From HIV-Positive Rep Seeks Homosexual ‘Marriage’ in IL, by Jim Brown and Jody Brown, published Feb 28, 2007, by One News Now:

An Illinois pro-family group is voicing opposition to what it calls a “counterfeit” marriage bill in the state legislature that seeks to make Illinois “the Massachusetts of the Midwest.”

Illinois’ only openly homosexual representative, Democrat Greg Harris, has introduced HB 1615, which would repeal Illinois’ ban on same-sex “marriages.” Pete LaBarbera of the Chicago-based group Americans for Truth says Harris and other homosexual activists are hoping to wear down Illinois voters, and over time pass what he describes as “radical” legislation.

“Greg Harris is the new homosexual rep representing ‘Boystown,’ which is the homosexual neighborhood in Chicago. He replaces another homosexual,” says LaBarbera. “He is HIV positive and even put … on his resume, publicly, that he has AIDS.” The Americans for Truth spokesman says he finds that both sad and ironic. “He’s bearing a disease that is caused by this lifestyle,” he notes, “and now he wants to take this lifestyle and say that it merits being called ‘marriage.'”

According to LaBarbera, the bill introduced by Harris is “sneakily” called the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” And homosexual activists like Harris, he notes, play long-term politics, whereas many in the pro-family movement play short-term politics.

“The long-term goal of the homosexual activists is to make Illinois ‘the Massachusetts of the Midwest,'” says the pro-family leader. “[T]hey would desperately love to get a state in the Midwest to go for so-called ‘homosexual marriage.'”

For that reason, LaBarbera is encouraging conservatives and people of faith likewise to think long-term. “We must retain the goal of repealing all ‘sexual orientation’ laws — in Illinois and across the nation — since they are incompatible with the basic American freedoms of religion, conscience, and association,” he says on his group’s website. “And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.”

Toward that end, LaBarbera says Americans for Truth will be working with other Illinois pro-family groups to push for another referendum calling on the state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual “marriage.” One pro-traditional marriage referendum, HJRCA 1, he explains, has “languished” in the General Assembly for years. LaBarbera blames what he calls “Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful ‘gay’ lobby.”

TAKE ACTION — Pass this article forward to the executives at your company and contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C. (Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121) to express opposition to the “ENDA Our Freedom” Bill. (ENDA is the pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” Employment Non-Discrimination Act.) Also, call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 456-1414 and ask him to veto any and all pro-homosexual bills that emerge from the Democrat-led Congress.

AN Americans For Truth EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL REPORT

Amy Andre, program manager for Out & Equal, presented a workshop at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s Creating Change conference, November 8-12, 2006, in Kansas City, Missouri, entitled 15 Steps to an Out & Equal Workplace. (AFTAH’s reporters went undercover at the conference because the Task Force ejects critical observers at its events.)

One key initiative revealed by Andre: the promotion of a “spousal equivalency policy” that would require employers to pay homosexuals a higher salary than married heterosexuals.

These are the steps that homosexual activists are recommending for American corporations (our comments are in bold and italics):

(1) Support and attend the annual Out & Equal “Workplace Summit”

(2) Start an “employee resource group” — This employee group will be used to pressure the company to complete the remaining steps.

(3) Offer domestic partner benefits — O&E supports domestic partner benefits for cohabitating heterosexuals as well as homosexual partners.

(4) Include “sexual orientation” in your company’s EEO policy — Such a policy would prevent the company from “discriminating against” homosexuals or bisexuals.

(5) Include “gender identity and expression” in your company’s EEO policy — This policy would prevent an employer from “discriminating against” a transvestite (cross-dresser) or transsexual (who might be considering a “sex change” operation or might be partially or completely “transitioned”), even if this situation creates a problem with clients. (For example, these policies have been used to ensure that a teacher who cross-dresses or proceeds with a “sex-change” operation cannot be fired. Instead, children are expected to understand and cope with this outrageous situation.)

(6) Include LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] workplace diversity training — “Knowing someone who is LGBT changes attitudes” so O&E recommends having the trainer or another employee “come out” during the session — a manipulative tactic.

(7) Support the LGBT community through corporate giving — Although homosexual activists generally express disdain for corporate America, executives are urged to contribute money to promote the normalization of homosexuality.

(8) Recruit and develop LGBT employees

(9) Market to the LGBT community

(10) Create LGBT-specific advertising

(11) Provide LGBT leadership development opportunities

(12) Develop spousal equivalent policies for LGBT employees — See below — this one is very important.

(13) Include LGBT-owned businesses in your supplier diversity program — O&E recommends the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce’s certification program. This policy results in business moving from family-oriented companies to pro-homosexual companies. (Case in point: Wal-Mart.)

(14) Promote an LGBT-friendly corporate culture

(15) Share best practices around LGBT workplace issues

Out & Equal convinces companies that homosexuals comprise both a vital source of talent and a uniquely attractive target market segment. Using data from Witeck-Combs, a pro-homosexual firm, O&E suggests that homosexuals comprise 6 to 7 percent of the population. (Their number far exceeds more scientific estimates that put the figure at 1-3 percent.)

Using their inflated numbers, O&E says the 14 to 16 million homosexuals will spend about $640 billion in 2006. They report that homosexuals are twice as likely to be professionals or managers, are early adopters of new technologies, are brand loyal, and have a higher discretionary income. That enticement, along with a little “social justice” guilt, deceives companies into implementing O&E recommended policies.

First, a corporation would incur additional expense to fund “domestic partner” benefits. Most corporations contribute a substantial portion toward the cost of an employee’s personal health care and some toward the cost of coverage for an employee plus spouse or employee plus spouse/children. O&E recommends that an employer make that same contribution for those who are not married — for instance, a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend or a homosexual partner.

Homosexual “Spousal Supremacy”?
Next, Out & Equal’s “spousal equivalency policy” would require the employer to compensate the homosexual employee for the absence of tax exemption on homosexual partner and children health insurance costs. An employee normally makes a contribution, deducted from his paycheck, toward the cost of his health care coverage. For a married man, that expense is paid with pre-tax or tax-exempt dollars. Because there is no federal recognition of “gay marriage,” although a homosexual may receive domestic partner benefits, his contribution is paid with taxable dollars.

In the example Ms. Andre used (and she did note that the figures would vary according to each unique circumstance), she estimated that the employer would need to pay a homosexual employee with a partner $3787.20/year extra to compensate for the different tax status; that figure would soar to $7006.32/year for a homosexual with a partner and children. The net effect of this concept would be to pay a homosexual with a “partner” thousands of dollars more than a married heterosexual.

And add to that the cost of employee time spent networking, calling or e-mailing, meeting to focus on their “victim” status, lobbying HR/management, etc.

Executives would do well to examine Eastman Kodak, Ford, and Wal-Mart as case studies and to note the negative effect of capitulating to GLBT demands — on corporate revenue, volume, and stock price.

Or they could simply heed the words of one (white, female) activist in a separate Task Force Creating Change session, who expressed disdain for American corporations and said:

“…I am happy to take the white man’s money
and use it to subvert [everything he stands for].”

Out & Equal’s 2007 Workplace Summit will be held September 27-29 at the Hilton in Washington, D.C. Human Resource executives would do well to take their calculators along.

Our culture is increasingly coarse and vulgar. Recent television commercials include one for a new show where the main character talks about a “tiny v*****” (female anatomy) and one for “Interactive Male” (which advertises their service as “the best place for gay and bi-curious guys to meet and hook up for sex, dating or friendships”). Lifetime TV (the channel for women?) is airing another new show called Gay, Straight, or Taken? where single women test their guy-dar (or gay-dar?). If she picks the available straight man, she wins a “luxurious dream getaway” with the bachelor, practically a stranger; if not, the guy she picks wins the trip with his female or male “partner.” Not so long ago, the public would have been outraged at such filth.

Now the cultural sewage spills into our state legislatures which will be debating: Toilets for “Transgenders.” The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition has created a “resource” crudely entitled Peeing in Peace.

“Gender neutral” public toilets are part of the homosexual/”transgender” activist vision of the future — which means women and children will be forced to share restroom facilities with cross-dressing men or with “femme” homosexual men or even potentially with predators who decide to frequent women’s public restrooms. The purpose for exposing the heterosexual majority to mixed gender bathrooms is allegedly to protect the sexually confused from attack or harrassment in men’s public bathrooms. AFTAH categorically condemns violence against any practicing homosexual or cross-dressing person…but we also oppose this radical change to public toilet policy, as well as the waste of taxpayer resources in debating it. — Sonja Dalton

Read more at MassResistance…

“For many weeks prior to the February 27, 2007 school board hearing, community activist James Hartline begged and pleaded for Christians to come and stand up for the kids who are being exposed to the pornography of the San Diego Gay Pride events. Hundreds of San Diego pastors received emails from Hartline. Not one pastor showed up.“

“Out of the 1,700 churches in San Diego County, not one pastor showed up…”

An Action Alert from our friend, James Hartline:

If there hadn’t been any witnesses, most people would not have believed what the superintendent of schools for the San Diego Unified School District told a packed audience during a February 27, 2007 school board meeting. In response to complaints that an elementary school in San Diego, California was exposing small children to pornographic imagery when marching the kids in the San Diego Gay Pride Parade last year, school superintendent Carl H. Cohn stated, “We investigated these concerns and did not find any parents who have a problem with their kids in the gay pride parade.”

Cohn’s response came after James Hartline, a local community activist and child protection advocate, issued a stinging speech condemning the school board’s refusal to stop the children from marching in the parade under the banner of the San Diego Cooperative Charter School. Joining Hartline were eleven other supporters including attorney Robert Sutton and his wife Kim Tran, a Republican candidate for the California State Assembly. In his speech, Sutton likened the battle to save kids from the “gay pride” onslaught to that of the struggle to free the slaves during the 1800’s. Ms. Tran, a mother of five children and numerous foster children, is especially outraged that small children are being marched in a parade that openly displays xxx porn companies and male prostitutes. “I cannot believe that this school board doesn’t do anything about what this charter school is doing to these little children. It is so heartbreaking,” cried Tran.

Kudos to Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness for uncovering the latest media “spin” scam — this one involving a Zogby poll whose results were distorted to promote a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. Turns out in another poll that only 30 percent of active servicemen polled favored — and 59 percent opposed — the idea of letting open homosexuals to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) is introducing a bill in the House today — mischievously called the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act” — to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators today (202-224-3121) and tell them to leave the ban alone, especially during this time of war.

While you’re at it, tell them you oppose creating a federal “Hate Crimes” law including “sexual orientation” and the radical pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” bill ENDA (Employment Non-Discriimination Act) — both of which soon will be pushed in the Democrat-led Congress.

——————————-

From Zogby Poll Spins Push for Gays in Military, published Feb 28, 2007, by Center for Military Readiness (and reprinted in full with permission):

Manufactured “Momentum” for Meehan Bill

In 1993 Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) failed in his attempt to help President Bill Clinton lift the military’s ban on homosexuals in the military. An amendment to strike Senate-passed legislation to codify pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations banning gays from the military, which Meehan sponsored together with liberal Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated overwhelmingly on a 264-169 bi-partisan vote. (Sept. 28, 1993)

Now Meehan is back with similar legislation to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law, a statute that has been upheld as constitutional several times. This time Meehan and his supporters are claiming that the military is on their side, pointing to a poll by Zogby International, released in December 2006.

Using classic P.R. strategy, the Zogby news release highlighted the meaningless “comfort” question, “Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?” Of those responding, 73% said they were. But this is an innocuous question, about as relevant to the controversy as an inquiry about daytime talk shows: “Would you rather watch Ellen DeGeneres’ show or Rosie O’Donnell on The View?”

The key question asked of survey respondents was, “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”

On that question, 26% of respondents agreed, but 37% disagreed. The poll also found that 32% of respondents were “Neutral,” and only 5% said they were “Not sure.”

The 26% of respondents who want the law repealed cannot compete with the combined 69% of people who are opposed or neutral on repeal. This is hardly a mandate for radical change.

Military Knows Best

Polling organizations recognize that respondents who believe a policy is already in place are more likely to favor that policy, while those who know otherwise are less likely.[1] Constant but incorrect assertions that “homosexuals can serve in the military provided that they do not say they are gay” are probably skewing polls of civilians, who mistakenly believe that homosexuals are eligible to serve. People in the military, however, are more likely to understand what the homosexual exclusion law actually says. [See text HERE]

In the most recent poll announced by the Military Times newspapers, in answer to the question “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” 30% of the active duty military subscriber respondents said Yes, but 59% said No, 10% having No Opinion. The same percentage, 59% in opposition, was reported by the Military Times survey in 2006 (Army Times, Jan. 8, 2007).

A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized in news reports:

• This is the latest in a string of media events orchestrated in a failed public relations campaign announced by gay activist groups four years ago. The Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed “in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center,” formerly the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (Dec. 18, 2006). This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years—usually by releasing or promoting various faux “studies” that cannot withstand close scrutiny.

• The poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel.” But the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11, personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel are highly restricted.

• Apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll, even though the news release makes the inflated claim, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.”

• Activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law. If that were the case, all referenda banning same-sex “marriage” would have been soundly defeated. On the contrary, the voters of several states have approved 27 of 28 such referenda, often with comfortable majorities.[2]

Support the Law – Scrap “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell”

Ideologues who want to repeal the homosexual conduct law are determined to impose the gay agenda on the military. This would include the full range of benefits and “sensitivity training” programs to promote acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and conduct. (Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1993)

President George W. Bush is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to enforce all laws, but he is not required to retain administrative regulations written by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. This includes policy regulations known by the catch phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which were found by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be inconsistent with the law in 1996. [See related article here]

Problematic inconsistencies between Clinton’s enforcement regulations and the 1993 homosexual conduct law have contributed to years of confusion, and an advantage for activists who want to repeal both. To ensure that the intent of Congress in passing the law is respected, understood, and followed, the Secretary of Defense should:

• Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration’s policy/regulations, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which are inconsistent with the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. (P.L. 103-160, 10 US Code, Section 654)

• Oppose any legislative attempt to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law in Congress.

• Ensure that the 1993 statute is vigorously defended every time it is challenged in the federal courts.

• Prepare and distribute accurate instructional materials that include the text and legislative history of the 1993 law.

In doing these things the President and Secretary of Defense should not apologize or be intimidated by civil rights analogies and pejorative accusations. The law deserves support because it respects the human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters, to the greatest extent possible, in the interest of encouraging good order and discipline.

As columnist Thomas Sowell wrote in 1993, “Military morale is an intangible, but it is one of those intangibles without which the tangibles do not work.”

For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, homosexual activists should not be allowed to impose their agenda on the armed forces. All Americans can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to serve in the military.

ENDNOTES

1. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Commissioner Generated Finding 14, p. C-135, referencing civilian and military surveys done by the Roper Organization, Inc., for the Commission, September 1992.

2. David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute, Nov. 8, 2006.

Update on our previous post…

Excerpted from Air Force Officer Found Guilty of Raping 4 Men, published Feb 27, 2007, by Fox News:

An Air Force officer was found guilty of raping four men and attempting to rape two others.

A nine-member military jury deliberated for about seven hours Tuesday in Capt. Devery L. Taylor‘s court-martial. Taylor gave no reaction upon hearing the verdict.

Taylor, a medic and the former chief of patient administration at Eglin Regional Hospital, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing was to begin Wednesday.

“I am pleased. I am emotional, but I am very, very pleased,” said Maj. Kathleen Reder, a military prosecutor…

Military prosecutors described Taylor, 38, as a serial rapist who met men in bars, spiked their drinks with the “date-rape” drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, and kidnapped them.

Taylor was charged with two counts of attempted sodomy, four counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of kidnapping and one count of unlawful entry.

From Legal Fictions, by Chuck Colson, published Feb 27, 2007, by Breakpoint:

Isabella Miller-Jenkins is only four years old, but she is at the center of one of the most important legal battles of our time. A judge will soon decide whether a woman with no biological or adoptive ties to Isabella can legally be declared her mother.

It sounds incredible, but it is the logical result of where our anything-goes society has been leading us all these years.

As the Washington Post reports, Isabella was conceived via artificial insemination while her mother, Lisa Miller, was in a same-sex civil union with Janet Jenkins. But later the civil union fell apart. Lisa took Isabella and left Vermont for Virginia. She also returned to the Christian faith of her childhood and became “determined to ‘leave the [lesbian] lifestyle’.” That meant that she no longer considered Janet to be Isabella’s parent.

But in our reckless pursuit of getting whatever we want at all costs, our nation has begun interpreting the law in a way that reinforces all the fictions that Lisa Miller no longer believes.

The subhead in the Post article says it all: “Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller got hitched and had a baby together.” Together? Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that’s impossible. But that’s just how the courts are looking at it. As a judge in the case told Janet Jenkins’s lawyer, Janet (the lesbian partner) “without question is presumed to be the natural parent . . . by the basis of the civil union.” So in the court’s eyes, Isabella is the child of two women, something biologically impossible.

How is it possible that laws and court procedures could have become so dangerously fantasy-based? Actually, we should not be surprised. Many modern parents have unwittingly been collaborating with the process for years. The Washington Post tells us how Judge Cohen explained it: “Consider the situation of a heterosexual couple in which an infertile husband agrees for his wife to be artificially inseminated with donor sperm.” In such a case, the judge stated, the husband would be presumed to have parental rights even though someone else had actually fathered the child.

It all ties together. Heterosexual couples have tacitly approved this practice of including a silent third partner in a marriage to produce a child. And then it makes it very difficult to cry foul when homosexuals do the same thing.

Isabella’s plight shows us the tragic consequences of rejecting the biblical view of marriage, which provides for one man and one woman in the union to raise the child. Sure, there are extraordinary circumstances, and adoption is possible. But the norm is the norm, and the law has always recognized the natural moral order.

If Janet Jenkins wins her case—which may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Isabella may be taken from her biological mother to live with a woman she barely remembers. And not only Isabella; many other children would also be threatened by this waving of the judicial magic wand to produce legal parents out of nowhere.

…We need to see how our attitude of “I can do anything I want, and it won’t hurt anybody” has led to a situation that could hurt families everywhere.

For additional resources, go to Breakpoint…

Excerpted from Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia”, by Gudrun Schultz published Feb 27, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian…
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…