Excerpted from UCLA Gets $1 Million to Study Legal Topics Involving Gay Couples, published Feb 26, 2007, by Associated Press:

A gay couple who hope to marry one day has donated more than $1 million to the University of California, Los Angeles, to fund research on legal topics involving same-sex relationships.

The gift announced Friday from John McDonald and Rob Wright will support what is described as the nation’s first endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law.

The two say they want to promote objective [?] research, but they also hope to aid the campaign for gay marriage and other gay rights issues…

Continue reading at Associated Press…

Note just how “objective” they are:

• This is not McDonald and Wright’s first gift to UCLA designed to promote homosexuality in American culture.

• McDonald and Wright are also benefactors of the public television newsmagazine In the Life which publicizes various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.

From Two More States Consider Gay Adoption, published Feb 26, 2007, by Citizenlink:

Family advocates urge people of faith to fight back

New Hampshire and Michigan are working on legislation to make gay adoption legal.

Massachusetts legalized adoption for same-sex couples in 2006. That move led the state to mandate that Catholic Charities of Boston refer children to gay couples. The group discontinued its century-old adoption program under that pressure.

Ron Stoddart, president and executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency in California, said the family itself is at stake.

“It’s just a continuation of the cultural trend of breaking down the basic foundation blocks of the family,” he told Family News in Focus.

Stoddart said in his state, homosexuals use antidiscrimination laws to ensure they can adopt. He says it’s a formula he expects to see leveraged across the country.

“It will come up, in my opinion, not as a matter of legalizing same-sex couples being able to adopt,” he said, but through states modifying nondiscrimination clauses intended to offer protection for race, gender and religion.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, said people of faith should keep fighting attempts to place children in homes that, by definition, exclude either a mom or a dad.

“We’re going to stand by what’s best for these children,” he said, “and what’s best for these children is to have a mom and a dad.”

More and more it is becoming clear that the homosexual agenda cannot succeed without censorship and trampling over other people’s rights. Can you imagine the can of worms that this legislation would open up? California is reaping the whirlwind of Christian apathy in the face of evil (masquerading as tolerance). If conservatives, churches and parents don’t pull their heads out of the sand soon and stop this juggernaut, California will deserve the oppressive fate that it gets. — Peter LaBarbera

Note: For some additional background on Sheila Kuehl, click HERE.

——————————-

From Legislator Introduces Outrageous Homosexual Bill, published Feb 26, 2007, by Christian Newswire:

SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools

[California] State Senator Sheila Kuehl has introduced legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that “reflects adversely” upon homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues.

SB 777 is almost identical to last session’s highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens.”

SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a “prom king and queen” because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

“Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents,” continued England. “The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California.”

“The term ‘reflects adversely’ is too nebulous and susceptible to broad interpretation,” said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “For instance, does it reflect adversely upon homosexuals to report statistics on the rate of AIDS infections in America, including the homosexual community? And would the terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ be considered discriminatory?”

“Last session thousands of Californians called their legislators and the governor opposing the very same piece of legislation,” continued Turney. “In fact, legislators publicly stated that they received more constituent complaints about this legislation than any other bill. It proves that when a out-of-touch group has a radical agenda to push forward, they will ignore the will of the people.”

CRI is committed to opposing legislation that uses our children as social-experiments and tramples upon long-standing traditional family values.

Read SB 777

Dr. Albert Mohler addresses the recent ruling by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America regarding their reluctant expulsion of openly homosexual “pastor” Bradley Schmeling from St. John’s Lutheran Church in Atlanta. The congregation’s “Trial Update” page declares Schmeling’s homosexual relationship with Darin Easler, a former ELCU “pastor” now seeking ordination in the apostate United Church of Christ. Unfortunately, while recognizing that Schmeling is in violation of church policy, the committee also suggests that the policy should be changed to accommodate openly and practicing homosexual clergy.

Listen online as Dr. Mohler encourages “pitchfork rebellion” — the laity standing firmly for Truth:

Feb 9, 2007

Homosexuality in the Church: Is It Time for a New Reformation?

Also, Dr. Mohler recommends a book called Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor:

Excerpted from Ex-Hub Councilor Nabbed in Bid to Have Sex with Minor (now archived), by Laura Crimaldi, published Oct 11, 2006, by Boston Herald:

Former Boston City Councilor David Scondras (mugshot shown left) faces sex charges after he was busted in a Lawrence school parking lot with lubricant and booze while allegedly seeking a tryst in the woods with a 15-year-old boy he’d trolled for online.

Police say the “boy” that Scondras, 60, of Cambridge drove some 30 miles to meet for sex turned out to be a 20-year-old Lawrence General Hospital security guard.

The guard said he’d received a series of lurid instant messages and graphic pictures from the former five-term councilor, who used the screen name “Toppdadd,” seeking sex with a minor, and approached a cop for help in dealing with the messages, court and police records indicate.

“You know a lot of people have prejudices against guys who like to have sex with children,” Scondras allegedly told the security guard, identified in court papers as Michael W. Fornesi, during a cell phone conversation after the illicit underage rendezvous was set up.

…According to Shafer’s police report, Scondras, Boston’s first openly gay councilor, initially exchanged sexually explicit IM’s with the guard, and after being told he was communicating with a willing 15-year-old, who used the screen name “Cubscout4mastr86,” sent along his cell phone number and began soliciting sex.At Shafer’s direction, the guard called Scondras to offer directions to the school lot. Scondras told the guard, who used the pseudonym Josh, that he wanted to have unprotected sex with him “in the woods” and would bring marijuana, a police report states.

After Scondras arrived at the lot and identified himself to “Josh,” Shafer moved in for the arrest. In his report, he said Scondras resisted arrest and tried to flee.

…In Scondras’ car, Shafer said, were four blue packages of “Wet” lubricant, an open bottle containing a “red alcohol substance” and a printout of the instant messages.Scondras lost his council seat in 1993 after details of a series of obscenity-laced and slurred calls he made to a 911-dispatch operator. In 1996, he was charged with groping a 16-year-old boy in a movie theater, but the case was dropped when the teen refused to testify.

Continue reading at Boston Herald…

Excerpted from Former City Councilor Is Arrested on Sex Charge (Charged with trying to entice a minor), by Brian R. Ballou and Michael Levenson, published Oct 11, 2006, by Boston Globe:

David Scondras swept onto the City Council in 1983, a Harvard-educated tenant activist from the Fenway who wanted to fight for the less fortunate. He was reelected five times, serving as the city’s first openly gay councilor when few politicians spoke about their sexuality.

But a series of problems hastened Scondras’s fall from office. He was caught making rambling calls to police and acknowledged that he was an alcoholic, had been taking pain medication, and that his partner had been diagnosed with AIDS. In 1993, he was voted out of office.

Yesterday, Scondras faced new allegations when he was charged in Lawrence District Court with trying to entice a minor into having sex.

Police alleged that Scondras, 60, used the screen name Topdadd to send pornographic images and messages to someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. Police arrested Scondras at 1:15 a.m. in the parking lot of Day Charter School in Lawrence, where authorities say he had arranged to meet for sex. Scondras allegedly tussled with an officer and tried to run away, before being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed.

…Many recalled another episode in 1997, when Scondras was accused of trying to fondle a 16-year-old boy in a Back Bay movie theater. That charge was dropped when the youth refused to testify in court.

The following study was published by the American College of Pediatricians Jan 22, 2004:

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations¹, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.^2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. ^5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. ^{10,11,12,13,14} Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. ^15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” ^{18,19,20,21,22} Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,^23,24,25 substance abuse,²⁶ suicidal tendencies,^27,28 and shortened life spans.²⁹ Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.³⁰ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. ^{31,32,33,34,35} Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.³⁶

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”

The following letter appeared in the Centre Daily Times, State College, PA Feb 22, 2007:

Evidence contradicts conclusion

In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.

He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.

Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.

In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.

Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.

The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

Lisa Stevenson
State College

A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:

Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”

This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.

In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

The ACP said the following.

“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”

Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:

• The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components

• Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.

From ‘Rhode’ Rage: Ocean State Recognizes Mass. Gay Marriages, published Feb 23, 2007, by Family Research Council:

Based on the political preference of one man, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (pictured left), the state will now recognize same-sex unions performed in Massachusetts. In a letter this week, Lynch argued that because Rhode Island has not banned gay marriage, there is “no reason to deny recognition” of gay unions. Although his opinion is not binding, many of the state’s agencies are expected to follow his advice. Although he says his family situation had “zero impact” on the decision, many speculate that Lynch had personal reasons for his opinion. A week before he issued his report, Lynch attended the same-sex “wedding” of his own sister in the Bay State. This abuse of power should sound the alarm for Rhode Island’s pro-family voters and spark a movement to introduce a marriage protection amendment so that the state’s position on marriage is no longer in doubt.
Additional Resources: R.I. May Recognize Gay Unions From Mass.