An excerpt from the transcript of the Dec 20, 2006, press conference:

The following are remarks by President Bush in a press conference this morning:

Indian Treaty Room
10 a.m. EST

Q [from “Ann”] Thank you, sir. Mary is having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you’ve said it’s your preference — you believe that it’s preferable to have one man-one woman —

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly. On Mary Cheney, this is a personal matter for the Vice President and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there’s nothing private when you happen to be the President or the Vice President — I recognize that. And I know Mary, and I like her, and I know she’s going to be a fine, loving mother.

“I do not believe people in Wisconsin would have voted ‘no’ on civil unions,” Doyle said.

Governor Doyle may not want to believe it, but Wisconsin residents DID vote “no” to civil unions. State Rep. Mark Gundrum says it very well (see below).

———————————–

Excerpted from Doyle: Take New Look at Civil Unions, by David Callender and Judith Davidoff, published Dec 18, 2006, by Capital Times:

Gov. Jim Doyle (pictured right) said today that he believes the fight over legalizing same-sex civil unions in Wisconsin is not finished.

Despite the passage of a constitutional amendment last month banning same-sex marriages, Doyle said in an interview that he believes civil unions are “one of the things people should be looking at and discussing.”

Doyle said he believes it was unfair for opponents of gay marriage to include a provision in the amendment that would ban any relationships “substantially similar” to marriage.

The amendment, which passed with 59 percent of the vote, also defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I do not believe people in Wisconsin would have voted ‘no’ on civil unions,” Doyle said.

The governor said he believes a new constitutional amendment proposed by state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, to ban discrimination could be a way to blunt the effects of the marriage ban.

…But Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin (pictured left), does not believe civil unions would be permitted under Wisconsin’s recently passed ban on same-sex marriage.

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits
and then, once granted,
redefine the institution of marriage completely,
to demand the right to marry
not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes
but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

— Homosexual Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave,
published December/January 1994 by OUT Magazine (page 161)
(cited by Robert Knight at Talking Points on Marriage)

Excerpted from Furor in Italy Over “Gay Nativity” in Parliament, by Philip Pullella, published Dec 20, 2006, by Reuters:

Two leftists in Italy’s ruling coalition on Wednesday outraged fellow lawmakers by placing four dolls representing homosexual couples near the baby Jesus in the official nativity scene in parliament.

The two parliamentarians from the small “Rose in the Fist” party said their gesture was to promote the legalization of gay marriage and granting legal recognition to unmarried couples.

Bruno Mellano and Donatella Poretti placed the Barbie and Ken-type dolls in the parliamentary nativity scene, each couple lying down embraced among the shepherds witnessing the birth of Jesus.

Each of the two doll couples, which parliamentary ushers removed after a few minutes, wore miniature placards with slogans in favor of gay rights.

“This is a vulgar and unacceptable double attack against both a (national) institution as well as a religious symbol,” a group of women parliamentarians of the opposition conservative Forza Italia party said in a statement.

Luca Volonte, a member of the small centrist opposition Union of Christian Democrats, called the gesture a “pure attack against the religion practiced by the majority of Italians”.

Continue reading at Reuters…

“I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.
A child needs a mother and a father.
I could not imagine my childhood without my mother.
I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother.”

By Peter LaBarbera

President Bush has been put in an awful spot, thanks to Mary Cheney’s “gay parenting” activism. Ms. Cheney, a proud lesbian, is pregnant through artificial insemination and will raise her child with lesbian partner Heather Poe. The media are reporting Bush’s comment to People magazine: “I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I’m happy for her.”

Seeking to downplay the hubbub, White House spokesman Tony Snow actually made it worse when he was asked at a press briefing if the President still believes “that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are at a disadvantage.” Snow said:

“He does not make comments on that, and nor will I.” Snow added that the President still believes in the ideal of traditional marriage as the best environment for raising children, but “he believes that Mary Cheney’s child will, in fact, have loving parents.”

Note the perfectly PC, “nonjudgmental” tenor of Snow’s dodge. Shouldn’t pro-family Americans who helped re-elect Mr. Bush expect a bit more than this on a matter that strikes at the core of what a family is?

President Bush has been too timid about using his Bully Pulpit to promote pro-family values, but occasionally he stumbles and uses it to advance the opposite. In this case, he could have declined comment altogether or, better, used this situation as a teaching moment to reaffirm the natural superiority of the God-ordained family.

Maybe the latter is asking too much of Mr. Bush given his relationship with the Cheneys, but I do wonder why a president who talks so openly about his Christian faith was unprepared or unwilling to apply it logically to this touchy situation. Assuming that as an evangelical Christian, Mr. Bush believes homosexual practice is sinful, are we to believe that this man who faced down Islamic radicalism and launched the War on Terror is afraid to say what he really believes about lesbians having children to be raised in homes that are fatherless by design?

And isn’t it ironic that the daughter of Second Lady Lynne Cheney -– an ardent intellectual foe of Political Correctness -– is now being used to advance the PC idea of homosexual parenting?

Relational ‘Gay’ Activism

The whole Mary Cheney-baby episode typifies how the “gay” agenda advances in our emotionally-driven culture. The personal becomes political, and “open and proud gays” use their relationships with family members, friends and co-workers to persuade them to embrace behaviors with which they once disagreed — or at least go silent about them. This is the goal of homosexual activists’ “coming out” strategy, which is brilliant in its manipulation of human nature.

“I’m gay, so you can’t be anti-gay,” is the basic approach, and then parents are brought in through groups like PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) to expand the “gay”-positive network. Christians talk about “friendship evangelism,” but it’s the homosexuals and their families and friends who have proved themselves adept at changing society — and undermining Biblical morality and tradition — through personal relationships.

“Coming out” as a tactic is most cynical when encouraged among young people: homosexual school clubs called GSA’s (”Gay/Straight Alliances”) are merely the application of this approach to radically change a generation’s attitudes toward homosexuality and gender confusion (”transgenderism”). And it’s working: just ask the many Christian parents whose high school children have scolded them about being “homophobes.”

Bush Drops the Ball

By uttering platitudes rather than principles about Mary Cheney, the President of the United States missed a golden opportunity to instruct a nation about the gold standard of traditional marriage as the optimal environment for raising children. He blinked when put in the awkward position of either telling the truth or pretending that Ms. Cheney’s is not unlike any other (wonderful) pregnancy. It is different, by a long shot. Not that she won’t have maternal love for her child; of course she will. But the child is being brought into a household where the most important person in his or her world will be modeling lesbian behavior, which is changeable and always wrong, and an affront to a holy and loving Creator.

Finding some role-modeling man in her circle of friends will never substitute for the pre-designed absence of a dad in Mary Cheney’s child’s life. And ethically speaking, we must not treat her situation any differently just because she is a well-connected, Republican celebrity.

Of course, the radical feminists (a not insignifcant number of whom are lesbian) are loving this. In the old days, when women embraced lesbianism with its inherent rejection of men, it was understood that they would be denied the joys of motherhood. (Many radical lesbian activists relished the assault on “patriarchal” family structures.) There was a certain divine and natural justice to that.

Why is it that people believe what the Bible teaches, right up until the time that it applies to themselves or their children?

Patti and Jeff Ellis are like thousands of other parents. They were conservative, Bible-believing parents and they understood that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin. They believed it until their teenage son announced he was homosexual.

Now the Ellises have abandoned the Word of God in order to condone their confused boy’s destructive sexual choices and they have embarked on a quest to “reinterpret” Scripture. They cite the story of the adulterous woman as evidence of Jesus’ forgiveness toward sexual sin and Jeff Ellis asks:

“If the story were to be exchanged with a gay man, would Jesus have responded differently? Would he have said, ‘You have my blessing in stoning this man to death?’ I don’t think so.”

Now, of course, Jeff Ellis knows that no serious Christian advocates stoning homosexuals to death. And he mysteriously elects to ignore Jesus’ closing admonition to the adulterous woman:

So our response to Mr. Ellis is: Would Jesus have responded differently to your son? We don’t think so. A father who understood the earthly and eternal consequences of homosexuality would, with tears of love in his eyes, tell his precious son the Truth. —Sonja Dalton

———————————–

Apparently, Dr. Albert Mohler was contemplating the same principle, as it relates to the Cheneys, when he composed his Dec 12, 2006, blog entry:

…In order to keep family peace, show love to a loved one, or avoid awkward conversations, major moral issues are simply overlooked. Some even change their position on questions of grave moral significance, only because a relative is involved.

This happens with reference to divorce, cohabitation, homosexuality, adultery, and any number of other issues. It is a habit we must break.

Moral integrity demands clear and convictional moral thinking, based in the infallible wisdom of God’s perfect Word. Love demands that we love persons, no matter what their sin may be. Honesty demands that we admit the difficulty of knowing how to combine moral integrity and love with perfect pitch. The Gospel demands that we tell the truth with love.

No one ever said this was going to be easy. But becoming a moral relativist when a relative is involved is a path the faithful Christian cannot take. We must resist moral relativism — even with relatives.

——————————

The following is excerpted from Evangelicals and Same-Sex Marriage, by Lis Wiehl, published by FOX News:

…Patti and Jeff Ellis, a conservative Christian couple from Atlanta, GA, experienced a similar shock when their 16-year-old son Adam announced he was gay.”Patti and I were devastated,” writes Jeff on his family’s website, Familyacceptance.com. “Our response was typical. We prayed for a miracle. We pleaded, ‘God, please remove this burden from our son and our whole family. If Adam is truly gay, then please change him.'”

Patti and Jeff now say their prayers have been answered, but not in the way you might think; in fact, not only have they come to accept Adam’s homosexuality, they both now favor laws which permit gays to marry.

“This is the same as civil rights,” says Patti. “More parents need to stand up for their children.” …

The key to the Ellis’ “conversion,” they say, was being able to put a face on the otherwise abstract issue of homosexuality. “It’s not about the gays,” says Patti, “It’s about the Ellises.” Or as Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, puts it, people like the Ellises “go from an abstract idea to a real person with a real name and a real story,” and come to understand “there’s no negative impact on their own lives to have gays and lesbians living out in the open.” …

For Jeff Ellis, the Bible was clear that being gay, much less being gay and married, was a sin in the highest order. Rev. Bob Hudak, of the Church of Nativity in Fayetteville, Georgia, puts it even more bluntly. “If I were to take the Bible literally,” says Hudak, “every homosexual should be put to death because of what Leviticus says.”

Nevertheless, with some interpretation, the Ellises have found other passages in the Bible that have given them hope, such as John 8:7, in which Jesus says to a crowd criticizing an adulterous woman, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Jeff asks: “If the story were to be exchanged with a gay man, would Jesus have responded differently? Would he have said, ‘You have my blessing in stoning this man to death?’ I don’t think so.”

Ultimately, say the Ellises, coming to terms with their son’s homosexuality deepened their beliefs. “Faithful to his word, God answered our prayer,” says Jeff. “However, the changes that took place were not in Adam but in us. God…opened our eyes to the fact that he had created Adam gay for his own reasons and we, in our arrogance, viewed God’s creation as flawed.”

The Ellises now view their son’s homosexuality as a kind of blessing. “I believe God’s purpose for making Adam gay was to show Patti and I, and the rest of the world, the true meaning of unconditional love,” says Jeff.

Parents, please be aware that Abercrombie & Fitch also owns abercrombie, Hollister, and Ruehl 925.

From the homosexual activist organization Human Rights Campaign, posted Dec 19, 2006:

Joins Top Companies for GLBT Equality

HRC is pleased to announce that four more companies have achieved a perfect score of 100 percent for their workplace policies for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. Abercrombie & Fitch, Ameriprise, Brinker International and The Walt Disney Co. have received updated scores of 100 percent following the publication of our corporate report card, the Corporate Equality Index.

“We are proud to count Abercrombie & Fitch and the others among more than 140 American corporations that fully support all their employees,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “By achieving the top score, these companies have demonstrated a commitment to their employees and to all Americans who support fairness and equality.”