Excerpted from Illinois Pro-Homosexual Groups Launch Counterfeit “Marriage” Project, by Peter LaBarbera and Dave Smith, published Sept 13, 2006, by Illinois Family Institute

Illinois Family Institute has been warning you for a long time that pro-homosexual forces in the state would be pushing hard to legalize counterfeit “marriage”–even as they disingenuously argue that a statewide marriage amendment is not necessary because “Illinois already has a marriage law on the books.”

Well, now they have formally begun their dubious crusade to overturn that law: a coalition of pro-homosexual activist groups, including Equality Illinois, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU of Illinois, will soon be launching a statewide campaign under the name “Equal Marriage Illinois” project–a misguided rip-off of Protect Marriage Illinois.

Equal Marriage Illinois (EMI) “has been building alliances in communities statewide, and has received terrific pro bono creative work from ad agency Young & Rubicam,” according to an e-newsletter from the homosexual lobby group Equality Illinois. (To give feedback to Young & Rubicam for their promotion of counterfeit “marriage,” call their Chicago branch office at 312-596-3000.)

The campaign is a statewide “public information and dialogue campaign focusing attention on the core issues of justice and family at the center of the marriage equality debate,” according to Equality Illinois.

In other words, you’re about to be hit with a slick PR campaign to radically twist the age-old definition of marriage, in the nice-sounding name of “equality.” This latest move by the state’s rich and powerful (yet tiny in numbers) homosexual lobby only proves our point: we MUST enact a Marriage Protection Amendment, as 20 states already have, and seven more likely will this fall.

Continue reading at IFI…

A test of principle…A ballot victory in Colorado for government recognition of “domestic partners” would be a devastating loss for family forces–even if Colorado’s marriage protection amendment passes, as it surely will (none has ever lost, even in “blue” states like Oregon).

Marriage alone deserves special government recognition. Awarding marriage-type benefits to non-married couples, either heterosexual or homosexual, undermines this core institution, and respect for (real) marriage itself. Surely this strategy of going for “gay marriage lite” will be replicated in other states. All eyes should be on the Rocky Mountain State.–Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Colorado Ballot Offers Two Choices on Gay Marriage, by Kevin Simpson, published Sept 14, 2006, by The Denver Post:

Colorado’s ballot in November will be the first in the country to offer voters two distinct options on gay marriage: Amendment 43, which would prohibit gay marriage, and Referendum I, which would grant domestic partners certain rights and responsibilities…

Coloradans could pass either, neither or even both measures, thereby banning same-sex marriage but allowing couples certain legal rights.

Coloradans are clear in their stand on marriage, said Jim Pfaff, a policy analyst for Focus on the Family, which has supported Amendment 43.

But he suspects that the domestic-partnership referendum may cloud voters’ views.

“It’s obvious to people that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Pfaff said. “Confusion comes in when people try to think about benefits. Every person says, ‘Yeah, we need to be fair.’ What they don’t realize is that those (domestic partner) benefits are available.”

Continue reading in The Denver Post…

Excerpted from NBA Great Charles Barkley Mulls Run For Ala. Gov., Supports Gay Marriage, by , published Sept , 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay.com:

“Religious people in general are so discriminatory against other people, and that really disturbs me,” he said. “My idea of religion is we all love and respect. We all sin, but we still have common decency and respect for other people. So right now I’m struggling with my idea of what religion is.”

He also said he supports gay marriage.

“I think if they want to get married, God bless them,” Barkley said. “Gay marriage is probably 1 percent of the population, so it’s not like it’s going to be an epidemic. Hey, trust me, I’m never going to kiss you and say, ‘Chris, you’re sexy.'”

Continue reading at 365Gay…

An interesting statistic is inadvertently noted in this article: 22 of the 2880 tragically killed on Sept 11, 2001, are identified as having a homosexual partner. That is 0.75% — even if that figure were doubled or tripled, it is nowhere near the 10% figure that some homosexual activists still fraudulently cite to exaggerate their numbers and clout.

Despite the small percentage, the Red Cross‘s capitulation to homosexual activist groups is troubling. Few Americans have any clue when they are giving to this charitable organization that their donation could help advance a larger agenda to radically redefine the family. At the very least, Red Cross officials should let the public know of their decision which undermines the primacy of marriage, albeit in the name of compassion. – Sonja Dalton

The excerpt below is from an article in the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, “Sept 11 Introduced US to Gay Families,” by Louis Chibbaro, Jr, published Sept 8, 2006 (emphasis added):

…ESPA [Empire State Pride Agenda, a New York homosexual activist group] and HRC [Human Rights Campaign, a D.C.-based homosexual lobby group], among other groups, met with top officials of the American Red Cross, which initially limited its relief services to blood relatives or married spouses of 9/11 victims. In a development that disaster relief observers considered unprecedented, the Red Cross adopted a new set of criteria for defining a “family member” eligible for relief assistance that included domestic partners.

Agreeing to suggestions by ESPA, HRC and Lambda Legal, Red Cross officials adopted criteria such as a joint bank account, the naming of a partner as an insurance beneficiary or a joint lease on an apartment as verification that an applicant for relief was a legitimate partner eligible for relief services.

Red Cross officials went a step further by putting the new criteria in place for all future disasters such as hurricanes and floods…

Excerpted from Westbrook School System is Set to Teach Kids the Virtues of Gay Marriage, published Aug 31, 2006, by Christian Civic League of Maine:

With the start of the new school year, the Westbrook school system is scheduled to begin teaching children in the early grades the acceptability of gay marriage. The decision of the Westbrook School Department to introduce the curriculum changes, which include lessons on contraception for middle school students, ignited a firestorm of controversy earlier this year when it was learned that a former head of a Montana lesbian activist organization “Montana PRIDE” was shepherding the curriculum changes through the Westbrook Curriculum Committee.

Thanks to a Maine Freedom of Access Act request filed by a concerned Westbrook parent, it was learned that the parents of Westbrook were led to believe that the curriculum changes were part of a grassroots, neighborhood effort, when in reality, they merely incorporated word-for-word the recommendations of the nation’s most liberal sex education organization, the New York-based group SIECUS. Worse yet, the rationale advanced for the proposed curriculum changes – that the curriculum was needed to ward off a rising teen pregnancy rate – was revealed to be bogus. The data used to back up the curriculum changes actually showed that teen pregnancy rates were steadily declining in Westbrook.

The real shocker was yet to come. Only two days before the school board voted on the proposed curriculum changes, Westbrook parents learned that the new curriculum would include material portraying gay marriage as normal and acceptable. Despite opposition by many Westbrook parents, the vote by the school board was unanimous in favor of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were scheduled to take effect with the start of this school year.

Continue reading at Christian Civic League of Maine…

Excerpted from Ontario Well on Way to Declaring More than Two Legal Parents for Children, by Hilary White, published Aug 31, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Once again the needs of children in Canada are being placed a distant second to the personal wants of Canadian gay activists. In response, the Alliance for Marriage and Family, a coalition of groups fighting the legislative and judicial attacks on the traditional family, has filed a brief in Ontario’s Court of Appeals in what is being called the ‘three parents case.’

The case involves two women in a lesbian relationship and a man who donated his sperm to create a child for them on the condition that he could have a part of the child’s life. The man in the case is married to another women and has other children. After the child was born, his mother’s lesbian partner demanded to be listed legally as his “second” mother in addition to his biological parents.

The case was rejected by a lower court that ruled Ontario’s family law recognized only two possible parents for each child, whether biologically or by adoption and so the court had no authority to make the declaration.

The woman appealed, claiming a special situation because she was in a same-sex relationship and such couples require assisted human reproduction.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Gay Republican Tests Party Faithful in Minnesota Primary Fight, by Patrick Condon, published Sept 4, 2006, by Associated Press:

…[Minnesota Senator Paul] Koering, 41, a former dairy farmer and lifelong resident of the area, …often describing himself as a good Catholic boy. He’s an abortion opponent, a supporter of gun and property rights, and an outspoken supporter of veterans.

But in 2005, Koering was the only Republican in the Senate to join Democrats in opposing an effort to force a floor vote on a constitutional gay marriage ban.

That vote stirred up longstanding rumors at the Capitol about Koering’s own sexuality, and within a few days he revealed to the media that he was gay…“We are seeing more instances of openly gay Republicans, but there are still going to be significant parts of the country where that’s going to be difficult to pull off,” Dison said. Like Koering, most prominent gay Republicans came out only after they were in office, including U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona and former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.

Continue reading in Duluth News Tribune…

Excerpted from Unmarried Couple Want Benefits, Too, by Curt Woodward, published Aug 23, 2006, by Associated Press:

By Curt Woodward

One of the first tests for Washington state’s new gay civil rights law has an intriguing twist: The complaint was filed by a heterosexual woman.

The state’s discrimination watchdogs are investigating the case, which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.

…The complaint, filed last week, is one of four that have spawned full-fledged investigations under the sexual orientation section of Washington’s anti-discrimination law.It was signed by Sandi Scott-Moore, a Redmond-based employee of manufacturer Honeywell International. Scott-Moore claims health insurance coverage for her male partner was denied because the unmarried couple are not of the same gender.

Honeywell spokesman Robert Ferris said the company does provide health benefits for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees and has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination. But the company disagrees with Scott-Moore, he said in a statement.

Continue reading at Seattle PI…