Allyson Smith, a San Diego Catholic pro-life and pro-family advocate, and writer for Americans For Truth, wrote the following open letter to Father Steve Meriwether of Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco:

Sent Oct 30, 2006:

Father Meriwether,

Words fail to express my outrage at finding out that you are allowing the blasphemous sodomite drag queens, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, to use Most Holy Redeemer (located at 100 Diamond Street, Castro District, San Francisco) for their perverted, pornographic bingo games. You are not only the pastor of MHR, you are the CHANCELLOR of the San Francisco Archdiocese!

Sister Bea Attitude, Sister Merry Peter, Sister Sister Edith Myflesh, Sister Chastity Boner

How could you – how dare you – allow these perverts to desecrate Most Holy Redeemer by openly parading their abominable homosexual vice in the very same building where the true Most Holy Redeemer, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is present in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?

Are you out of your mind – or do you find nothing wrong with this? Do you approve of sodomy, one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and of allowing open sodomites to desecrate our Lord’s Real Presence and His temple? It certainly appears so, as I just called your church and a staffer there, Joey, confirmed that you are aware of these activities and that they are taking place with your approval.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence make endless mockery of our Lord’s sacrifice at Calvary and of good, faithful nuns who spend their lives in prayerful, selfless service to the Church. They openly display their perversion in public streets during “gay pride” parades — and now, apparently, in your own parish. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

According to an article last month in the San Francisco Bay Times, the SPI bingo games include sexual “punishments” for participants whose cell phones ring or who call a false bingo.

Published Oct 27, 2006, in West Salem Coulee News:

Soon citizens of Wisconsin will have an opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment which will ensure that our great state will not have the immoral, illogical, and unnatural absurdity of “same-sex marriage” foisted upon her by activist, unconstitutional judges.

Yes, homosexual “marriage” is all of that and, like homosexuality, is an act of open defiance against Almighty God Himself who “made them male and female” and ordained marriage (Matthew 19:4-6).

The marriage amendment was of necessity proposed in response to a relentless campaign to force homosexual marriage on America, state by state, as has already been done in Massachusetts. National organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have poured resources into Wisconsin with the hope that our state will suffer the infamy and harm of being the first in which an amendment protecting the legal definition of marriage is defeated.

The campaign against the marriage amendment has been nothing less than a theater of the absurd, featuring all manner of nonsensical claims regarding such things as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, and power of attorney.

The legal reality is that a citizen of Wisconsin can bequeath his property to anyone he wishes. He can delegate to any consenting adult medical or financial power of attorney. Likewise, a citizen can designate who should or should not be at his side in a health care crisis.

The most wicked absurdity that has been peddled by the amendment opponents is the audacious claim that God’s Word gives license to homosexual acts and homosexual “marriage.” Nothing could be further from the truth, no matter how some wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

As a minister of the gospel, I state with no hesitation whatsoever that voting against the marriage amendment would be a sin against God.

Ralph Ovadal is pastor at Pilgrims Covenant Church in Monroe, Wisconsin.

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.