From our friends at PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays)…

PFOX executive director Regina Griggs emailed the letter below to the Missouri School Counselor Association (MSCA) to ask why MSCA rejected PFOX’s application for a booth at the Nov. 5 conference.

On August 14, MSAC’s executive director called Regina Griggs to tell her not to send the Association any more emails. When Regina Griggs asked why PFOX had been rejected, she slammed the phone on Regina Griggs.

Evidently, the school counselors association in Missouri allows for pro-“gay” information but not ex-gay information. This dangerous policy means school counselors steer confused students exclusively to “gay affirming” sources without providing alternatives.

Since MSCA won’t answer Regina Griggs, maybe you should join in asking why PFOX was rejected as an exhibitor and if pro-“gay” exhibit booths were also rejected as well:

LETTER FROM PFOX TO MSCA

Dear Ms. Kosteck Bunch:

This is our third inquiry. Please respond.

We are in receipt of your letter denying Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) an exhibit booth at the Missouri School Counselor Association’s fall conference. However, your letter did not provide a basis for the denial of our application for a booth. Please explain why the Missouri School Counselor Association has denied PFOX an exhibit booth.

Please read in its entirety this excellent article by our friend Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America.

From Jesus Is Wedded to Biblical Marriage, by Jan LaRue, published Oct 18, 2006, by CWA and Townhall:

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin will decide November 7 whether traditional marriage will be protected by their state’s constitution. Opponents from homosexual activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign are uniting with clergy to convince voters that Jesus approves same-sex “marriage.”

The Rev. Jack Rogers, “professor of theology emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and past moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” says that “supporting same-sex marriage affirms our Christian faith, strengthens our communities and supports children and families.” (Jack Rogers, “Study Changes Pastor’s Mind on Same-Sex Marriage,” The [Charleston, South Carolina] Post and Courier, Oct. 1, 2006, p. H3).

Rogers’ reasons for supporting “same-sex marriage” have a tiny tad more substance than the “silence” argument from another clergyman, Rev. Gordon McBride, the rector of Grace St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Arizona who opposes Arizona’s marriage amendment: “Jesus never said anything about it (gay marriage), so clearly it didn’t matter to him.” (Stephanie Innes, “Gay-marriage ban pits church vs. church,” Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 13, 2006).

That logic would lead to the absurd assumption that since Jesus never said anything about incest, rape, tofu or terrorism, they also clearly didn’t matter to Him.

Rogers says that “for much of his life” he “opposed same-sex marriage” until he participated “on a task force on homosexuality … in an intense nine-month process of Bible study, prayer and reflection on the issue from all angles.”

One would think that “reflection” on “all angles” about “same-sex marriage” would include the marriage angle. Rogers, however, doesn’t mention any of nearly 700 Bible verses about marriage — not one.

But then, it’s not easy to pronounce Betty and Veronica or Steve and Al together in holy matrimony as husband and wife, man and woman or bridegroom and bride.

Incredibly, Rogers fails to follow his own advice “to read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ redeeming life and ministry.” He fails to acknowledge that Christ’s lens includes all of Scripture, and what it says about marriage and homosexuality “is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Question for parents:
Is this book in your child’s classroom?

From our friends at Minnesota Family Institute:

Against one mothers wishes, 7 and 8 year old children were forced to sit through the reading of “Asha’s Mums,” a book depicting a child with two mothers, and listen to their teacher tell them that he and his same-sex partner planned to adopt a child.

Click HERE to view KSTP news clip.

FeLicia McCorvey Preyer, mother of second graders twins, said she met the teacher and school officials before the start of the school year. “I mentioned,” she said, “that I did not want my child hearing this information” about gay issues. Preyer said that instead of supporting her parental rights and authority, she was treated with disrespect and even arrogance. “They treat me as if my beliefs are the problem,” she said.

Gena Bounds, a parent of one of the second-graders said, “Now Darriell (her daughter) thinks the school is telling her she needs to believe that two daddies or two mommies is the same thing as a mom and a dad.”

When the parents met with the principal, they were told their children could not be reassigned to another class. Principal Laura Bloomberg [phone (612) 752-7100 or e-mail laura_bloomberg@wmep.k12.mn.us] said the mission of the school is to build “a partnership of diversity, community and technology.” She said parents were free to object to the school board or withdraw their children from the school.

Minnesota State Statue states that parents have the right to review curriculum and request their children be excused from parts of it.

“This kind of curriculum is becoming the norm, not the exception,” said Chuck Darrell, director of communications for Minnesota Family Council. “Parents need to speak out or they too will find themselves at the whim of arrogant school officials who do not respect their simple requests, such as removing a 7-year-old child from being subjected to homosexual propaganda,” he said.

Excerpted from Deval Patrick: Homosexuals’ Great Black Hope?, by LaShawn Barber, published Oct 23, 2006, by Townhall.com:

…I find it offensive that homosexuals equate black Americans’ struggle to be treated as first class citizens to their “struggle” to normalize perversion, and I’m sure many blacks felt the same way when middle- and upper-class white women co-opted the Civil Rights Movement to pursue their family-destroying agenda in the 1970s.

Civil rights refer to those found in the Bill of Rights and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Blacks were denied these rights, and the Civil Rights Movement extended them to blacks. It did not seek to redefine nor add to these rights. That affluent white homosexuals consider themselves oppressed in the same way because they can’t “marry” is an insult to my grandfathers and their fathers and grandfathers.

They endured the indignity of having to enter a store through the rear “colored” entrance simply because they were black. They were barred from certain jobs and schools because they were black. They were considered second class Americans because they were black.

Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else. The clamor for marriage isn’t about rights; it’s about acceptance of a lifestyle. Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character and fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote in the Opinion Journal:

“[G]ay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof–a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.”

That we actually are discussing so-called marriage between two men is evidence of how far the culture has declined.

Continue reading at Townhall…

Excerpted from Ex-Congressman Foley Needs Sexual Reorientation, Not Alcohol Rehab, published Oct 23, 2006, by PFOX:

Like Mr. Foley, many were taken advantage of sexually by adults when they were young teenagers. They never had a chance to fulfill their heterosexual potential and often feel guilty or at fault. But there is an alternative to unwanted same-sex attractions. No one is born gay. Thousands of ex-gay men and women have overcome their same-sex attraction. Sexual reorientation therapies and ex-gay ministries provide a safe place to talk about the painful past and receive help in overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions.

Continue reading this PFOX press release… 

The following are highlights from the article entitled Democratic House a gay boon? published Oct 20, 2006, in the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

• “Gay political activists and Democratic leaders are already planning post-election strategies and priorities for an expectedly bluer and more progressive House of Representatives…The preliminary plans … put a [transsexual]-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] atop the wish list of gay rights supporters,” the Blade reports.
• “I think that everyone believes that [a transsexual-] inclusive ENDA is our top priority,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
• Other top priorities for homosexual activists: passing a “hate crimes” bill that is homosexual- and “transgender”-inclusive, and repealing the ban on open homosexuality in the military.
• “We’re accused of having a gay agenda … but this is the time when we really need one,” says radical homosexual activist Wayne Besen.
• A Democratic House is key to advancing gay priorities, John Marble, spokesperson for the [homosexual group] National Stonewall Democrats, told the Blade. “If the Republicans are in control, it’s going to take much more work.”
• Homosexual U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says that a Democratic House “would snub ‘anti-gay initiatives’ like the Marriage Protection Amendment, and give lawmakers new ability to concentrate on passing ENDA and overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Blade reports.
• “Those are probably the two [ENDA and ‘Hate Crimes’] that we would be thinking about,” Frank told the Blade. “There would be a very good chance of movement there.”
• “If the Democrats retake the House, Frank could emerge as chair of the powerful and prestigious Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over leading financial institutions, including banks,” the Blade reports.
• Besen warns about potential disillusionment among homosexuals if they are “played and used” by the newly dominant Democrats.
• Homosexual political analyst Hastings Wyman said the Democrats cannot afford to alienate their homosexual base: “The political heft of the gay community has been of great value to the Democrats,” he said, “in terms of money and in votes and in muscle.”

Excerpted from Bauer: No Way Around It A Vote Endorses a Partys Values, by Bill Fancher, Jeff Johnson, and Jody Brown, published Oct 19, 2006, by Agape Press:

Democrats’ Plan for Defeating Amendments
In response to the success of those state ballot measures, the Democratic National Committee announced this summer it had adopted a five-point plan for fighting measures defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Parts of that plan include labeling those ballot issues as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, and working with the National Stonewall Democrats — a pro-homosexual element within the party — to develop “strategy and talking points” to combat the proposed amendments.

On Election Day 2006, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin will consider constitutional amendments declaring marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman. The president of the group Americans for Truth believes the amendments should pass with little difficulty in five of those eight states.

“Arizona and Wisconsin are more of a battleground,” Peter LaBarbera asserts, “and then there’s a special situation in Colorado where there’s a pro-domestic partner initiative that was very smartly, by the way, put up by homosexual activists. So those are the three states to watch. I think the rest of the states will pass handily.”

That has been the case in all of the 20 states where a marriage amendment has been adopted by voters. The average approval rating has been 68 percent (see chart). But LaBarbera warns that if the so-called “civil union” amendment passes in Colorado, voters can expect homosexual activists to employ the same strategy in the future when other states are considering constitutional amendments defending traditional marriage.

Continue reading at Agape Press…

Excerpted from Amid Debate Over Rights, Number of Gay Judges Rising, by Joan Biskupic, published Oct 17, 2006, in USA Today:

When a case testing whether Oregon should allow same-sex marriages came before the state’s Supreme Court in 2004, one of the court’s seven justices quietly wrestled with a vexing question:

Should he, a gay man, take part in the case? Or did part of Rives Kistler‘s identity — his sexual orientation — mean that he should sit it out, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest?

Kistler, a former Oregon assistant attorney general and the first openly gay member of the state’s highest court, consulted an ethics book to decide “whether it was permissible for me to sit on the case.” Then he checked with a judicial ethics panel, which told him it would not be a conflict.

When Oregon’s high court heard the dispute, Kistler was on the bench. Four months later, he joined a unanimous decision as the court ruled that same-sex marriages were not allowed under Oregon law. He says his sexual orientation wasn’t a factor in his decision, and he agreed with the other justices that any changes in Oregon’s marriage laws had to come from legislators, not judges…