Remember: We can’t fit all the good info on the front page,

so check out the “New Articles” button to your right.

Click on it to see our 20 most recent posts.

Excerpted from Child Born to Lesbian Couple Will Have 2 Mothers Listed, by Laura Mansnerus, published Nov 16, 2006, by The New York Times:

A lesbian couple in South Jersey won court approval this week to have both of their names listed as parents on the birth certificate of their newborn, and the attorney general’s office said it will no longer oppose such applications.

The decision, in Family Court in Burlington County, stems from an Oct. 25 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual couples. The court gave the Legislature 180 days either to bring gay couples within the state’s marriage laws or establish a parallel system of civil unions.

“This couple was treated exactly the same way as a married couple under the law of New Jersey,” said Stephen Hyland, the lawyer for the women. “So no matter what New Jersey chooses to do legislatively, the couples have the same rights.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

Excerpted from 3 Christian Groups Move To Condemn Gay Sex, by Alan Cooperman and Peter Whoriskey, published Nov 15, 2006, by Washington Post:

Faced with rising public acceptance of same-sex relationships, three U.S. Christian denominations are taking strong measures this week to condemn homosexual acts as sinful.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, meeting in Baltimore, declared Tuesday that Catholics who minister to gays must firmly adhere to the church’s teaching that same-sex attractions are “disordered.” Catholics with “a homosexual inclination” should be encouraged to live in chastity and discouraged from making “general public announcements” about their sexual orientation, the bishops said.

The largest Baptist group in North Carolina, meanwhile, moved to expel any congregation that condones homosexuality, adopting a policy that allows the Baptist State Convention to investigate complaints that member churches are too “gay-friendly.”

And on Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a mainline Protestant denomination with about 3 million members, will put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women.

The decisions are part of a mounting backlash in many U.S. denominations against church groups whose stated goal is not only to welcome but also to “affirm” gay congregants.

Continue reading on Washington Post…

According to an article published in the San Francisco Times on June 23, 2006, Wal-mart gave a $60,000 donation to Out & Equal, a pro-homosexual employee advocacy group.

Wal-Mart is a $60,000 plenary sponsor of September’s [2006] Out & Equal summit in Chicago. The company signed on to support the workplace advocacy group just two years after Ken Pearson, a Wal-Mart executive [and chairman of PRIDE, a group for Wal-Mart’s homosexual employees], attended his first summit and reported his findings to Bentonville.

Those close to the company and this sponsorship say it is not just a façade and reflects a growing commitment by Wal-Mart to ‘do the right thing.’

“I think the company, with it’s mission and focus on diversity, really wanted to make an impact, knowing that the support would be well-received within the LGBT community,” Pearson said. Wal-Mart “has been making great strides in moving the needle in LGBT workplace equality.”

Out & Equal executive director Selisse Berry sold Wal-Mart executives on Out & Equal in two days of meetings on LGBT issues in Bentonville last December.

“What struck me about that was that the culture at Wal-Mart is changing,” Berry said. “They were eager to learn and kind of catch up.”

Click HERE to view Wal-Mart endorsement ad for Out and Equal homosexual rights conference.

From the Out & Equal website:

Out & Equal™ Workplace Advocates is the pre-eminent national organization devoted to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the workplace.

Our mission is to educate and empower organizations, human resource professionals, Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) and individual employees through programs and services that result in equal policies, opportunities, practices and benefits in the workplace regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, expressions or characteristics.

Click HERE to hear what Amy Andre of Out & Equal presented at the 2006 National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s Creating Change conference last weekend.

Excerpted from Agenda Targets Free Speech, by Phyllis Schlafly, published Nov 6, 2006, by Townhall:

Same-sex marriage is not the only goal of the gay rights movement. It’s becoming clear that another goal is the suppression of Americans’ First Amendment right to criticize the gay agenda.

The gay lobby tried a broadside attempt to censor criticism by passing a national “hate crimes” law. Fortunately, Congress didn’t pass that law, but gay activists are obviously trying to achieve much the same effect through political pressure and intimidation.

Scott Bloch, the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in the Bush administration, has been targeted for termination because he removed “sexual orientation” from the list of anti-discrimination laws protecting employment at federal agencies. Bloch discovered that his Clinton-appointed predecessor, Elaine Kaplan, had unilaterally inserted “sexual orientation” in the list without any statutory authorization, so he removed it.

The gay lobby retaliated, instigating five investigations against Bloch. After all five cleared him of any wrongdoing, the response by the gay lobby was to initiate a sixth investigation.

Reportedly, Bloch has been told privately to resign, twice suggesting that he might be fired if he doesn’t. Letters from supporters caused the White House to back off before the election, but it is apparent that the Bush administration has no stomach for this fight and hopes Bloch will go quietly.

Can someone explain why a man with two sets of broken marriage vows and who admitted to covert homosexuality and adultery should have a public voice in this debate? What does James McGreevey, a man who is not even divorced yet but is living with his homosexual lover, know about real love (seeking the other person’s highest good) or commitment (unselfish devotion)? – Sonja Dalton

Excerpted from McGreevey Prods NJ Lawmakers To Pass Gay Marriage Bill, published Oct 30, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey called on state lawmakers Monday to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I hope the Legislature and the government does what’s right and embraces the idea of marriage for two loving and committed individuals,” McGreevey told WNBC television.

McGreevey became the nation’s first gay governor when he announced on Aug. 12, 2004 that he was “a gay American”. The married governor, standing beside his wife then said that he had been involved in an affair with a man and would resign.

The McGreeveys separated shortly after and the governor currently lives with his same-sex domestic partner.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Excerpted from A Gay Conservative?, by Cliff Kincaid, published Nov 16, 2006, by Accuracy in Media:

…I think it’s also important, with the election campaign behind us, to define what is meant by “conservative.” Whatever it means, it can’t possibly include Andrew Sullivan, who has written a book titled The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How To Get It Back.

People can claim to be anything they want to be, but it defies reality to claim that Sullivan (pictured right), an HIV-positive homosexual who embraces and celebrates the homosexual lifestyle, is a conservative. Sullivan told Howard Kurtz on the October 15 edition of his Reliable Sources show that he is engaged to be married to another man.

Kurtz told Sullivan: “You are a lifelong conservative who supported George Bush in 2000, and now you’re a fierce critic of the administration and you supported John Kerry in 2004.”

How can a self-described conservative have voted for Kerry in 2004? The answer lies in the fact that Sullivan is consumed by the issue of his own homosexuality. But because Bush opposes homosexual marriage, Sullivan has turned on him. Sullivan has also flip-flopped on the Iraq War, going from a supporter to an opponent.

So on what issue is a Sullivan a conservative? He claims to be opposed to extravagant federal spending. He refers to the “astonishing leap in federal spending under the Bush Republicans.” But I searched through his book and found no complaints about the disproportionate amount of federal money being spent on AIDS. So far, about $200 billion has been spent on HIV/AIDS. The FAIR Foundation exists to highlight the federal favoritism given to AIDS over other more deadly diseases that affect far more people.

In his book, Sullivan makes statements that would strike most conservatives as invalid or looney. He complains, for example, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth engaged in “character assassination” of Kerry when the organization simply documented his war-time service and statements that assisted the enemy.

A self-proclaimed Christian, he spends some of his book bashing Christian “fundamentalists” who want to protect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Once again, this is where Sullivan’s homosexuality consumes him.

Continue reading at AIM…

If you are banned by the state from acting on your faith and moral beliefs, then you are no longer free.–Peter LaBarbera

The Human Rights Commission said that Brockie’s “rights as a Christian were subordinate to those of homosexuals not to be discriminated against,” and that he “must restrict the practice of Christianity to his home and church, and not take it with him into the public marketplace.”

By Peter LaBarbera

Aging pop star and homosexual Elton John (pictured right with his longtime homosexual partner David Furnish) wants to “ban religion completely” because he says it promotes “hatred and spite against gays” (see Lifesite story below). People of faith are outraged, but do they understand that the homosexual lobby seeks to accomplish part of Elton’s dream–i.e., “banning” the outworking of traditional religion that results in speech and actions opposed to homosexuality?

There is an inherent incompatibility between rights based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) and traditional First Amendment and religious freedoms, especially for those who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. For a good book on this, I recommend my friend Janet Folger‘s Criminalizing Christianity, available on her Faith2Action’s website.

Here’s a primer on how “gay” activists and the liberal political allies (including activist judges) are moving to ban the application of religion with regard to homosexuality:

I. Step One in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Push Christian and religious speech defending Biblical sexual morality to the fringes; punish it, harass it or outlaw it altogether.

In John’s England, a Christian pro-family advocate, Stephen Green of the group Christian Voice, was recently arrested by the South Wales Police “Minorities Support Unit” simply for passing out a Biblical flier opposed to homosexuality outside a “gay” Mardi Gras event. The charges were dropped, but free speech and religious liberty are in jeopardy in this once-Christian land, with UK police hot on the trail of “homophobic” speech.

Consider the case of 67-year-old Christian street preacher Harry Hammond, a sufferer of Asperger’s Syndrome who in 2001 was holding a sign in the town square of Bournemouth with this horribly subversive message: “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism.” After Hammond was physically harassed by youths, with water poured on him and mud thrown at him, police arrested him (not the thugs) after receiving complaints from homosexuals about his placard.

Local magistrates found the preacher guilty under a 1986 law of using abusive, threatening or insulting speech that could cause harassment or distress to nearby homosexuals–even though it was Hammond who was harmed! Hammond’s sign was ordered destroyed as if it were a dangerous weapon (which seems to be how radical “queer” activists regard Biblical truth). The case was appealed to a High Court after Hammond died, but according to the Christian Voice, “the Court held that the magistrates were entitled to find the sign to be insulting because it appeared to relate homosexuality and lesbianism to immorality.” Click HERE for another good article about Hammond’s case.

Direct, Biblical speech condemning homosexuality as wrong or–God forbid–leading to hell appears to be the most likely target of “hate crimes” prosecution (or speech likely NOT to be protected by the courts) in these early days of government action protecting homosexuality as a “civil right” or “human right.”

Ralph Ovadal is a man who uses very direct speech to rally the public against the homosexual agenda. In 1996, in Madison, Wisconsin, Ovadal, then with Wisconsin Christians United (WCU), was assaulted while protesting a pro-homosexual event at a local elementary school. Despite the hateful motivation of the assailant (he despised one of the WCU signs, “Homosexuality Is Wrong“), and the existence of a strong “hate crimes” law in Madison, the attacker was never charged with a “hate crime.” Indeed, the battery charge against him was dropped and he received just a slap on the wrist despite the severe injuries caused to Ovadal.

How differently would the case have been handled had it been Ovadal who viciously attacked a homosexual protester?

II. Step Two in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Create a definition of the family that is unacceptable to Bible believers and traditional religions, then mandate that all social agencies, corporations and ministries adhere to that state definition.

Earlier this year in Boston, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that it was closing down its adoption agency after 100 years of operation, because the Church could not countenance placing adoptive children in homosexual households, which the Vatican regards as “gravely immoral.” Placing children in homosexual-led homes is required under the state’s pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law.

“Gay” rights trumps common sense, religious freedom and the best interest of children, again.

In California, a state “domestic partnership” (DP) law requires that large companies doing business with the government provide DP coverage for their employees. The state law followed a 1997 law in San Francisco (copied by New York and other major cities) that forced local businesses doing business with the city to carry DP benefits for homosexual couples if they offer benefits for married couples.

If moral-minded businessmen, landlords–and even Christian schools and popular ministries–are forced to recognize and reward sinful homosexual couples, then the practice of their religion has been banned in this key area of their life.

III. Step Three in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Add homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (“gender identity”) to the list of criteria for “civil rights” laws–and “diversity” policies in corporations. Then enforce these laws and policies against Christians, chipping away at the concept of religious exemptions.

Universities like Ohio State and Arizona State, citing their school’s “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination codes, have asserted that homosexual students have the right hold to leadership positions in campus Christian groups despite the “gay” students’ refusal to sign a Christian Statement of Faith (part of which proscribes homosexual practice). It is interesting to note that the campus ministries are willing to let homosexual students attend their meetings but not to assume leadership roles if they reject the group’s core beliefs.

Seems reasonable to me: do I have a “right” to be on the Board of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force?