US Federal Law does not recognize homosexual “marriage” — so why did a US customs agent allow two male U.S. citizens to enter the country using one customs form, as though they were a legally married couple?

Excerpted from Conklin: Gay legislator’s marriage is about being a couple, by Melanie Conklin, published Dec 13, 2006, by Wisconsin State Journal:

Rep. Mark Pocan [78th Assembly District, WI – Democrat] just got back from Indonesia – but this two-week trip was more than just a vacation for the Madison legislator. It was his honeymoon.

On Nov. 24 in Toronto, Pocan and his partner of four-plus years, Philip Frank, got [“married”].

Of course, the couple couldn’t legally tie the knot in Wisconsin…

Frank and Pocan flew to Toronto on Thanksgiving and were married the next day at the wedding chamber in Toronto’s City Hall. Kyle Rae, an openly gay member of the Toronto City Council who got to know Pocan when Pocan was on the Dane County Board, helped with the arrangements.

Rae told Pocan they are glad to have ceremonies for gay couples at City Hall – no shotguns involved. “Often couples who get married at City Hall have to be there, so he said when gay couples come in they’re all happy they are getting married and it’s a nice change,” Pocan says…

It hit home for Pocan that he is a married man when he returned to the U.S. and the custom’s agent in Los Angeles asked if they needed one form or two. “We told her we only needed one, we came together as family, and that we’d gotten married in Toronto,” Pocan says. “She told us she thought it was nice that they allowed that in Canada.”

…Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk …[said] “It’s all about commitment and why it matters and the underlying truth that we all long for relationships and commitment.”

She was thrilled to hear his news. “It’s just such a joy.”

Continue reading on Wisconsin State Journal…

Our friend James Hartline, a former homosexual, from San Diego posted this information December 10, 2006:

Starbucks Is Major Funding Source For Radical Gay Causes – Churchgoers Must Decide: A Convenient Cup Of Coffee Or A Stand For Jesus Christ

Emblem From SD Gay Pride Website
2006 San Diego Gay Pride
Proudly Sponsored By Starbucks
(http://sandiegopride.org/12/Sponsors.htm)

Millions Of Christians Buy Starbucks Coffee Everyday.

The Result: Those purchases are funding the Anti-Christian Radicalized Homosexual Movement.

JHReport Action Alert – Without question, one of the largest American corporate promoters of the anti-family, radicalized homosexual agenda, continues to be coffee giant Starbucks. While children were forced to watch degrading images of male prostitutes, pornographers and other deviant participants in this year’s 2006 San Diego Gay Pride Parade, Starbucks was sponsoring this hellish event to make sure that it was well-funded (http://sandiegopride.org/12/Sponsors.htm).

In 2006, Starbucks’ obsession with promoting the political activism of radical gay crusaders was not limited to the pornographic San Diego Gay Pride event. Indeed, this year, Starbucks extended its financial support to one of the most vehemently anti-christian homosexual media groups in America: GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

From our friends at MassResistance: A letter to the editor from a Massachusetts United Church of Christ “pastor” who is responding to Tom Mountain’s article about a GLSEN activist/grade school social worker explaining “transgender” to a class of third graders, without their parents’ permission.

Likewise, here in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago, “Parish Minister” Julie Denny-Hughes of Palatine’s Countryside Unitarian Universalist “Church” passionately defended the use of “Perks of Being a Wallflower“ by teachers in District 214. “Perks” is written at a third or fourth grade reading level, but was planned for a high school class. Should you find this “book” on your child’s required or recommended reading list, you might be interested to know that it offers quite an education in masturbating with a hot dog, forced oral sex, forceable sodomy, voyeurism, attempted drunken sex with a dog, and so on. (Read the excerpts for yourself.)

We’ve heard quite enough from the UCC and Unitarian leaders. Where are the Bible-believing pastors and youth ministers (the ones like Pastor Vincent Fields)? Their voices are sorely needed. — Sonja Dalton

New low in narrow-mindedness
By Reverend Richard Malmberg/ Guest column
Published Nov 15, 2006, in Newton Tab

Flaunting his biases with characteristic reliance on hearsay information, Tom Mountain accused Franklin School Principal Cindy Marchand of overreacting to an irate parent. As a Franklin parent, I know her to be a competent and knowledgeable principal. She was right to defend her staff, especially such a dedicated and professional social worker as Laura Perkins. Further, Ms. O’Shea should have been reprimanded for humiliating a Franklin family and attempting to derail a school meeting to press her own agenda. Other parents present at Curriculum Night confirm that Ms. Marchand handled an awkward situation calmly and capably. I generally try to ignore Tom Mountain’s weekly bitter tirades. They do little to edify, and nothing to enhance the civility of public discourse in Newton. At the risk of responding in kind, I have to say that his column in the Nov. 8 TAB reached a new low in mean-spirited narrow-mindedness.

I have had kids in Franklin School for more than eight years, and had numerous contacts with the family whose presence seems to so outrage Mr. Mountain and Ms. O’Shea. It might surprise them both that my first conversation with the parent who underwent gender reassignment took place at a Little League game. Our sons were on the same team. As we sat in our folding chairs, we had a friendly and stimulating conversation. When I told him I was a minister, the conversation turned to Biblical scholarship. He (then still living as a man) was obviously quite well-read and genuinely interested in the subject. I learned that he is an active lay leader in his own church.

Only after the “teachable moment” Mr. Mountain described did I learn through the Franklin grapevine that this other Little League dad was going through a gender reassignment. I confess that for a while after that, I felt a little awkward – my problem. I regret not being more openly supportive during what must have been a difficult time for their family. I admire the quiet dignity and courage they display through it all. They have not allowed the self-appointed sexuality police to harass them out of full participation in the community. Newton is fortunate to have such solid citizens, active in their congregation, supporting their kids, their school and pursuing happiness in our midst. Their modest refusal to hide makes our city safer for diversity.

I find it interesting that Mr. Mountain, champion of traditional family values, hints at snarky disbelief that this couple remained married after gender reassignment. With divorce rates what they are in our society, he should celebrate a durable commitment and intact family. Mindless devotion to a “Leave It to Beaver” mirage of “traditional family” is simply idolatry. Our fixation on an imagined norm undermines our ability to value real families whatever shape they take. We endanger the actual relationships that sustain us, while damaging our psychic and spiritual well-being. Consider the tragically self-loathing, self-destructive Rev. Ted Haggard. He crusaded against gay marriage in public, and engaged in risky gay sex and drug abuse in secret. This man of deep faith and extraordinary charisma was twisted by intolerant theology that had no room for the man God created him to be.

Excerpted from Website Aimed at ‘Tweens’ Promotes Homosexuality, by Bob Unruh, published Dec 14, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

A website that targets its messages to ‘tweens,’ which it identifies as those ages 9-14, is promoting homosexuality to those children because the idea of one-man-and-one-woman only is “so last century.”

The website [Kidzworld] also is lobbying children to oppose the policy by the Boy Scouts of America against allowing homosexuals to lead troops of young boys, and advocates for the “rights” of homosexuals to adopt children.

…The website’s agenda is unabashed throughout its messages to the children:

• “Isn’t the most important issue to have two parents who love you? Does it really matter if a child as two mommies or two daddies?” it tells readers.
• In reference to a Florida law banning homosexuals from adopting, it says, “Steve and Roger have done more than most straight people applying for adoption. They have proven their dedication, love and ability to provide a healthy and stable home for their kids. Florida should congratulate them not punish them with outdated laws and narrowminded ‘tudes!”
• To “molly_holly,” who says her boyfriend is “gay” but “he likes me too,” the website responds: “What do you mean, he’s your boyfriend? Do ya mean he is your friend and he’s a boy? Or do ya mean he’s crushin’ on ya… like he’s your hottie? Cuz if this boy’s gay, I think you’re gonna have to get use to being his good friend. Sort of a Will and Grace set up. I hope you’re cool enough to not have any issues about his sexuality, cuz homophobia (the fear of gay peeps) is so last century.”
• In a book review, it says: “The only difference is, this book is about Paul, a 16 year-old gay boy who has fallen in love with the new boy in town, Noah. It’s really cool to have a book that portrays something other than the cliché cheerleader/football player love story…”

Regarding the Boy Scouts, whose dispute went to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that as a private organization the scouts are allowed to set moral standards for their leaders, the site provided a link for children to complain to the scouts, and then noted “a lot of pressure” is being put on the scouts to change.

Then the site provided a link for other volunteering opportunities that connected with a promotion for World AIDS Day.

Kidzworld home page shows its games and entertainment attractions

The site’s privacy disclosure notes that when children age 12 and up sign up on the website, their parents are sent an e-mail notifying them, and for children younger than 12, their parents must respond to an e-mail before they can sign up. However, signing up is not required to view any of the information, only to participate in the chat rooms and other options.

And, none of the pro-homosexual comments was found on the first page, the location most parents who actually do inspect a site would be most likely to check out, either. They were found embedded in the site as a reader follows various links.

…I clicked on ‘make a baby’ – and got All About Gay Parents,” he wrote.

…”kizzy333,” age 13, also said, “I’m not gay but I really dislike homophobic peeps. If two peeps of the same sex are in love, what’s the harm in it? My mum’s friend is a lesbian and she hasn’t changed. She’s a really loving parent too. It’s da bomb!”

The site features advertising from HarperCollins Children’s Books, the Cheetah Girls and GameBoy products, among other children’s attractions.

The site, which says it has had 4.4 million unique visitors, explains it is “the ultimate in online entertainment for kids nine to 14 (a.k.a. Tweens.)” and allows that age group of children to “interact, communicate and explore the digital world” and where they can “play, discover, voice, gather and belong.”

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…

Excerpted from New Jersey Lawmakers Pass Transgender Rights Bill, published Dec 14, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality PlanetOut:

The New Jersey state Assembly on Thursday passed a bill that would make the Garden State the ninth in the nation to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The bill, passed by the state Senate on Monday, now goes to Gov. Jon Corzine, who is expected to sign it.

“The legislation in New Jersey represents a huge civil rights victory for transgender communities,” Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said in a statement.

“I applaud the amazing efforts of the Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey, Garden State Equality, and local advocates who showed that when we stand up for what’s right, we can win. While we celebrate that one-third of the US population is now covered, NCTE continues to fight for explicitly transgender-inclusive protections on the federal level.”

New Jersey’s new law prohibits discriminatory practices in employment, housing and public accommodations based on “gender identity or expression” — the legislative language that covers transgender people.

Continue reading at PlanetOut…

Excerpted from Too Much Information?, by Peggy Noonan, published May 5, 2005, by Wall Street Journal:

I was at a wedding, standing just off the dance floor, when a pleasant young man in his 20s approached, introduced himself and asked where I’d had my hair done. I shook his offered hand and began to answer, but before I could he said, “I’m gay, by the way.”

I nodded as if this were my business, but thought: I wonder why a total stranger thinks I want to know what he wishes to do with his genitals? What an odd way to say hello.

We live in a time in which people routinely violate their own privacy.

I don’t think the young man lacked a sense of privacy. I suspect if I’d said, “Tell me your annual salary,” he would have bridled. That’s personal.

Maybe he wanted me to approve (“That’s wonderful!”) or disapprove (“Unclean!”). Maybe he felt compelled to announce his orientation because homosexuals are so often told that not to declare is to be closeted, and to be closeted is shameful. Maybe he was doing what he thinks he must to do to show integrity.

Whatever his thinking, it has occurred to me that in the old, clucking, busybody America it was not unusual to meet people who needed to be told, “That’s none of your business.”

But in the new and infinitely stranger America there are a lot of people who need to be told, “Buddy, that’s none of my business.”

Or, as people began saying about five years ago, “Too much information!”

Continue reading in Wall Street Journal…

Excerpted from Preschoolers and Penquins: Propaganda Pawns, by Michael Medved, published Nov 28, 2006, by USA Today:

…A few families of students in Shiloh, a town of 11,000 people 20 miles east of St. Louis, object to the general availability of And Tango Makes Three, an illustrated storybook that loosely follows the real-life story of two male penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo who adopted a fertilized egg and raised the chick as their own. With its enthusiastic celebration of little Tango’s good fortune at possessing “two fathers,” and with the narrative’s fanciful suggestion that the zoo keeper “thought to himself … they must be in love,” the book clearly took a position in the ongoing arguments about same-sex coupling and homosexual families. In fact, the story concludes with the observation that Silo and Roy “discovered each other in 1996 and have been a couple ever since.”

International news stories reported, however, that their partnership proved short-lived: As soon as Scrappy, a sultry, seductive female from San Diego’s Sea World, arrived in their enclosure, Silo instantly took notice, straightened up and mated with the irresistible gal — leaving his guy pal behind (an outcome never described, of course, in the propagandistic story book for kids).

Despite parental requests that school librarians remove the controversial volume from the open shelves for young readers ( it’s designed for ages 4 to 8 ) and relocate it to a special section for “mature issues,” school superintendent Jennifer Filyaw declared that And Tango Makes Three would stay put as an “adorable” and “age appropriate” offering.

Grown-up arguments

Regardless of the aesthetic virtues (or shortcomings) of either Happy Feet or And Tango Makes Three, it’s easy to see why even non-partisan parents would object to their targeting of very young children. In school and elsewhere, it makes sense to introduce preteens to ongoing debates about global warming, environmental degradation or the redefinition of marriage and family, but most mothers and fathers would prefer to spare preschoolers from such grown-up arguments.

Some adults may choose to expose the youngsters in their lives to Al Gore’s powerful and skillfully crafted documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, but they will know before they go that they’re taking the kids to an occasionally frightening message movie. In Happy Feet, on the other hand, you’d have no reason to expect so much unhappy and worrisome content — nor would you expect a sweet, gorgeously drawn picture book about cuddling penguins to include potentially explosive hints about [“gay”] marriage and fatherhood. With the celebrated (and controversial) book Heather Has Two Mommies, parents — if not kids — know what to expect. With And Tango Makes Three, many readers (including Lilly Del Pinto, one of the concerned parents in the fight against the book) found themselves unhappily surprised.

As children grow and develop, their natural curiosity and ongoing media exposure will lead them inevitably into divisive issues, which all conscientious parents should prepare to help explain. In the earliest stages of life, however, it makes sense to keep them protected from such conflicts and to avoid using preschoolers — and penguins — as the pawns of propaganda.

Continue reading in USA Today…

This article is the second in a series by my good friend here in Illinois, John Biver, of the Family Taxpayers Network. (To read the first article, click HERE.) We often hear that it’s only the “fundamentalist Christians” on the “radical right” who oppose normalizing homosexuality and that we Christians are determined to impose our belief system on everyone. Well, it’s not only conservative evangelicals and Catholics who recognize the problem; John Biver’s excellent series of articles proves that there is also a strong secular argument against elevating homosexuality to normalcy. — Peter LaBarbera

The following article entitled Privacy v. Revolution, by John Biver, was published Jun 19, 2006, by Family Taxpayer Network:

A year ago writer Peggy Noonan opened her column with a story of having met a young man at a wedding who introduced himself, asked her a question, but before she could answer he went on to say, “I’m gay, by the way.” Noonan wrote:

“I nodded as if this were my business, but thought: I wonder why a total stranger thinks I want to know what he wishes to do with his genitals? What an odd way to say hello.

“We live in a time in which people routinely violate their own privacy.”

Noonan doubted whether the man would have been as open about his annual salary, as that would have been too personal. In the old America, she wrote, people knew certain things were better kept private,

“But in the new and infinitely stranger America there are a lot of people who need to be told, ‘Buddy, that’s none of my business.’”

One of the reasons I’m optimistic about the future of the discussion of morality in this country is that despite decades of work attempting to get every American to discuss their sex life in public, most people still prefer not to. I believe human nature suggests that won’t change any time soon.

A few simple concepts have been pushed to society’s back burner as the heat has been turned up in favor of an extremist social agenda. The honest proponents of this agenda admit that it’s “not a civil rights movement” or “sexual liberation movement” but rather is “a moral revolution.”