Few pro-family activists work harder than James Hartline, a former homosexual turned Christian advocate who lives and works in the heart of San Diego’s homosexual neighborhood. Kudos to James for leading this charge against homosexual special interest politicking. And enough already with homosexual politicians wasting taxpayers’ valuable money and time promoting an agenda that is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to build public acceptance for their own immoral (and changeable) behavior.

Here is Hartline’s release: — Peter LaBarbera

CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN NEWS & THE JAMES HARTLINE REPORT
BREAKING NEWS!  HISTORIC VICTORY FOR SAN DIEGO CHRISTIANS
September 4, 2007, 4:30pm.pst
 
REQUEST FOR SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL TO ENDORSE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL CASE IS STOPPED AFTER SAN DIEGO CHRISTIANS MAKE BIG STAND DURING ALL DAY CITY COUNCIL BATTLE.
www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070904-1521-nogay.html
 
Approximately 40 Christians appeared at the San Diego City Council on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 to oppose an attempt by lesbian San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins to get the city council to issue a legal brief in support of gay marriage.  The issuance of a legal brief in support of a “gay marriage” case currently being heard by the California Supreme Court would have been catastrophic for Christian values in California’s second largest city.
 
James Hartline, a well-known San Diego Christian activist and a candidate, himself, for the city council seat being vacated by termed-out Councilwoman Atkins, led the campaign to oppose the “gay marriage” legal brief.
 
Supporters for the “gay marriage” legal brief even had the city attorney for the City of San Francisco come down to San Diego to plead with the council to approve of the issuance of the legal brief.
 
Hartline gave a powerful and informative presentation on behalf of the thousands of Christians in San Diego who are opposed to redefining marriage to include couples engaged in homosexuality and lesbianism. 
 
After a contentious and sometimes, hostile hearing, the request to approve the gay marriage legal brief failed on a 4-4 vote.  A 5-3 vote was required for the item to be approved.  When the smoke had cleared, some Christians in attendance declared that a real miracle had happened in the city council chambers.
 
Those who voted with the Christians in opposing the “gay marriage” legal brief were:

Councilman Kevin Faulconer, Republican, District 2
Councilman Brian Maienschein, Republican,  District 5
Councilman Anthony Young, Democrat, District 4
Councilwoman Donna Frye, Democrat, District 6
 
Those who voted for the homosexual “marriage” legal brief were:

Councilman Scott Peters, Democrat, District 1
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, Democrat, District 3
Councilman Jim Madaffer, Republican, District 7
Councilman Ben Hueso, Democrat, District 8
 
There will be a more in depth look at the events surrounding this historic victory for San Diego Christians in an upcoming James Hartline Report exclusive.
 
This has been a breaking news story from California Christian News and the James Hartline Report: 619-255-9378

www.californiachristian.org
www.JamesHartlineReport.blogspot.com

From Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink: 

County Judge Robert Hanson decided Thursday that he will make the laws for Iowa. He struck down the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and ordered Polk County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant county attorney, argued the issue is not for a judge to decide. The county, home to state capital Des Moines, is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, called it another example of a judge legislating from the bench.

“Once again, we see an activist judge handing liberal activists what they have not been able to achieve legislatively or at the ballot box: government sanctioning of same-sex marriage,” he said. “This purely political ruling proves yet again that nothing short of a federal marriage-protection amendment is sufficient to preserve one-man, one-woman marriage in our nation.

“By striking down Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Robert Hanson has shown he believes the desires of adults should trump what’s best for children. His ruling represents social engineering at its worst.”

Click HERE to read the whole Citizenlink article

Randy Thomasson of the VoteYesMarriage.com in California coalition writes:

Please forward today to your pro-family friends:

Dear friends, the following news is appalling. Please help place rock-solid marriage protection into the California Constitution by donating right now to VoteYesMarriage.com or by calling 916-265-5643 to discuss making a major gift. We need to raise $1 million in the next two weeks in order to qualify for California’s June 2008 ballot. Any U.S. citizen or legal resident may donate. Thank you.

Here is the media release issued Monday by the VoteYesMarriage.com coalition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2007
 
California Governor and Attorney General
Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage

Sacramento, California — In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license “same-sex marriages” next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown’s 8/17 brief] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: …the words “marry” and “marriage” have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …The Administration submits that use of the words “marry” and “marriage” is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: …except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

“This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians,” said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

“Protecting the word ‘marriage’ in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman,” concluded Thomasson. “Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy.”

— end —

VoteYesMarriage.com (ID #1276880) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization sponsoring The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. Please help us protect marriage once and for all in the California State Constitution by making an instant online donation or sending a generous gift to:

VoteYesMarriage.com
P.O. Box 1978
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5643
(916) 290-0114 fax

Donate Online:

* Donations to VoteYesMarriage.com are not tax deductible.
* Please write your occupation and employer on your check, as required by state law

There are many practical, secular-oriented arguments against creating legal rights based on aberrant sex and gender-confused “identity.”  I encourage you to read my friend John Biver’s excellent series, “Bad News for the Gay Rights Movement,” on the Family Taxpayers Network (FTN) website.  John (info@familytaxpayers.net) is FTN’s president, and a very smart guy who is not religious but would risk going to jail to defend my religious freedom to oppose homosexuality.  I’d do the same for him.

We who are religious should understand that you do not have to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, to see the absurdity of revolutionizing civil rights law to accommodate historically taboo and destructive sexual behaviors that can be changed.  Please share these articles with your friends. — Peter LaBarbera 

Click on the individual links below for each article:

Bad News for the “Gay Rights” Movement

 

Get over your Moralityphobia

 

Right and Wrong isn’t Dead Yet

 

Privacy v. Revolution

 

Successes, Parades, and Leaven

 

The Broken Window Theory

 

Psychology and Morality

 

The Plight of the TriSexual  (A Parody)

 

Gender Identity Disorder

 

Friends, Family, and Children

 

Health Realities

 

Resetting the Proper Context

 

Morality and the “Gay Rights” Debate

 

The following is excerpted from a column by Matt Barber, “You’re Not My Mommy!” appearing in today’s WorldNetDaily: 

Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV).

Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful 5-year-old daughter, Isabella, find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa at one time had been homosexually involved.

By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events – including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade-long struggle with alcoholism now overcome – eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.

In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.

In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” – mother and “mother.”

In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins – working as a nightshift security guard – grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.

About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.

And that’s when the nightmare really began.

Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”

Click HERE to read the rest of Barber’s column on WorldNetDaily

Reprinted with permission from the website of Concerned Women for America; published July 5, 2007

__________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexual “Marriages” in Massachusetts  

2004                        2005                      2006                     2007 (through April)  

6,121                      2,060                     1,427                              87 

__________________________________________________________________________________

By J. Matt Barber 

Getting married isn’t even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals. 

The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as “marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.

By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media, government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable, sexual lifestyle.

They yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image wherein all are compelled to not only accept, but to celebrate high-risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as both normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their ideal is a society in which inherent gender distinctions are eliminated and God’s express design for human sexuality is replaced by morally relative and surreal notions of sexual androgyny.

Nowhere are the dumbing-down of sexual morality and the blurring of gender lines more evident than in the left’s effort to radically redefine marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that currently allows “same-sex marriage.” Nine other states permit some form of “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” which, in truth, are simply “gay marriages” by another name. (Those states are Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.)

But despite the feigned and fevered cries of liberals for “marriage equality,” it’s becoming abundantly clear that the arguments conservatives have been making against “gay marriage” are spot-on. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t desire “marriage;” rather, militant homosexual activists desire to use “same-sex marriage” as both a tool to normalize homosexual behaviors and as a weapon to tear down the institution of legitimate marriage.

 Whoever heard of a sex club float at a parade? Proud homosexuals, that’s who. Above, a bus float for “Steamworks,” a 24/7 bathhouse in Chicago’s (“gay”) Boystown neighborhood — where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men — rides in the Chicago homosexual “pride” parade June 24. Many young children watched or participated in the Chicago parade. 

The lawless hate God. The name of Jesus is an affront to sinners. The [Columbus “gay pride” parade] crowd cheered the apostate churches as they displayed their man-made signs declaring their man-man opinion of Jesus’ acceptance of sin. They cursed and spat upon those who held a sign that displayed the Word of God, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”

 

Christian men are afraid to stand up for Jesus. They act just like women, striving to be “nice” to everyone. They won’t fight for their communities, won’t protect their children from indoctrination, and won’t storm the gates of hell.
— Coach Dave Daubenmire, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?” 

TAKE ACTION: Send Americans For Truth a $10 donation (postpaid) or make a $10 gift online and we will send you a “Truth Packet” that reveals some cold, hard realities about the homosexual agenda — including our booklet, “The Homosexual Agenda Targeting Children.” The Truth Packet will guide you on simple steps you can take to start standing up for truth against the pro-homosexual issue in your community. You’ll be shocked to see how the “GLBT” lobby is converting the next generation to their ungodly cause. Send $10 (postpaid) to AFTAH, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, or go online to give HERE. 

___________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

I’d like to call your attention to a wonderful call-to-arms from Coach Dave Daubenmire, who is a great American and a spiritual treasure for this deeply troubled nation. As one who has observed a bunch of “Gay Pride” parades over the years — they now call them just “pride” parades to mask their real purpose: celebrating homosexuality (perversion) — I echo Coach Dave’s call for Christian men to get off their comfortable keisters and observe firsthand the moral disintegration of this country.

Coach Dave is a man’s man, and his frank observations are, well, too gut-real for some even in the “pro-family” movement. American Christianity has been feminized, or perhaps emasculated — or even “psychologized” — to such a degree that we shy away from bold truth-telling. We rationalize our withdrawals from the culture wars, sometimes using theology to justify our cowardice. In his article, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?”, the Coach shows us the end-game of “tolerance” and “diversity”: the glorification of sin, churches parading in support of behavior that God condemns, and the promotion of ungodly lifestyles to innocent kids. 

Do we hate sin?

It’s funny. Guilt-ridden Christians talk a lot about how they don’t hate “gays.” That should be a given: we are commanded to love sinners supernaturally — even to suffer for the sake of the Gospel, as my friend Dan Musick and Joe Christopherson did at Chicago “Pride” last Sunday.  But I’m wondering: do we hate homosexual behavior like God does? (Can I say that? — alert the Thought Police immediately.)

No, we don’t. The result is that men who should be out contending with the evils of the day — and surely this is one — are instead fretting over not appearing “intolerant,” overly “judgmental,” or too radical. Or they withdraw into the business world and reading their stock reports, to prepare for a retirement in which they can retreat even further from the culture wars that we are already losing, badly.

Why is it that the wicked (in this case, homosexual activists) can give 150 percent to their their cause, but we who claim the “Truth” adopt a defensive posture and are saddled with doubt and apathy in the fight for godly values?

Guys, Jesus was radical. He was a man’s man. If you can’t bring yourself to join Americans For Truth in confronting the homosexual lobby in the culture and public policy, then get out on the streets and witness the Gospel to people headed for hell in the name of “pride” (oops, I said the H-word: another speech code violation…).

Concerned Women for America (www.cwfa.org)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 15, 2007; FOR MORE INFORMATION: JENNIFER FEDOR(202) 488-7000 ext. 126

Washington, D.C. — Despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, Massachusetts lawmakers thumbed their noses at constituents on Thursday and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) to prevent the citizens of Massachusetts from voting on a constitutional amendment in 2008 which, if passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man and one woman.

Addressing the vote, Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “In its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed ‘same-sex marriage’ on the people of Massachusetts through a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the radical homosexual lobby and have betrayed their own constituents and the democratic process by precluding them from weighing in on this crucial issue.

“What are they afraid of? Well, we know the answer to that question. They mustn’t allow the voters to decide on marriage because ‘gay marriage’ proponents almost universally lose when the voters have their say.

“Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole’ fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and a female and that it is a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.

“After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — miraculously divined that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this insanity. Although this ballot initiative wasn’t perfect in that it would have grandfathered existing ‘same-sex marriages’ in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home. This just underscores the need for a federal constitutional amendment which would protect the true definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman,” concluded Barber.