WARNING: Crude language, inappropriate for children

TAKE ACTION: 1) e-mail this video to your elected Republican officials at the national (202-224-3121; www.congress.org), state and local level and urge them to reject the Log Cabin’s radical homosexual agenda (which includes joining with other “gay” groups in trying to use the courts to overturn California’s pro-traditional-marriage Prop 8 vote). 2) call or write Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at chairman@gop.com or 202-863-8700; 2) Call or write Nettelhorst Elementary’s principal, Cindy Wulbert, at Cw1411@gmail.com or (773) 534-5810.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, fielded a float in Chicago’s annual “gay pride” parade on June 28. 2009 — with a couple of crude signs: “BIG DICKS, small government” and “A Strong Military Shoots Big Loads.” If that’s not bad enough, the “gay” parade — like others across the country — saw the participation of many young children, brought by their same-sex parents or gay-sympathetic adults. A Chicago school, Nettelhorst Elementary, participated semi-officially after parents rallied to have their children be part of the first-ever grade school contingent to march in the parade.

As you can see from the video, beyond the crude signage, the “pride” parade featured sexual images and even public nudity (a woman atop a float is shown flashing her bare breasts — covered up in this video). Homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting and “gay” adoption are good for children. Then they take their impressionable kids to annual “gay pride” celebrations that feature erotic and perverted behavior and language that are clearly inappropriate for children. They can’t have it both ways.

This video was produced by Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.  At previous Chicago “gay pride” parades, AFTAH has witnessed public nudity and even a vile gay sex act between two men, which was allowed to take place on the street directly in front of a row of Chicago cops, who stood by and did nothing.

__________________________

Watch AFTAH’s other Chicago “gay pride” 2009 video:  VIDEO: Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Chicago ‘Gay Pride,’ and the Homosexual Cop-Haters

Related Log Cabin and “gay pride” stories:

• Homosexual Group ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ Has Measly 20,000 Members Nationwide
• Should Children Attend Lewd ‘Gay Pride’ Parades? LaBarbera Asks Biased Chicago Tribune Reporter
• [Illinois Family Institute - 2004:] Will Mayor Daley Again Allow Homosexuals to Commit Illegal Sex Acts on Chicago Streets at Upcoming ‘Gay Pride’ Parade?
• AFTAH Gives RNC Chief Michael Steele 20,000 Reasons NOT to Embrace Divisive Homosexual ‘Log Cabin Republican’ Agenda
• Tony Peraica, Christine Radogno Cozy Up to the Homosexual ‘Log Cabin Republicans’
• Log Cabin Republican Jamie Ensley Comes Out of his Bigot Closet
• Log Cabin Republicans Erase Photo of Boy-Seducing Predator Mark Foley from their Website
• Judy Baar Topinka Featured at Pro-Homosexual Log Cabin Republicans Fundraiser
• Public Nudity Tolerated as Angry Mob Assaults Peaceful Christians at Chicago ‘Gay Pride’ Parade
• San Diego School Superintendent: “Parents Don’t Have a Problem with Their Kids Being in Gay Pride Parade!”
• Coach Daubenmire Is Right: Christian Man, You Need to Observe a ‘Gay Pride’ Parade!
• San Diego City Councilman Blocks Public Display of Photos from “Gay Pride” Parade
• Ex-Log Cabin Republican Leader Takes over Pro-Homosexual-’Marriage’ Effort – Cal. Teachers Ass’n Pledges $1 Million to ‘No on [Prop] 8′

Go here to link directly to Adams’ “Frank Lombard’s Wish List” column on Townhall.

____________________________

Little Boy Blue Devil

By Mike Adams, Townhall.com, June 28, 2009

It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. This one may hurt the university nearly as much as the one that rocked its campus back in 2006. Unlike the previous case, this one appears to involve a credible confession of sexual abuse. Like the previous case, crucial facts are already being filtered through the prism of identity politics.

Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he’s declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a “perv dad for fun.” The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

If Lombard is convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. His arrest comes about a year after the Court decided that child rapists cannot be executed because “society” has “evolved” to the point where such executions would be “indecent.”

If this case goes to trial, it could be an interesting one to watch. But it will be just as interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to these allegations. It didn’t take them long to respond when several white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper. A whopping 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape. Such was their regard for the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps even more stunning was the response of some professors after it became apparent that the white lacrosse players were innocent. After that became so obvious the school had to readmit the students, Professor Kate Holloway resigned her committee assignments in protest. By the way, the most common form of faculty protest these days is to refuse to work. Most people think this kind of protest is caused by arrogance. But the actual cause is a thing called “tenure.”

So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?

Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the affidavit in support of his arrest warrant shows that this second Duke rape case will also have a strong racial component. According to a confidential source (CS) a man using the user name “cooper2” or “cooperse” logged onto an internet-based video chat room. CS saw him perform oral sex on an African-American child under the age of ten. He also performed other acts on the child, which are too obscene to be described in this column.

The user name “cooper2” has now been linked to Frank Lombard, the associate director Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. A second source has now alleged that “cooper2” has confessed to being “into incest” and that he has adopted two African American children.

The only good news coming out of this story is about Frank Lombard’s live-in homosexual partner. The affidavit in support of Lombard’s arrest warrant shows that he made special arrangements when molesting the child – sometimes even by drugging the child – to make sure his partner did not find out.

Records also indicate that Frank Lombard made a contribution to the Genesis Home in 2003. The Genesis Home is an organization that assists needy families in making a transition out of homelessness, in part by maintaining a child care center. The organization’s website features numerous photographs of African-American children under the age of ten.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

Where’s the media frenzy? Duke University official Frank Lombard is accused of raping his adopted 5-year-old son and attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with the boy. The same media and Duke professors who were all over the bogus 2006 Duke lacrosse “rape” case are not interested in this horrifying homosexual adoption-rape story.

_____________________
Folks, the jaundiced liberal media deserves much blame for the deterioration of American culture and the collective erosion of morality. Political correctness and identity politics destroy common sense by shielding favored classes and causes from criticism. Ask yourself: what logical reason is there that Matthew Shepard not Jesse Dirkhising is a household name in this country? (And don’t respond that Shepard was targeted “just because he was gay” because that is not true.)

This creep Frank Lombard and anyone — straight, “gay” or bisexual — convicted of the rape of a young child like this ought to be a candidate for automatic life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty, in my view. Homosexuals may not yet have achieved full “protected class” status in the law, but they sure have achieved it in the media. Kudos to WorldNetDaily and UNC professor-scribe Mike Adams for taking up the watchdog role to which journalists with integrity once aspired. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

_______________________

WorldNetDaily reports:

______________________________

News agencies gagging gay’ factor in boy rape

But coverage beyond bonkers or fake Duke lacrosse assault

By Joe Kovacs, WorldNetDaily, posted July1, 2009

Editor’s note: The content of this story is graphic in nature and may be objectionable to some readers.

News coverage of a Duke University official accused of raping his adopted 5-year-old son and offering the child to someone else is apparently lacking what some say is a key piece of information: the fact the alleged perpetrator is a homosexual who lives with another “gay” man.

Frank Lombard, associate director of the Health Inequalities Program at the university’s Center for Health Policy, was arrested last Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., for attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with the child, who is black.

The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard’s alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another “gay” man.

In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as “perv dad for fun.”

But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.

In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the “gay” factor is never brought up.

A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms “Frank Lombard” and “homosexual” or “gay” resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.

Just today, Duke’s campus newspaper, the Chronicle, finally mentioned the affidavit where it was stated, “he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner.”

An online comment in reaction to the ABC News story mentioned media hypocrisy with the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened:

“The Duke lacrosse case was front page news everywhere, professors were signing statements of protest, another professor threatened to resign in protest when the students were readmitted to Duke when found innocent. Could it be the liberal media and professors are as afraid of the gay lobby as Obama is, since this could harm the gay adoption activists?”

Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard, stating, “Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It’s not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There’s a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.

“This is why you haven’t heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven’t heard about because this doesn’t fit the template here of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

The silence is reminiscent of the 1999 homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising of Prairie Grove, Ark. Many news agencies across the nation ignored coverage.

Among those trying to shine the light on the homosexual aspect of the Lombard case is Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

“I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children,” wrote Adams. “So far, he’s declined to comment.”

Lombard faces a maximum of 20 years in prison if convicted.

______________________

Joe Kovacs is author of “Shocked by the Bible: the Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told.”

Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel writes:

January 29, 2009; www.LC.org

Thank you for your prayers for Lisa Miller. Yesterday Liberty Counsel presented oral argument in Lisa’s case in a Vermont court. At the hearing, an individual who was appointed by the judge to make recommendations in the case gave her opinion that changing custody would be harmful to Isabella. The judge allowed Lisa to retain custody, but ordered unsupervised visitation for four days in March, over the Memorial Day holiday and for five weeks in the summer.

Lisa has been involved in a long battle in Vermont and in her home state of Virginia, to keep an unrelated woman from being given parental rights over Lisa’s daughter Isabella. Before becoming a Christian, Lisa entered into a Vermont Civil Union with Janet Jenkins during a visit to Vermont. Lisa Miller left her former lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Since then, Janet has sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her. Read more about her case on [the Liberty Counsel] website.

Lisa and Isabella need your continuing fervent prayer. Even a few days of visitation that was allowed under court order a few weeks ago caused emotional trauma to Isabella. Unimaginable damage could be done in five weeks if Isabella is forced away from the only mother she has ever known.

We will continue to pursue legal action in Virginia for Lisa and Isabella. This battle illustrates how the laws of one state can negatively impact families in other states. The federal Defense of Marriage Act is a key component of our arguments to keep Virginia from forcing Lisa to recognize Janet as another mother of Isabella.

We are also continuing to rally support for Lisa by promoting a group on Facebook called “Only One Mommy: The Story of Lisa and Isabella Miller.”

We know that the prayers for Lisa and Isabella are working. In the past few months, Janet’s former attorney in Vermont withdrew from her case, her Virginia attorney was indicted for obstruction of justice in a situation involving the investigation of the death of a man in his home, and the judge has refused to give custody of Isabella to Janet.

Mathew D. Staver – Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver – President
Liberty Counsel – 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 – Orlando, FL 32854

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

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

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.

Stephen Green, national director of [British group] Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.” 

 British couple Owen and Eunice Johns are being denied as foster parents because they agree with their Creator about homosexuality.

By Peter LaBarbera

Commenting on LifesiteNews story by Hillary White:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022705.html

For more information, see the British Christian Legal Centre’s site at: http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=253

The once-great nation of Britain is being reduced to a bastion of politically correct silliness. Is America next? So now British couples aren’t qualified to raise children unless they can recite pro-”gay” shibboleths?

Why no, Johnny, you don’t have to have a man and a woman to get married — in fact, two daddies are often better at raising children than a mommy and a daddy. When you are old enough, we will tell you all you need to know so we can support you if you have a gay or transgender orientation. Did you know that being gay is a one of God’s gifts for special people?”

You chuckle, but it is surreal to behold the deterioration of Western civilization before our very eyes – one sad story like this at a time. Meanwhile, smug, agnostic pundits and religious leftists like Jim Wallis castigate the “Religious Right,” which is made up of people who are merely trying their best to hold back the march of evil (masquerading as progress). Which reminds me: when is the last time you heard the media use the phrase “Religious Left,” anyway?

Destructive and radical ideologies (e.g., Marxism) often are imposed from above by force, relying on disinformation – or stealth strategies — because an informed, moral (and generally conservative-leaning) citizenry would never approve such nonsense on their own. Hence the homosexual activists’ drive for power culminates in state punishment and repression of their opponents — mainly Christians and other religious adherents. Invariably, as we are seeing abroad and now here in the USA, “gay rights” comes at the expense of religious freedom.

Liberals and “gay” activists alike ask: “But how does granting equal rights for gays and lesbians affect you?” It’s the wrong question (it’s not all about ME), and one that radically redefines civil and human rights, but here’s part of the answer: state-enforced, pro-homosexuality ideology ultimately criminalizes Judeo-Christian ethics, ideas and even compassion (per the U.K.) – and that destroys societies and hurts children. “Gay” ideology is at war with common sense and “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” – as our Declaration of Independence from Britain states — giving rise to misguided social policies like that below. 

It is no overreach to assert that the pro-homosexuality, pro-bisexuality, pro-transsexuality agenda helps destroy ideas of right and wrong that have served mankind well for centuries. If two men having “sex” (committing heinous sodomies together), getting “married,” and then acquiring and raising kids isn’t wrong, then nothing is wrong.

If a gender-confused man having his penis surgically turned into a makeshift “vagina” — or a young woman having her healthy breasts removed (I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand at a “transgender” conference) as the last, desperate act in some futile quest to “become” the opposite sex — is not wrong, then what is?

Shoplifters, take note.

And if “consensuality” is their main criterion for right and wrong, well, the poor kids adopted into such disordered households did not “consent” to it, so what about their rights? (As we’ve said many times, it’s all about the ‘GLBT’ adults.)  

Thanks to social liberals who promote this agenda — which would be better described as a sexual revolution – our children are being raised in a culture in which moral truths are ridiculed and “gay” myths and lies are celebrated. We in America must fight on and dispense with any misplaced guilt if we are to avoid the tragic fate of our mother country.

Welcome to Britain’s Brave Gay World, where the committed Christians are the criminals (emphasis added):

Another UK Couple Rejected for Fostering Children over Religious Beliefs on Homosexuality

By Hilary White, Lifesite News

OAKWOOD, Derby, UK, February 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In November 2007, LifeSiteNews.com reported that a Christian couple in Somerset, UK, was being forced to retire from fostering needy children on conscientious grounds after the local council imposed rules requiring them to discuss homosexuality with the children. Now a similar case is reported in Derby, in which the local council is being sued after rejecting an application from a Christian couple to assist foster children under ten years old. The Telegraph reports that Eunice and Owen Johns refused to talk to children about homosexuality as though it were an acceptable “lifestyle”.

The Labour-controlled council adoption panel was also reportedly “upset” that the couple insisted that children in their care would be required to accompany the family to church on Sundays. The Johns have been married for 39 years and have four adult children of their own. Mrs. Johns is a retired nurse and Sunday school teacher.

The adoption panel admitted in internal documents that Mr and Mrs Johns of Oakwood, in Derby, might have grounds to feel that they had been “discriminated against on religious grounds.”

In the Somerset case last year, Vincent and Pauline Matherick were able, after their case caught national media attention, to reach an agreement with their local council authorities and keep their current child, a ten year-old boy, in their home. They had made almost identical complaints and told media that they intended to retire from fostering children after the council insisted that they participate in discussions about homosexuality.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns’ lawyer said the couple were not ‘homophobic,’ but believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong and that marriage cannot include same-sex partners. The couple are being represented by the Christian Legal Centre, which is asking for a judicial review of the council’s decision.

Evangelical Alliance General Director, the Reverend Joel Edwards, said, “We are worried about this issue because it appears someone can be disqualified from giving care to vulnerable children because of a local council’s attitude to their conscience – which we believe violates their rights as citizens.”

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.”

“I would like to see the council back down and adopt a more realistic approach. Either that or tell Christians that they are not welcome to foster in the future. At least that would be more honest.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

UK Christian Couple who Refuse to Promote Homosexuality Forced out of Child Foster Care
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102502.html

Christian Couple no Longer Required to Promote Homosexuality in Fostering Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110205.html ;

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

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. — Matthew 19:6

Pray for the six children whose homes have been broken, whose fathers have been left behind…and the many more just like them.

Excerpted from Gay Marriage Advocates Switch Strategies, by Ray Henry, published Mar 17, 2007, by Associated Press:

Aronda Kirby and Digit Murphy were once married to men, received the tax breaks for married couples and were legally permitted to take family leave if their husbands or children got sick. Both women lost those protections when they came out as lesbians, divorced their husbands and set up a new household together with their six children.

Now, with couples like Murphy and Kirby in mind, some gay rights advocates who previously fought for “marriage or nothing” are shifting strategies. Rather than fighting to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, they’re lobbying for the protections marriage provides…

“We’ve had all the rights, so we want them back,” Murphy said. “We don’t care how we get them.”

Continue reading at TBO.com…

This week there is news that former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned from office after publicly announcing he is a “Gay American” who had an extra-marital affair with a male staffer, has amended his divorce lawsuit to seek custody of his 5-year-old daughter. The article gives us an important clue as to what may have prompted McGreevey to seek custody: “[McGreevey's estranged wife Dina] Matos said last month that the two ‘continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to, and until they are resolved, there will be no agreement.’”

Of course, we don’t know the specifics in the McGreevey case. But, this fits the pattern of a growing wave of attacks on parents with Biblical, traditional beliefs on sex and marriage. The Alliance Defense Fund receives a growing number of requests for assistance in this area (see, e.g., this ADF press release). One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent’s homosexual behavior. Typically, it is alleged that any discussion with the child of the Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful, or perhaps that God’s design for the family is for a man and a woman to unite to raise their children, violates a nondisparagement clause in the divorce decree meant to prevent one parent from turning the child against the other parent in the wake of a bitter divorce. Since it is not uncommon for these nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.

Christian family law attorneys must start being vigilant about this issue in divorce litigation and settlement negotiations. Given that the historic Supreme Court cases which recognized the fundamental due process right of parents to raise their children have often involved issues of moral and religious instruction, this custody dispute scenario is yet another area in which it remains to be seen exactly what impact the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in our modern era will have on the constitutional rights of parents who will not bow the knee.

Court denies father’s appeal for boyfriend to stay overnight while children visiting and for permission to show affection with boyfriend in children’s presence

An active duty military officer who left his wife to pursue sexual relationships with other men failed in his appeal to have certain visitation restrictions to his three children dropped Tuesday.

The mother, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Alexandria law firm Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., the lead attorneys in the case, opposed the father’s request to be allowed overnight stays with his three children while his boyfriend is present. She also objected to her former husband’s request that he be allowed to openly display affection with his boyfriend in front of the children.

“The interests of children far outweigh a man’s desire to be selfish,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “We are talking about a man who repeatedly cheated on his wife to engage in sexual acts with other men and then left her for one of those men. This father and his attorneys with Lambda Legal then decided to take it a step further and demand that very minimal and common visitation restrictions designed to protect the children be dropped. There’s no doubt the Court of Appeal did the right thing in refusing this demand.”

The couple divorced in 2004 after the wife discovered that her husband had been secretly engaging in sex with other men while at the same time remained sexually active with her. The trial court awarded custody to the mother and ordered that no companion with whom the father is in a sexual relationship could spend the night while the children are visiting him. The court also ruled that he could not engage in public displays of affection with third parties in front of the children.

The father appealed the judge’s decision but was unsuccessful in having the restrictions dropped. The Court of Appeals wrote, “We hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing visitation restrictions…. The father argues that restrictions can only be placed on visitation if there has been a showing of harm or a specific danger of harm to the children. This contention is not supported by Virginia case law.”

The Court of Appeals refused the father’s request to overturn Virginia’s sodomy statute and affirmed the trial court’s authority to protect children from exposure to the father’s sexual relationships with other men.

The full text of the opinion issued in the case J.R.V. v. A.O.V. can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/AOVopinion.pdf.

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.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in another major Ontario judicial activist decision, has ruled that a five-year-old Ontario boy has three legal parents. The Appeals Court, overturning an emphatic lower court ruling, granted the boy’s father, biological mother and the mother’s lesbian partner equal rights and responsibilities under law, in a decision released yesterday.

“This ruling clearly shows the extent to which the homosexual activists will pursue their agenda regardless of the welfare of children,” said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in a press release today.

A lower court ruling on the case in 2003 said the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act could not be interpreted as recognizing more than two persons as parents by birth or adoption. In his ruling, Justice David Aston said at the time that allowing more than two parents ““might open the floodgates to similar claims from step-parents or members of the child’s extended family.”

“If a child can have three parents,” Aston wrote, “why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or sect? Quite apart from social policy implications, the potential to create or exacerbate custody and access litigation should not be ignored.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

The following is excerpted from Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms, by Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, published Dec 6, 2006, by Washington Post:

Mary Cheney, the vice president’s openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are “ecstatic” about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

…Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home. [Photo HERE.]

…In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney’s child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

Continue reading in Washington Post…

A woman who grew up with a same-sex-attracted father has launched an effort to help similar people deal with the pain they experience.

Excerpted from New Website Offers Support For Adult Children of Homosexuals, by Gail Besse, published Oct 8-14, 2006, in National Catholic Register:

She had every daughter’s natural need for affirmation,
but that was something her homosexual father just couldn’t give his little girl.

Now in her 40s, Dawn Stefanowicz knows there are others like her — others who as children ached with silent hunger for that missing connection. To help them, she has set up the first website that specifically addresses the impact of homosexual parenting from the adult child’s perspective.

“It pierces the inside of you when you know the truth. Men who struggle with their own masculinity cannot affirm femininity,” she said. “Six-year-olds cannot tell you how they’re being impacted. We can’t comprehend what we went through until we’re adults.

“People aren’t comfortable sharing this, but keeping it hidden hurts children,” she said. “The secular media is not carrying the message that this impacts children long-term.”

Now an accountant and home schooling mother of two, Stefanowicz and her husband of 22 years live in Ontario.

Her website, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com, went online in early September. It outlines her childhood story, which includes being exposed to nude beaches, “gay cruising” sites and sexually transmitted diseases. The website lists scientific studies and news articles, secular and religious support groups, and confidential contact information.

Her Christian faith and counseling helped Stefanowicz come to terms with her past and with the biological father whom she loved but lost to AIDS.

In the past three years, she has testified in the United States and Canada on behalf of marriage protection laws, and she appeared Sept. 21 on EWTN’s “Life on the Rock.” Her autobiography, Out from Under: Getting Clear of the Wreckage of a Sexually Disordered Home, will be out in 2007.

She went public because children’s voices were one dimension missing from the same-sex “marriage” debate. Adults who as children had first-hand experience of the “gay” lifestyle could speak for them…

A host of parental problems can challenge children raised by those who act out same-sex attraction, according to Dale O’Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association and author of ­ The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. For example, boys reared by two “mothers” face hostility toward their masculinity within the lesbian community.

“Same-sex attraction is the tip of the iceberg,” O’Leary said. “Many such people were victims of sexual child abuse themselves and have multiple problems. Many have suicidal impulses, anger management issues, drug and alcohol abuse, a high level of partner change, serious depression and mental illness. The scary thing is, when children are raised by dysfunctional parents, they often think the problems are their fault,” she said.

Even adult children hesitate to discuss their pain for fear of hurting their parents, Stefanowicz said. Some become promiscuous, when they are really seeking love. Others become perfectionists, seeking a sense of identity through their profession.

She hopes her website will be a vehicle for mutual support and healing, and a resource to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the sake of all children.

Continue reading in National Catholic Register…