Excerpted from Archbishop Warns of Gay Rights Backlash, by Jonathan Petre, published Nov 29, 2006, by Telegraph:

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, has warned the Government of a serious backlash if it attempts to force through a raft of new homosexual rights laws.

Archbishop Nichols said that the proposed regulations, designed to ensure equal treatment for gays, could mean the end of the Church’s co-operation with the Government in providing a range of welfare services.

Church officials also believe that the its seven adoption agencies could be closed if they were required to place children with gay couples in defiance of Vatican guidelines.

Speaking in St Chad’s cathedral in Birmingham, the Archbishop that the Government “must realise is that it is not possible to seek cooperation with us while at the same time trying to impose upon us conditions which contradict our moral values.”

…The Archbishop, who forced the Government into a humiliating climbdown over faith schools early this month, said the process of secular democracy in Britain was not morally neutral but was “engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework”.

…The proposed regulations could also force Christian marriage preparation and guidance agencies to cater for same sex couples and would not allow parishes, retreat houses, conference centres and hostels to refuse bookings from gay and lesbians.Faith schools could be compelled to teach that homosexuality was the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

…Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative minister, said that the proposals spelled the “end of freedom of conscience in our country”.

“They create a hierarchy of rights and whenever a homosexual right comes up against any other right the homosexual right prevails,” she said, adding that the Government “seems to have no clue that practising a religion means more than going to church”.

Continue reading in Telegraph…

The “transgender” lobby is using the identical tactics as the “gay” lobby in their push for acceptance. The saddest part of their agenda is their encouragement of gender confusion among children, the “T” in the “GLBT youth” equation. Stay tuned as our society continues its descent in the name of diversity and tolerance.–Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Soap Introducing Transgender Character, by David Bauder, published Nov 26, 2006, by Associated Press:

In a story unusual even for a soap opera and believed to be a television first, ABC’s “All My Children” this week will introduce a transgender character who is beginning to make the transition from a man into a woman.

The character, a flamboyant rock star known as Zarf, kisses the lesbian character Bianca and much drama ensues. The storyline begins with Thursday’s episode of the daytime drama.

There have been a handful of post-surgical transgender characters in television shows, including a college professor in the 2001 prime-time CBS series “The Education of Max Bickford” and a model in the short- lived ABC soap opera “The City” in 1996, according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Showtime’s “The L Word” currently features a character changing from a woman into a man.

“All My Children” was looking for something new, and knows its audience is always interested in anything to do with sexuality, said Julie Hanan Carruthers, the show’s executive producer.

…GLAAD and some transgenders were brought in as consultants in shaping the character, teaching the producers when it is appropriate to call a character “she” even before surgery, she said. Damon Romine, a spokesman for GLAAD, said he hasn’t seen the show yet but feels people involved were genuinely interested in telling the story with dignity. Emotions are so close to the surface in soap operas, and this story can serve a purpose by showing what transgenders go through, he said.

“I think it’s groundbreaking and breakthrough television for daytime to put a spotlight on transgender people and tell their story,” he said.

Continue reading at Breitbart…

Excerpted from Howard Dean’s Fruitless Outreach, by David Limbaugh, published Jun 2, 2006, by Townhall:

At least Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is colorful; you’ve got to give him that much. But he’s not the guy to be leading the charge to reunite the Democratic Party with so-called “values voters.”

The Washington Times’ Greg Pierce reports that Dean was outraged when he heard that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intended to call to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Dean called opponents of homosexual marriage “bigots.” He said, “At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party’s failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue.” It’s not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible,” said the enlightened Dean.

Now flashback a week or so and picture Dean on the set of the evil bigot Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” Dean appeared as part of his effort to reclaim “values voters” for the Democratic Party. On that program Dean reportedly said the party’s platform provides that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Later, Dean had to apologize to gay rights leaders for incorrectly stating the party’s platform position.

Surely I’m misreading one of these two reports. Which is it, Howard? Or, perhaps I should say, “Which face will you be wearing today: the bigoted or the enlightened one?”

Continue reading at Townhall…

By Peter LaBarbera

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated but needs to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
–Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle ii

So much for the newfound “moderation” of the Democratic Party. Party chief Howard Dean, fresh from an election season smackdown by “gay” activists for affirming that marriage is indeed between a man and a woman, is once again dutifully pushing their immoral agenda. As the Houston Chronicle and ABC News reported, Dean called for more homosexuals to run as Democratic candidates.

Dean told the crowd of homosexual activists: “We need a careful, narrow, targeted agenda to make it clear what the difference between the Democratic Party and Republican Party is before we go into the next election.”

TAKE ACTION – Let the Democratic Party know you feel about Howard Dean’s promotion of homosexual behavior. Click HERE for the Democratic National Committee’s contact page.

Also, call the White House at 202-456-1414 or click HERE to let President Bush know NOW that you oppose pro-homosexual “Hate Crimes,” ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act), and repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on open homosexuality in the armed forces — the three top items on the “gay” legislative agenda in the Democratic-led Congress.

And call your U.S. Congressman or Senators to oppose these bills at 202-224-3121.

Let’s think about the implications of Dean’s call for “gay” candidates, using the scholarship of Rob Gagnon, the nation’s premiere authority on the Bible and homosexuality. Gagnon correctly affirms that Biblically speaking, homosexuality is as egregious a sexual sin as incest, adultery and pornography. Perhaps if more people knew about just how dangerous homosexual acts are — cutting short the lives of hundreds of thousands of men from “same-sex sexual diseases” (now there’s a concept you won’t see taught in school health classes) — they might have renewed respect for the Bible’s counsel on this issue.

From Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow “Anal Intercourse” with 14-Year-Olds, by John-Henry Westen, published Nov 22, 2006, by LifeSite News:

In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for “anal intercourse” in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party’s Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.

While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. “The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention,” says a release on the resolutions.

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the “riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS.”

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads:

“WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity.”

The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

Resolution no. 46 calls for a review of the criminal code on prostitution with a view to legalizing the exploitive practice.

Dear Mr. Hudson:

This letter is in regard to your Nov. 17, 2006, article , “Wal-Mart faces anti-gay boycott“, published in Washington Blade, Southern Voice, SoVo.com, and Houston Voice.

ITEM ONE

You wrote:

“Working with conservative groups Americans for Truth and the American Family Association, Benham is planning a nationwide boycott and demonstration against Wal-Mart during the Thanksgiving weekend shopping free-for-all.”

There are two problems with that sentence.

First, according to the Americans for Truth post: “AFA is calling for a boycott of Wal-Mart on the Friday following Thanksgiving, which is typically the biggest shopping day of the year.”

Americans for Truth has not formally called for a boycott of Wal-Mart. Americans for Truth simply reported that American Family Association had called for a one-day boycott.

Second, Flip Benham has not engaged in any conversation with anyone from Americans for Truth on any subject . In fact, I cannot recall having ever met or spoken with Flip Benham, so I was surprised to read that Benham is “working with…Americans for Truth.”

ITEM TWO

You wrote:

“By working with the NGLCC [National Lesbian & Gay Chamber of Commerce] and other gay groups, Wal-Mart is giving a ‘show of support to help homosexuals legalize same sex marriage,’ according to the Americans for Truth website.”

The Americans for Truth post clearly cites American Family Association as the author of that sentence — and you should have, too.

ITEM THREE

You wrote:

“The site claims that Wal-Mart is forwarding 5 percent of the value of online sales from walmart.com to the Washington D.C. Center for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender People.

“David Tovar, director of communications for Wal-Mart, disputed that claim. He noted that the gay center receives only a percentage of sales from people who click on walmart.com from a link on the gay center’s website — not all online sales.”

There are two problems with that statement.

First, the Americans for Truth website post clearly notes that the percentage is only on sales via the DC Center’s website:

Title of AFT post: “Wal-Mart Contributes 5% Of Online Sales Via D.C. Homosexual Community Center Website”

Text from AFA: “The cash donation will come from all online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group’s web site.”

Americans for Truth did not state/did not imply that DC Center was getting a percentage of ALL online sales.

Second, although Mr. Tovar of Wal-Mart seems to dispute the 5% figure (of online sales deriving from the Center’s website), the DC Center’s own website, which is linked in the Americans for Truth post, confirms that number:

“The percentage of each sale donated to the Center is indicated next to each store… Wal-Mart [5%]”

We would appreciate a public correction on these points. And next time, please call to verify the facts first.

Sincerely,
Peter LaBarbera
President, Americans for Truth

On Tuesday, November 28, TBN will be airing the exciting new special, “Our First Liberty” that highlights how ADF is defending and protecting the First Liberty — religious freedom — of ordinary Americans.

The special will be aired at 12:30 a.m. EST (11/29), 11:30 p.m. CST, 10:30 p.m. MST, and 9:30 p.m. PST.

Find your local TBN channel here.

Watch “Our First Liberty” Trailers
Quicktime (2.9 MB)
Windows Media Player (8.8 MB)

A Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson, published Nov 21, 2006:

Well, it may finally be time to send for the guys with the white coats to wrap me up and cart me off.

It used to be, in the old days, that the biggest decision new parents had to make was the name of their baby. The one thing they didn’t have to decide was the kid’s sex—that decision had been made for them, all they have to do is take a peek. That would be that.

Well, not any more, at least not in New York City.

You see, under a proposed Board of Health rule, “people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates.” They would need only to provide “affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex.” They would also have to promise that “their proposed change would be permanent.”

The proposed rule isn’t aimed at people who have had “sex-change surgery.” They are already permitted to do this. Instead, it’s directed at people who “had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years . . . ”

Read those words carefully: adopted and especially gender, instead of sex. It is a big hint that there’s some major postmodern mischief at work here. “Sex” is what scientists call “binary”: You either have an XX (that is, female) or an XY (that is, male) chromosome.

But if nature can’t be twisted and shaped to suit our ideological predilections, words, especially in the hands of postmodern vandals, can be. If the goal is to separate “anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman,” then the use of the word gender is a must.

You see, “transgender” activists can get away with saying that gender is just “socially constructed” and more than “the sum of one’s physical parts” because gender is a word that most people don’t regularly use.

Substituting an obscure word, in this case, gender, for the more common one, sex, is intended to confuse and obscure. It’s the kind of verbal tactic George Orwell, in “Politics and the English Language,” compared to a cuttlefish squirting ink to confuse its predators.

Of course, what makes this squirting necessary is the denial of the obvious: “Living as a woman,” whatever that means, no more makes you a woman than hiding a pot of gold makes you a leprechaun.

These verbal parlor games may wow them in the faculty lounge, but nature is unimpressed. They remind me of the hoax perpetrated by physicist Alan Sokal. He submitted a paper to a leading postmodern journal filled with postmodern gibberish like “physical ‘reality’ . . . is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”

After the paper was published, he revealed the hoax, that it was all gibberish, adding that those who believe that physics really is a “social construct” should test their beliefs from his twenty-first floor window.

Christians should not be shocked at any of this. Romans 1 tells us that God’s truth is made plain in creation, and to deny this truth—in this case, “male and female created He them”—is to exchange the truth for a lie, which Paul illustrates by an example of men lying with men, in other words, rejecting their God-given gender, which is a challenge to God’s created order. Well, today we have renewed that old lie—that we can create ourselves the way we want, and peeking doesn’t make any difference.

(Additional resources are offered on the Breakpoint site.)