TAKE ACTION — Express your gratitude to Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicana (pictured right) for denying homosexual activist Thomas Gumbleton access to parishioners.

——————————–

Excerpted from No Catholic Venue in Tucson for Gay Activist Bishop Gumbleton, by Hilary White, published Jan 31, 2007, by LifeSite News:

One of the Catholic Church’s most infamously disobedient bishops has been refused a venue in Catholic Churches of the diocese of Tucson, Arizona after his decades-long repudiation of the moral and doctrinal teachings of his Church.

MSNBC reports that Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, an auxiliary bishop in the diocese of Detroit, was invited to speak by the anti-Catholic group Call to Action, an organization that campaigns against Catholic teachings on chastity, holy orders and marriage. Among his many other questionable associations, Gumbleton was the founding president of the very liberal and frequently [homosexual] movement associated Pax Christi organization.

Tucson Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas has barred Gumbleton from speaking at Catholic churches in the diocese citing Call to Action’s opposition to Catholic moral and doctrinal teaching…

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from the Jan 23, 2007, press release from REAL Women of Canada:

On July 17, 2006, REAL Women of Canada laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the same-sex marriage case, which was handed down in June 2003. We stated in our complaint that his actions in that case gave rise to an apprehension of bias for a number of reasons, including the fact that Chief Justice McMurtry’s daughter was a lesbian living in a homosexual union at the time the case was argued…

Further, two weeks subsequent to the court’s decision, the Chief Justice partied with two of the litigants and a photograph of the Chief Justice and the litigants together is widely available on the internet.

In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:

… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.

The Council, however, was well aware that the issue before the Court was whether same-sex unions should be legally recognized, i.e., whether they should be recognized and acquire legal rights. That is, the case dealt specifically with the legal rights of same-sex unions – a matter which directly related to Judge McMurtry’s daughter’s own personal relationship…

The Council, however, concluded that there is no basis to support the view that Chief Justice McMurtry should have recused himself on the basis of the personal relationship of members of his family.

This conclusion, however, flies directly in the face of the guidelines of the Canadian Judicial Council set out in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” (1998), Chapter 6:

Conflicts of Interest

• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially.
• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.
• The potential for conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those close to him or her) conflicts with the judge’s duty to adjudicate impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
• … a judge … should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to reasoned suspicion of lack of impartiality.
• …a judge should disclose on the record anything which might support a plausible argument in favour of disqualification ….

It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry.

Continue reading at REAL Women of Canada…

Mike Adams poses questions to those who have elected to remain members of United Methodist congregations, despite evolving views on heaven/hell, sin, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, and more.

If you have left a congregation because leadership became apostate on the issue of homosexuality, we’d like to hear your story.

——————————

Excerpted from Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Legs, by Dr. Mike Adams, published Jan 31, 2007, by Townhall:

1. A young pastor was conducting a UMC 101 course required of all prospective members of a small Methodist Church. When asked whether there was such a thing as hell, she answered “I’m not sure and I don’t know that it’s important.” Given that Jesus talked about hell more than anyone else in the Bible, isn’t the question of whether hell exists an “important” one? If there is no hell, doesn’t that make Jesus a liar?

2. A Methodist preacher makes the statement “We don’t like to talk about sin here at (deleted) United Methodist Church.” Instead, he likes to talk about “grace.” If there is no sin and there is no hell, what was Jesus saving people from? Does silence on the issue of “hell” and “sin” render the term “grace” completely meaningless?

3. A man asks the Methodist preacher to pray to give Congress the courage to protect the institution of marriage from homosexuality. The preacher corrects him in front of the entire congregation saying “give Congress wisdom as difficult decisions are considered.” Why did she publicly correct him? Was he out of line?

Continue reading at Townhall…

“It sounds so churchy, but I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.'”

–Jay Bakker, son of disgraced televangelists Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker, and co-founder of “Revolution Church” as quoted in Punk Pastor Preaches Tolerance, Compassion,
by Rebecca Lee, published Dec 8, 2006, by ABC News

Spiritual hubris? Yes. A new “truth”? Sorry, Jay. Thankfully, we have a bit more reliable divine revelation and church tradition upon which to base our moral beliefs than the young Bakker’s alleged private revelation, which would cause us to re-write the Bible. We recommend to Jay Bakker and to everyone the excellent website of Rob Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net), author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, for a bit more thorough analysis of God’s attitude toward homosexual sin. More on this latest Bakker scandal later. — Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Sutton: Nothing Wrong With Sharing Bed With Page, by Chet Brokaw, published Jan 25, 2007, by Yankton Daily:

A state senator accused of sexually groping a male legislative page last February testified Wednesday night that he saw nothing wrong with sharing a motel bed with the lad.

Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau, is the subject of a special state Senate inquiry into an allegation that he fondled Austin Wiese, 19, now a college student.

“I didn’t do what Austin is claiming that I did,” Sutton told a lawyer hired by the Senate to grill him…

Asked whether he thought it was appropriate to climb into bed with his legislative page, Sutton responded that Wiese “was like a nephew or a son to me and my wife. I had no concern.”…

Asked directly Wednesday if he groped Wiese, Sutton responded several times: “I didn’t do anything.”

Sutton, who is in the insurance business, said he was shocked when Wiese called him on the phone and made the allegation.

“I was stunned in disbelief,” Sutton said. “All that was going through my mind was … my wife, my family, my career.”

Continue reading at Yankton Press…

By Peter LaBarbera

One of the fascinating aspects of the Canadian and European stories on pro-homosexuality “hate speech” enforcement is the mainstream nature of the speech now being censored. In Canada, a politician is fined for saying homosexuality is not natural or normal. Wow. Shocking, hateful stuff.

Now in France, a Member of Parliament (below) is fined for saying that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. Horrors. Jail this menace to society!

Two observations: 1) I sure am glad to be living in the good ol’ USA, where we have a First Amendment. When the American “Gay” Left tires of simply twisting the motives of pro-family advocates (e.g., comparing us to Nazis and calling Christians the “American Taliban,” as is the habit of lesbian blogger and prodigious name-caller Pam Spaulding), they will grow jealous of “hate speech” prosecutions abroad and start ratcheting up calls to ban “homophobic” speech here. Mark my words.

When that happens, the “gay” cause will lose considerable support from moderates and liberty-loving Americans who despise censorship. If it doesn’t, America as a free nation will be no longer. The good sign is that already, people are tiring of the creeping pro-“gay” Big Brotherism in corporations and the culture, dictating what can and cannot be said (e.g., “spouse”: bad; “partner”: good).

2) Where is the outcry among the American “gay” opinion-molders on the punishment abroad of Judeo-Christian “anti-gay” speech? Where is the angst over the erosion of freedom of speech in the once-“free” West? Why aren’t more homosexual leaders and writers swearing off such tyranny here, perhaps recognizing that the censors might turn on them some day?

One thing is clear: our noble cause of stopping the creation and proliferation of laws granting “rights” based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) is as much a freedom issue as it is a moral one.

——————————

The following is excerpted from French MP Fined for Using Homophobic Language, published Jan 25, 2007, by Independent (South Africa):

A court fined a conservative member of the French parliament €3 000 (about R28 000) on Thursday for abusive comments about homosexuals, the first time a politician had been prosecuted under a two-year-old law banning homophobic language.

Christian Vanneste, a member of the ruling UMP party, was quoted in the media as saying homosexuality was “inferior” to heterosexuality and would be “dangerous for humanity if it was pushed to the limit”.

The court also ordered him to pay €2 000 in damages and costs to three gay and lesbian groups who brought the case.

Gay and civil rights groups welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement it “aimed to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimise verbal and physical attacks”.

Continue reading in Independent…

According to French Politician Fined Under Gay Hate Law, published Jan 25, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…The maximum Vanneste faced was imprisonment…

Following the Douai court ruling gay activists who leveled the charge said in a statement they will continue to charge politicians who target gays, adding that hate speech inspires and legitimizes verbal and physical attacks.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Ex-“gay” Christian activist James Hartline is drawing attention to a disconcerting announcement from San Diego LGBT Pride:

San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride has established a first-ever, paid internship position for a high school senior as part of its resolution to further involve LGBT youth into the long-term planning of Pride’s annual celebrations.

The position, which partly involves direct outreach into the youth community, sponsorship involvement and volunteer training, begins in January and runs until the end of August with the possibility of an extension…

“The voice of teenage youth is an integral part of the everyday planning process for our annual events,” said Ron deHarte, executive director of San Diego LGBT Pride. “The internship program is yet another growth step of the organization.”

We at Americans For Truth share Hartline’s concern and implore San Diego residents to speak out against the involvement of teenagers in planning and organizing an event which celebrates sexual perversion — especially given the track record of this particular “festival”:

In 2005, San Diego Gay Pride employed five registered sex offenders in voluntary and supervisory positions. One of those employees, Marty the Clown, a convicted pedophile, was hired to work in the San Diego Gay Pride Children’s Garden!

In 2006, San Diego Gay Pride continued its dangerous campaign against the young kids of San Diego by allowing children to march in its parade with porn-promoters, male prostitutes and nearly-nude male strippers.

No responsible adult who knows the reality of homosexual celebrations like “gay pride” parades would countenance placing teenagers or even younger children in that environment. And that’s just the point: many “gay” activists (and their straight liberal allies) are so committed to pushing for acceptance of homosexuality that they are not responsible enough to protect children. Parents, beware.

Some homosexuals would agree with Hartline, but many activists are so far removed from traditional morality and desensitized to the debauchery that surrounds “gay” celebrations that they’ve lost all perspective on how perverted the events are. One of the saddest spectacles I have observed over and over at “gay pride” parades are the young, impressionable children brought to view or even march in the parades as if they were being put on by Macy’s.

These are celebrations of homosexuality, for goodness sake! Isn’t it bad enough that adults are involved? In the name of “rights” and “equality,” a sin lobby corrupts children. — Peter LaBarbera

This story illustrates the disturbing neo-reality toward which our nation is advancing as we embrace various homosexual “rights.” It will not work both ways: If homosexual adoption is “good,” adoption by faithful Christians (who oppose homosexuality) will be viewed as “evil” and will ultimately be disallowed. If so-called “homophobic hate speech” is outlawed, Christians will necessarily forfeit freedom of speech and will be persecuted for preaching repentance from homosexuality. Law cannot be morally neutral. — Sonja Dalton

——————————-

Excerpted from Adopt? We Were ‘Too Idealistic’, published Jan 25, 2007, by Telegraph (UK):

…My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.

We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months…

We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians…

We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.

We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.

The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose…

At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?

Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…

If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.

Continue reading in Telegraph…