WorldNetDaily.com; posted January 21, 2009

By Judge Roy Moore

Barack Obama, who campaigned on “Change We Can Believe In,” was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States yesterday, Jan. 20, in the most expensive inauguration in the history of our country. Despite a bleak economy and a rising unemployment rate, Obama and we the taxpayers are estimated to have spent over $150 million. That is a lot of “change,” to be sure.

While many in the country were welcoming the Obamas, the incoming president was busy putting out the welcome mat for the homosexual agenda. At the “We are One” gathering at the Lincoln Memorial on the Sunday before the Inauguration, Obama invited Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly “gay” bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church, to give the opening prayer. It seems rather strange that an event to celebrate “unity” would begin with prayer by an individual whose homosexual conduct is responsible for one of the deepest divisions in the Episcopal Church in its history, as various dioceses have severed ties with the Episcopal Church to join the more conservative international Anglican community.

But even more shocking is the fact that Bishop Robinson was asked to pray at all. When questioned about the upcoming event by the Associated Press, Robinson assured them that he would “be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer,” and – not surprisingly – that he would not use a Bible. If that is the accepted view of our new president and those attending the event, then we are indeed in for a “change,” but one actually contrary to our beliefs and very destructive of our national morality. Historically, there has never been a time when Christianity has been so openly shunned and homosexuality so expressly promoted.

Our first president would have been appalled at such “change.” George Washington began a long tradition of adding “so help me God” to the constitutionally required presidential oath while resting his hand on the Holy Bible. The records of the National Archives show that, after repeating the oath, Washington leaned over and reverently kissed the Bible. Unlike Robinson, Washington was careful to publicly emphasize his faith in God and His Word, not run from it. …

Obama has not only chosen an open homosexual to open an historic event with prayer, he plans to promote homosexuality in other ways. Obama has proposed expanding federal “hate crimes” statutes to include “sexual orientation,” supported adoption rights for homosexuals, and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.” Obama seems determined to force change that only radical homosexuals can believe in, even in our military.

Every president is not only the chief executive of the federal government, but he is also commander in chief of the Armed Forces. When George Washington led the Army, he recognized the destructive influence of homosexuality in the military. Washington’s public dismissal of Lt. Enslin from the Army for attempted sodomy comported with a “longstanding element of military law” that is still reflected in the current military code, 10 U.S.C. § 654:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morals, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

But Obama is planning to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the Clinton administration, which although a concession to homosexuals, still recognized the prohibition against homosexuals in the military. Instead, Obama intends to enforce a policy of “non-discrimination” in favor of those who practice homosexuality.

Unfortunately for Obama, the majority of those who now serve in the military disagree with his pro-homosexual policy. According to a 2007 Military Times poll, 59 percent of active-duty military personnel said that they did not think that those who openly professed homosexuality should be allowed to serve in the military. The Center for Military Readiness in 2008 claimed that Obama’s change in policy would force heterosexual and homosexual soldiers to cohabitate around the clock in conditions of little or no privacy, causing “unprecedented harm to discipline, morale, recruiting and readiness.”

Click HERE for the full article by Judge Moore in WorldNetDaily.com

Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson’s parents wanted a girl, so they named him “Vicky.”

By Peter LaBarbera

I find much to object to in blogger Peter Kirk’s homosexuality-related posts, but he offers some good thoughts regarding Episcopal Bishop (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s gender confusion, which, understandably, began at a young age. Kirk wonders why Robinson wants to be a “June bride” (rather than a groom) next month as he infamously and shamelessly plans to “wed” another man.

That Robinson, as the poster boy for decadent, Western “queer christianity” (small c), is doing great damage to the faith as a “change agent” against God’s revealed program for sexuality, is obvious. But surely “Vicky Imogene Robinson’s” parents, who wanted a girl, hence the female name, share in the blame, as they did quite a number on him. Kirk writes:

But hold on, isn’t there something wrong here? A man who has always wanted to a bride? Was he not thinking when he used the word “bride”, or perhaps joking? Does “always” go back to the time when he was a bridegroom? Perhaps he has always suffered from gender confusion. After all, if this rather sensationalist article can be trusted (see also the full text of the interview this article was based on):

Born in 1947 in the Bible Belt in Lexington, Kentucky, he was not expected to survive the delivery, so his sharecropper parents were asked to give names for both the birth and death certificates. Expecting a girl, they opted for Vicky Imogene. He has never changed it.

Given this confusion about his birth and his upbringing with a girl’s name, no wonder that

By the age of 11, he was sensing that his sexual urges were different from those of his schoolmates.

Now I know this is not a popular thing to say, but it seems rather likely that this man at least grew up to be gay because of serious psychological damage in childhood. To be fair to him, he did try therapy, and marriage, but his gay tendencies eventually got the upper hand.

The question here, as I see it, is whether the church should be promoting psychologically damaged people like this into high positions. Of course I have to accept that no one is perfect, and that sometimes people who have been through traumatic times are equipped to minister to others suffering similarly, in ways in which those whose life has always been easy are not so suitable. But I would expect those promoted to being bishops, like Gene Robinson, at least to demonstrate that their psychological hurts have been fully healed….

Click HERE to read Kirk’s entire post, “Gene Robinson to Be a ‘June Bride,’ and responding comments