’ve fooled a lot of people (and here come the gullible Christians!), but don’t let them fool you. As the father of five, I can’t blame homosexuals for wanting children, and loving them, but let’s tell the truth: two men or two women can’t “have kids” together any more than a tree can “have” puppies.

Now look at the “gay daddies” propaganda photo again. What emotions does it evoke in you? Righteous anger, pity, sorrow, deep frustration? (If your answer is “joy” at this happy “family,” then you are either lying, deceived or you’ve lost your soul, and your mind.) Now explain to all the young people in your extended network of family and friends why God’s perfect plan for “having children” — through true, lasting marriage — is the right way to live, and how even though cheap imitations are possible — or even legal — they will never come close to the real thing.

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.

Kevin McCullough is one of the few talk radio hosts who is not afraid to take on the homosexual activist movement. 

As one who has been on the receiving end of too many online “gay” lies to count, I can sympathize with Kevin McCullough – one of the few radio conservatives nationwide who doesn’t downplay the homosexual issue. (And there are some pretty big names in conservative radio who do by going ‘PC’ on this issue with their silence … so support Kevin.)

McCullough’s basic point is one that cannot be repeated enough: people have a choice over their sexual (mis)behavior — which is why homosexual activists stress the expedient ideological construct of (supposedly innate) “sexual orientation.”

Racial minorities have no such choice. Unlike homosexuals, they cannot leave their minority group, as every ex-gay or ex-lesbian does when he or she abandons that destructive lifestyle choice. Thus the biggest “gay” lie of all is that “being gay” — i.e., naturally predisposed toward homosexuality — is “who you are.” — Peter LaBarbera

_________________________

Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why do angry gay bloggers always lie?
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 8:17 AM

NGBlog [WARNING: NGBlog has a hard time making his point without cussing--Ed.] and OutsideTheTent have had me in their sights for sometime.

And when the towering intellects that they both are come up short against an actual point of substance the best they can do is call me stupid, or poopy pants, or whatever brilliant turn of phrase pops into their skull.

They are so desperate to make me appear stupid they slow down the video of me discussing the Mary Cheney pregnancy on CNN to the one frame where in the middle of speaking I appear half-inebriated.  [See an AFTAH post on the Mary Cheney baby story HERE.]

Classy…

They also lie a lot… the lying liars they are.

In reaction to my column from yesterday, they are now purposefully misreporting my accuracy with which I quote Roberta Sklar.

Read both articles. She said what I said she said.

NGBlog and OutsideTheTent may not like the fact that I pointed it out, but that’s not my issue.

They then digress to criticizing why I draw a line between race (skin color) and sexual behavior.

Because sexual behavior is entirely a choice and something they can control – and race is not.

In other words – we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone’s choices.

Whereas equal rights can never be disallowed for someone’s state of being. No one has a choice on their skin color. Everyone has a choice in their behavior.

It is the totality of the entire debate between changing marriage laws to include non-marital unions or not too. The argument these angry gay bloggers and other radicals in the homosexual community have made is that because they were “born that way” they deserve the same special protections as actual minorities.

The entire point of my column – is that such a assertion is abjectly false.

Science says so. And now so do some gay activists…

Background on Kevin and his “Musclehead Revolution” radio show and book HERE.]

Let’s all pretend that lesbian “mommies” are normal and good for kids…. 

By Peter LaBarbera  

One of the more irritating things about Politically Correct culture is when the media pretend that abnormal is normal — and then expect the rest of us to play along.  That’s sort of what being PC is all about, right? Nobody can judge anything — except the “judgers” (that would be us “religious right” folks). It’s perfectly OK for liberals and homosexual activists to slam us because, well, we’re so intolerant of things like Hollywood stars intentionally creating fatherless households and becoming lesbian “mommy” role models who are going to confuse the heck out of these children who, through no fault of their own, are now part of some bizarre social experiment called “same-sex parenting.”

We yearn for the good old days when lesbian radicals railed against “patriarchal” marriage and family, mocked “breeders” (heterosexuals with kiddos), and said the great thing about being a lesbian was that you didn’t have to reproduce. At least then innocent children were not dragged into the “Gay” Revolution.

P.S. Note that even FOX (through Variety) is now “reporting” a biological fantasy: Gilbert did not have her first child, Levi, “with” her lesbian partner — a man was involved. If she did, that would truly be news.

Here’s the report from FoxNews.com:  

LOS ANGELES  —  Sara Gilbert has given birth to a baby girl.

The 32-year-old actress, who played surly teenager Darlene Conner on the hit ABC sitcom “Roseanne,” and her partner Allison Adler welcomed daughter Sawyer on Aug. 2, according to Variety.

Gilbert’s publicist, who confirmed the birth, didn’t provide further details.

The actress also has a 3-year-old son, Levi, with Adler, Variety said.

“Roseanne” ended its prime-time run in 1997. Recent work by Gilbert includes a recurring role on NBC’s “ER.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

It turns out that the caption — identifying both Mary Cheney and her lesbian partner Heather Poe as Samuel David’s “parents” — was the official work of the White House, a point eagerly seized upon by homosexual blogger John Aravosis. In the link below, Aravosis exults in the White House photo as proof of President Bush’s official embrace of “gay” parenting. Of course, the Cheneys’ grandson does not have two lesbian “parents” but one — Mary Cheney, whose lesbian partner, Heather Poe, only creates an artificial, fatherless “family.”

And what was Aravosis thinking when he wrote the the Bush administration “prides itself on being so anti-gay”? This is a White House that refused to defend Gen. Pace when he voiced his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral”; that refused to overturn a single Clinton administration Executive Order mandating “sexual orientation” policies in the federal government; and that has disappointed pro-family conservatives in its lackluster promotion of a Federal Marriage Amendment (despite the fact that Mr. Bush practically owes his re-election to that issue).

The misleading White House photo caption is only the latest disappointment. If only the Administration DID “pride itself” on taking principled stances to slow down and reverse the homosexual agenda!

Click HERE to read ex-gay Stephen Bennett’s take on the White House Cheneys-and-grandson caption. The following is the excerpt of Aravosis’ blog entry:

John Aravosis Is : White House officially recognizes legal status of gay couples and parents

Link: AMERICAblog, by John Aravosis

Something rather historic happened this past week. The White House, for the first time every on its Web site (that I know of), recognized the legitimacy of gay couples as both married and as parents. It was done, innocuously enough, when the White House published a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney’s new grandson, the child of the VP’s lesbian daughter and her lesbian spouse. The White House not only published a photo of the child with the VP and his wife, but the caption was even more telling:

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, Wednesday, May 23, 2007. He weighed 8 lbs., 6 oz and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. His parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer

Did you catch that last sentence? The White House officially recognized a lesbian couple as co-equal parents of a child. That not only is a recognition of the legitimacy of gay parents – i.e., if one person is the birth mother and the other the mother’s partner, both are the parents of the child, per the White House — but the White House is also, implicitly, recognizing the legitimate couple status of two gay people in love, i.e., they are not simply two unrelated gay people, they are parents, akin to your parents, akin to a married couple. Why do I say that the White House is de facto recognizing gay marriage? Because either Mary or her lover, or both, are not the biological mom of this child – with two women, only one can be the biological parent. For the White House to recognize both as parents means that they are recognizing the legitimacy of the two women as one entity, the parent. Anyway, it’s a hell of a statement by any White House, let alone one of the most conservative in history, and one that prides itself on being so anti-gay.

HUNTINGTON, Conn., May 30 /Christian Newswire/ — On May 23, 2007, the White House, silently and without any fanfare, released an official White House photo of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcoming their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, into the Cheney fold.

The beautiful little tyke weighed in at 8 lbs., 6 oz. and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley House in Washington, D.C.

That is extremely troubling is the official White House caption that appears underneath the photo on the official White House website:

… His parents are the Cheney’s daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer.

Since when have two homosexual women been able to naturally procreate?

Fact is Mary Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter – in one way or another – received a male’s sperm. She is the biological mother, parent number one, and some man, somewhere out there, is Samuel David’s real biological father, parent number two.

Unlike the official White House photo caption, a man and a woman, a Daddy and a Mommy, are Samuel David Cheney’s REAL biological parents.

Then who is Heather Poe?

Heather Poe is Mary Cheney’s live-in lesbian lover. She may act like a parent, she may treat the baby as a parent, she may love this baby with all of her heart, but in this reality we all live in, Heather Poe is NOT the baby’s real parent. She has NO biological connection to the child whatsoever. Some man, the baby’s real Daddy, is the child’s other REAL parent.

If the Vice President and his wife Lynne are joining their daughter Mary in playing this homosexual game of “house,” then all have chosen their roles and designated lesbian lover Heather Poe as the “Daddy.”

Everyone knows there can only be one REAL biological Mommy. We are all grown adults. Playing “house” is a game for children, not for The White House or the Vice President and his wife.

What is so hypocritical of this Administration is its “double-speak.”

President George W. Bush held several presses conferences calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage between one man and one woman, while homosexuals pushed for the union of two men or two women to be equally recognized as real “marriage.”

However, the President’s number two, right hand man, Vice President Dick Cheney, clearly rebels against his superior, makes a public mockery of the President and the current Administration he is supposed to represent, and clearly holds to a different set of moral standards and beliefs.

When President Bush stood on the victory stage several years ago after being elected into office by values voters, Mary Cheney was on stage as well with her lesbian lover, Heather Poe. It was a slap in the face to the values voters who had just elected the duo into office. That wound has never healed.

While this little innocent child Samuel David Cheney deserves every fighting chance at life, the sins of two women, Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, have deliberately denied the Vice President’s grandson one of the most basic human rights of all: the right to a Daddy and a Mommy.

I say shame on the White House, shame on the President and shame on the Vice President for allowing such a caption to be “officially” added onto the White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and their new grandchild.

I guess we can tragically and officially say both the White House and Bush Administration have officially recognized the sinful sexual unions of homosexuals, as well as recognized and embraced the tragedy of the social experiment of homosexual parenting.

Stephen Bennett is founder of www.TheParentsGroup.com, a worldwide support group for parents, grandparents, family members and friends with homosexual loved ones.

Bennett lived the homosexual lifestyle for over 11 years with over 100 partners, until he finally left it all in 1992. Today, Stephen is happily married to his wife Irene of almost 14 years. The couple has two beautiful children, a young boy and a girl.

Bennett has appeared on almost every major network and cable news program, advocating for the traditional family, the protection of children and proclaiming the truth about homosexuality.

For interviews, please call TPG’s National Office in Connecticut at 203-926-6960. Stephen’s bio can be obtained at www.SBMinistries.org/media.html

The Undeniable Truth about Making Babies 

     [We wrote:] “And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuals – the people derided in the early days of “gay liberation” as ”breeders” — must be involved.”

     Totally incorrect, Pete! A gay man and gay woman can easily make a baby. Try again.

OK, technically, Michael, yes, a “gay” man and a lesbian can unite (physically or through modern technology) to produce a child, but that’s called heterosexual procreation. Egg and sperm from opposite sexes must unite: two women alone or two men alone cannot create a child without help from the opposite sex. Biology 101. — Peter LaBarbera

Today’s USA Today reported the birth yesterday of Samuel David Cheney, with the following caption under the White House photo at right above (click HERE to enlarge):

“U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne Cheney hold their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, born Wednesday in Washington. His parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe.”

There should be no touch of sadness when a healthy baby boy is born into a home with two parents, but in this case, we’re afraid, there is.

While we celebrate new life, we cannot celebrate homosexual parenting –– which involves intentionally denying a child either a mom or a dad. In this case, young Samuel David –– who, as a Cheney, will surely enjoy privileges and comforts greater than most children born in 2007 –– will be missing an irreplaceable one: a father, to have as a loving guide, male authority, friend and role model as he grows from boy into man.

The pro-”gay” media have an odd way of reporting stories like this, as if both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe were involved in the baby’s conception. To do otherwise, I suppose, would call unwanted attention to the unnaturalness of the enterprise known as “gay parenting.” And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuality — i.e., the people derided in the early days of “gay liberation” as “breeders” — must be involved.

The USA Today reports that Vice President Dick Cheney has “bristled at questions on the topic.” But he and Mrs. Cheney, an ardent foe of political correctness, and a conservative, should know that there is nothing wrong with asking critical questions about something so patently wrong –– and against Nature, common sense, and God’s wonderful design of the family itself –– as parenting that is fatherless or motherless by design.

We will keep on asking those tough questions, all the while praying for this boy, and that both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will join Charlene Cothran and the many women who have come out of homosexuality, which surely is not God’s plan for their lives. – Peter LaBarbera

Isabella Miller-Jenkins is only four years old, but she is at the center of one of the most important legal battles of our time. A judge will soon decide whether a woman with no biological or adoptive ties to Isabella can legally be declared her mother.

It sounds incredible, but it is the logical result of where our anything-goes society has been leading us all these years.

As the Washington Post reports, Isabella was conceived via artificial insemination while her mother, Lisa Miller, was in a same-sex civil union with Janet Jenkins. But later the civil union fell apart. Lisa took Isabella and left Vermont for Virginia. She also returned to the Christian faith of her childhood and became “determined to ‘leave the [lesbian] lifestyle’.” That meant that she no longer considered Janet to be Isabella’s parent.

But in our reckless pursuit of getting whatever we want at all costs, our nation has begun interpreting the law in a way that reinforces all the fictions that Lisa Miller no longer believes.

The subhead in the Post article says it all: “Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller got hitched and had a baby together.” Together? Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that’s impossible. But that’s just how the courts are looking at it. As a judge in the case told Janet Jenkins’s lawyer, Janet (the lesbian partner) “without question is presumed to be the natural parent . . . by the basis of the civil union.” So in the court’s eyes, Isabella is the child of two women, something biologically impossible.

How is it possible that laws and court procedures could have become so dangerously fantasy-based? Actually, we should not be surprised. Many modern parents have unwittingly been collaborating with the process for years. The Washington Post tells us how Judge Cohen explained it: “Consider the situation of a heterosexual couple in which an infertile husband agrees for his wife to be artificially inseminated with donor sperm.” In such a case, the judge stated, the husband would be presumed to have parental rights even though someone else had actually fathered the child.

It all ties together. Heterosexual couples have tacitly approved this practice of including a silent third partner in a marriage to produce a child. And then it makes it very difficult to cry foul when homosexuals do the same thing.

Isabella’s plight shows us the tragic consequences of rejecting the biblical view of marriage, which provides for one man and one woman in the union to raise the child. Sure, there are extraordinary circumstances, and adoption is possible. But the norm is the norm, and the law has always recognized the natural moral order.

If Janet Jenkins wins her case—which may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Isabella may be taken from her biological mother to live with a woman she barely remembers. And not only Isabella; many other children would also be threatened by this waving of the judicial magic wand to produce legal parents out of nowhere.

…We need to see how our attitude of “I can do anything I want, and it won’t hurt anybody” has led to a situation that could hurt families everywhere.

For additional resources, go to Breakpoint…

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations¹, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.^2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. ^5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. ^{10,11,12,13,14} Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. ^15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” ^{18,19,20,21,22} Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,^23,24,25 substance abuse,²⁶ suicidal tendencies,^27,28 and shortened life spans.²⁹ Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.³⁰ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. ^{31,32,33,34,35} Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.³⁶

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”

ENDNOTES

¹ American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.

² Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.

³ P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.

⁴ J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, “Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,” Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.

⁵ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45

⁶ Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development,” Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.

⁷ Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, “Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.

⁸ Elizabeth Thomson et al., “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors,” Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.

⁹ David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

¹⁰ Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

¹¹ D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

¹² Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

¹³ “Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

¹⁴ Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

¹⁵ David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.

¹⁶ M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

¹⁷ M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

¹⁸ A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

¹⁹ Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

²⁰ A. A. Deenen, “Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.

²¹ “Sex Survey Results,” Genre (October 1996), quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

²² Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

²³ J. Bradford et al., “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

²⁴ Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.

²⁵ Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, “These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence….”

²⁶ Joanne Hall, “Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,” Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244

²⁷ R. Herrell et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

²⁸ Vickie M. Mays, et al., “Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.

²⁹ Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

³⁰ Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

³¹ F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.

³² J. Michael Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129

³³ Ibid., pp. 127, 128.

³⁴ F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?” Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

³⁵ Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter,” American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

³⁶ D. Fergusson et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).

© 2004 American College of Pediatricians

Evidence contradicts conclusion

In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.

He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.

Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.

In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.

Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.

The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

Lisa Stevenson
State College

A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:

Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”

This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.

In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

The ACP said the following.

“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”

Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:

• The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components

• Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.

TAKE ACTION – Call your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121) and politely convey your opposition to the new “Hate Crimes” bill that includes “sexual orientation” (HR 254), and ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act.” Also, call or write President Bush (202-456-1414) and urge him to veto these two top “gay’-priority bills if they are passed by the Democratic Congress.

If enacted, HR 254 and ENDA would federalize “sexual orientation” law, creating the long-term foundation for widespread anti-religious tyranny in our nation in the name of pro-“gay” tolerance. To see two good ads featuring victims of Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, click on www.stophatecrimesnow.com. Events in Great Britain should warn us about the grave dangers ahead…

Blair: ‘Gay Rights’ trump religious freedom

When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.

Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.

Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.

Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”

But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”

Queer, indeed.

“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.

But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?

Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.

Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.

Heterosexual couples and larger society, on the other hand, do not need homosexuality to produce children. All but the most corrupted souls can see the divine purpose in male and female physiology. Men and women were made for each other. Conversely, there is no purpose to same-sex behavior. If you have a beef with that, take it to the Creator, but don’t take it out on the children.

Kids are not guinea pigs in some adult “gay” experiment. They need a mom and dad. The Catholic Church is right. Shame on the British –– and our own Massachusetts –– for boxing churches and charitable religious groups out of the business of providing stable homes for children –– all to satisfy a radical sexual lobby.

Are religious exemptions the answer? Hardly. Already, the Left is circumscribing the definition of exemption to be as narrow as possible: in Illinois, the ACLU argued that it’s OK for a church to fire a homosexual pastor, but not the church janitor who declares that he’s “gay” and proud of it (because the janitor was not “hired to transmit doctrine”).

We simply cannot trust the radically pro-homosexual ACLU to protect our freedoms.

Moreover, religious exemptions put the government in the untenable position of dispensing fundamental (not newfangled) rights to some while denying them to others. If Muslims and Christians are exempted from oppressive “gay” laws, what about secular people who also oppose the homosexual agenda? Do they surrender their freedom of conscience because they don’t go to church?

Zero-sum game
Chai Feldblum, a lesbian professor at Georgetown University (which I thought was “Catholic”), and one of the world’s leading experts/activists on “sexual orientation” law, admits that it is a zero-sum game between protecting religious freedoms and granting rights based on “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) orientations. Someone wins, and someone loses.

Speaking at a Beckett Fund symposium (click HERE for a PDF of her paper), Feldblum takes pains to acknowledge that religious people will lose their freedom to act on their belief that homosexuality is wrong under “sexual orientation” laws. Nevertheless, she believes that “sexual liberty should win in most cases” to protect “the dignity of gay people.”

In other words, homosexual activists win, and we lose. To affirm a group of people practicing changeable, destructive and sinful behavior, we must trample on the freedoms of moral-minded Americans, even if it means putting children at risk.

I appreciate Chai Feldblum’s sympathy, but it cannot not substitute for the loss of our God-given freedoms. I don’t know about you, but I will not surrender my liberties without a fight.

The late, great Milton Friedman said, “A society that puts equality … ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” He may have meant that for economics, but the same applies in the social realm.

Homosexual activists and their straight liberal allies value their revolutionary quest for sexual egalitarianism above your freedoms of religion, conscience, association and even speech. It appears that they have won in Britain. If you care about freedom in the United States of America, you must stop them from winning here.

Footnote: I highly recommend reading Maggie Gallagher’s excellent (May 15, 2006) article in the Weekly Standard, “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.” It touches on the Boston Catholic Charities adoption pullout and the Beckett Fund symposium on “gay” versus religious rights.

The following are remarks by President Bush in a press conference this morning:

Indian Treaty Room
10 a.m. EST

Q [from "Ann"] Thank you, sir. Mary is having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you’ve said it’s your preference — you believe that it’s preferable to have one man-one woman –

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly. On Mary Cheney, this is a personal matter for the Vice President and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there’s nothing private when you happen to be the President or the Vice President — I recognize that. And I know Mary, and I like her, and I know she’s going to be a fine, loving mother.