Measures on 5 state ballots likely to pass despite survey results

Excerpted from Polls Undercount Support for Same-Sex Marriage Ban, by Wyatt Buchanon, published Oct 27, 2006, by San Francisco Chronicle:

…Bans are expected to pass Nov. 7 in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. The races still appear close in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.

Polls have been published on the proposed constitutional amendments in six of those states, and in all six, the most recent survey showed the bans passing – in Arizona by a margin of 9 percentage points, and in Tennessee by 53 percentage points…

“We’ve seen it, I think, in every single case, that it is underpolled every single time,” said Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the conservative Family Research Council. “I’ve seen higher, but normally we would add 5 to 10 percentage points to any polling.”

Gay rights supporters blame people’s unwillingness to express an anti-gay opinion to a pollster for the discrepancy between polls and the ballot box, and McClusky agrees.

Continue reading in San Francisco Chronicle…

From the “we-couldn’t-make-this-up-if-we-tried” department. Only the “gay” academic movement could come up with something this wacky. But hey, why not? It’s just another “sexual orientation.”-– Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from Students Role-play Sadomasochism in Toronto University’s Sexual Diversity Program, by Gudrun Schultz, published Oct 26, 2006, by LifeSite News:

University of Toronto students in the Sexual Diversity Studies Program explore sadomasochism, bondage and domination as part of an “academic” approach to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, Reuters reported October 20.

Described as “edgy,” the Sexual Diversity Studies program is one of the largest of its kind in North America. Students and teachers defend the program as a serious approach to sexual issues.

“It’s not sexy sex sex, where we’re talking about whips and chains, but we will talk about whips and chains,” graduating student Robbie Morgan told Reuters. “We’ll talk about whips and chains in a political, social, cultural, religious context of sexuality and how that sexuality affects those institutions.”

From Prince Charles Praises Openly Gay Anglican Priest, by Terry Vanderheyden, published Oct 11, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Prince Charles, the future head of the Church of England, has sparked controversy by endorsing an openly homosexual Anglican clergyman.

Harry Williams, the former dean of Cambridge University who died earlier this year, was praised by the Prince in the forward to a new book of poems being published. The Prince of Wales wrote that Williams’ “proved to be a star; a man of intense humanity and warmth whose humour and originality created an aura of approachability,” according to a UPI report.

Williams’ 1982 autobiography meanwhile, titled “Some Day I’ll Find You,” describes the pastor’s experiences as a practicing homosexual while at Cambridge.

“I slept with several men, in each case fairly regularly,” he wrote, adding that “I have seldom felt more like thanking God then (sic) when having sex.”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary – the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention – wrote about Prince Charles that

“In just over 50 years, Prince Charles has managed to make himself a mockery of marriage and morality and to pose, as one leading British newspaper observed, as ‘a well-intentioned eccentric seeking divine inspiration.’”

Mohler added:

“There is indeed much to learn by observing the example of Prince Charles. He has become a living portrait of what happens when Christianity is separated from its central truth claims, and when faith becomes a matter of emotional aspiration rather than firm belief in the truth.”

Excerpted from Cleveland Schools to Start Sex Ed in Kindergarten, published Oct 20, 2006, by The Columbus Dispatch:

City schools will expand sex education curriculum to include age-appropriate lessons that begin as early as kindergarten…

The new classes, which begin soon, will address self-esteem and peer pressure as well as biology. Children in grades K-3 will learn about how viruses work and appropriate and inappropriate touching. Grades 4-6 will start learning about menstruation and other aspects of reproductive health.

In grades 7-12, the discussion shifts to interpersonal relationships, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy and respect for sexual orientation.

Abortion will be explained and defined but not promoted, said Townsend, adding that she’s unaware of other programs in the state that target every grade level.

Continue reading in The Columbus Dispatch…

Courtesy of our good friend, Linda Harvey of Mission America

Here’s what the Washington State “Safe Schools Coalition” has in mind for classrooms during November: presenting homosexuality as something revered among Native American Indians. (Happy Thanksgiving…) Please let us know if you encounter this sort of material in your child’s school.

PS – If you find this material disturbing (and you should), you can see the complete agenda at their site, including:

• Lesson Plans for K-12
• Books, videos, etc.
• Resources for teachers (click on subjects listed on the right: Coaches & PE, Drama, Health, History & Civics, Journalism/Media, Music, or Rural)

Dear Safe Schools Coalition members and friends,

Teachers who are planning your lessons for November may find it helpful to integrate some of the following, to infuse LGBTQ/2-spirit* cultural awareness into the every day life of your classroom. Especially those teaching history, civics, social studies, home and family life, or language arts.

1. Important dates to acknowledge in LGBTQ history for November and days of national recognition
2. Indigenous viewpoints on Thanksgiving
3. Two-spirit/GLBTQ* indigenous people to honor in the name of National American Indian Heritage Month

* LGBTQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Queer.
** Two-spirit = a term of honor to describe a Native American or other Indigenous LGBTQ person, implying their special role as a spiritual bridge among genders. Usually the term is not chosen by an individual to describe him or herself (which would seem self-aggrandizing to many in Indian Country). More often it is a designation of respect conferred upon an individual by an elder.

By J. Matt Barber, General Counsel for Americans for Truth
Published Oct 28, 2006, by WorldNet Daily

You can put a pig in a mini-skirt, high heels and lipstick and call him Angelina Jolie, but he’s still a pig just the same. That’s just what pro-homosexual activists are trying to do this election season in Colorado. No, they haven’t partnered with PETA to raise awareness about the systematic discrimination of “transgendered” farm animals; but what they have done is enter into a clever and disingenuous game of political semantics relative to the so-called “gay-marriage” debate.

On Nov. 7, Coloradans will vote on Referendum I.

What is Referendum I? Well, opponents say that it’s a clear attempt by homosexual activists to circumvent Colorado’s marriage protection laws and legalize “gay marriage” through sleight of hand, while calling it something else. They assert that it’s a not so thinly veiled attempt to pass off counterfeit marriage beneath that innocuous pseudonym we’ve all come to know – “Domestic Partnerships.” (The bill associated with the referendum is the “Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act.”)

Proponents claim that the referendum doesn’t codify “gay marriage,” but rather, simply grants certain legal protections to homosexual couples that they cannot otherwise obtain.

So, who’s lying?

One can derive the answer by looking at the unequivocal language of the referendum itself: The Colorado Legislative Council’s “Blue Book” analysis of the ballot initiative states that Referendum I

“creates a new legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples by Colorado law.”

The text of the Referendum indicates the bill’s intent

“to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses.”

So the verdict’s in, and the jury wasn’t out long – guilty as charged. “Domestic Partnerships” as defined under Referendum I, are very simply “gay marriages” by another name.

So, why all the fuss?

We’ve all heard the old adage “give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.” Well, in this case, If Coloradans pass Referendum I, it will be the first time that “domestic partnerships” will have been approved by the voters of a state, and it will require thousands of changes to existing Colorado state law, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

Excerpted from Media Downplay New Jersey’s Gay Marriage Ruling as Election Day Approaches, by Robert Knight, published Oct , 2006, by Townhall:

The major media are soft-selling the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision ordering “gay marriage” or its equivalent, lest the ruling become a fire bell in the night for social conservatives two weeks before the election.

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric gave the story 21 seconds, talking about “committed same-sex couples” over footage of a cute lesbian couple with cute children, and two distinguished-looking older men standing on a woodsy balcony. She even managed to throw in a bit of sympathetic verbiage about “committed same-sex couples”.

Important questions were left unasked: What gives the court the authority to order legislators to change the law? What if the legislators don’t do so? And, what about those recent court decisions upholding marriage laws in New York, California, Washington and Georgia?

Continue reading at Townhall…

Where was Judy Baar Topinka on Wednesday evening?

High Risk Gallery

Log Cabin Republicans

and

Coup De Gras Catering

***

Cordially invite you to meet and talk with Illinois’ next Governor…

Judy Baar Topinka

***

Tonight!

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

8:00pm to 8:45pm

***

High Risk Gallery

1113 West Belmont-Chicago, Illinois

The event is free and open to the public.

For further event information, please contact High Risk Gallery at (773) 296-6974 or www.highriskgallery.com.

***

There will be a VIP Reception Fundraiser before the Meet and Greet event including

Cocktails & Hors D’oeuvres

6:00pm-7:30pm

***

Benefactor: $100 per person

Friend: $50 per person

Please make checks payable to Citizens for Topinka.

Paid for by Citizens for Judy Baar Topinka. A copy of our report filed with the State Board of Elections is, or will be, available for purchase from the State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL. Contributions, or gifts, to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Click on these links to see photos of Judy Baar Topinka at other 2006 Log Cabin events:

• At the Log Cabin Republicans Judy Baar Topinka Chicagoland Golf Outing
• At the Log Cabin Republicans Market Days Meet & Greet with Judy Baar Topinka