By Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Call your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121) and politely convey your opposition to the new “Hate Crimes” bill that includes “sexual orientation” (HR 254), and ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act.” Also, call or write President Bush (202-456-1414) and urge him to veto these two top “gay’-priority bills if they are passed by the Democratic Congress.

If enacted, HR 254 and ENDA would federalize “sexual orientation” law, creating the long-term foundation for widespread anti-religious tyranny in our nation in the name of pro-“gay” tolerance. To see two good ads featuring victims of Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, click on www.stophatecrimesnow.com. Events in Great Britain should warn us about the grave dangers ahead…

Blair: ‘Gay Rights’ trump religious freedom

When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.

Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.

Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.

Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”

But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”

Queer, indeed.

“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.

But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?

Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.

Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.

Excerpted from the Jan 23, 2007, press release from REAL Women of Canada:

On July 17, 2006, REAL Women of Canada laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the same-sex marriage case, which was handed down in June 2003. We stated in our complaint that his actions in that case gave rise to an apprehension of bias for a number of reasons, including the fact that Chief Justice McMurtry’s daughter was a lesbian living in a homosexual union at the time the case was argued…

Further, two weeks subsequent to the court’s decision, the Chief Justice partied with two of the litigants and a photograph of the Chief Justice and the litigants together is widely available on the internet.

In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:

… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.

The Council, however, was well aware that the issue before the Court was whether same-sex unions should be legally recognized, i.e., whether they should be recognized and acquire legal rights. That is, the case dealt specifically with the legal rights of same-sex unions – a matter which directly related to Judge McMurtry’s daughter’s own personal relationship…

The Council, however, concluded that there is no basis to support the view that Chief Justice McMurtry should have recused himself on the basis of the personal relationship of members of his family.

This conclusion, however, flies directly in the face of the guidelines of the Canadian Judicial Council set out in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” (1998), Chapter 6:

Conflicts of Interest

• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially.
• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.
• The potential for conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those close to him or her) conflicts with the judge’s duty to adjudicate impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
• … a judge … should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to reasoned suspicion of lack of impartiality.
• …a judge should disclose on the record anything which might support a plausible argument in favour of disqualification ….

It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry.

Continue reading at REAL Women of Canada…

Excerpted from Moscow Mayor Calls Gay Pride Parade Satanic, published Jan 29, 2007, by MosNews:

Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov said Monday he would never allow a gay parade to take place in Moscow despite pressure from the West, Russia’s RIA-Novosti news agency reports.

“Last year, Moscow came under unprecedented pressure to sanction the gay parade, which can be described in no other way than as Satanic,” Luzhkov said at the 15th Christmas educational readings in the Kremlin Palace.

“We did not let the parade take place then, and we are not going to allow it in the future,” said Luzhkov who has been in office since 1992.

…Luzhkov thanked the attending head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II, for his support at a time when, he said, the West is exerting considerable pressure on Moscow authorities and trying to promote gay relationships under the cover of creativity and freedom of expression.

“Religious thinkers throughout the world have said that the West has reached a crisis of faith. Some European nations bless single-sex marriages and introduce sexual guides in schools,” Luzhkov said. “Such things are a deadly moral poison for children.”

Continue reading at MosNews…

Mr. Swank says it well:

…The divine revelation is eternal ethic and thereby will not condone homosexual practice. Those running counter to this revelation will answer to God’s wrath in this life and at death at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

TAKE ACTION — You may send a note of support to Ron Warren, who rightfully recommends removing Bradley Schmeling from his position of authority.

——————————

Excerpted from Homosexual Lutheran Pastor Charged, by Grant Swank, published Jan 20, 2007, by The Conservative Voice:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concluded at its 2005 conclave that sex was to be practiced within marriage. Also, such sex was not open to homosexual lifestyles. All this is because the Bible ethic is against sex outside of marriage and prohibits homosexual activities.

Bradley Schmeling, pastor, St. John’s ECLA, Atlanta, makes known that he is homosexual and now has a partner. The congregation agrees that he should continue as minister. In fact, the parishioners had a party celebrating his formal announcement of partnership with a “lifelong companion.”

Bishop Ronald Warren, Southeastern Synod, told Schmeling to resign. Schmeling said he would not resign. “Disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage” have begun. That means Schmeling confronts a hearing composed of a dozen ELCA members deciding his fate…

If the committee concludes him to be defrocked, he would no longer be “recognized as an ordained minister in the ELCA,” per AP. If the congregation still calls him their spiritual leader, the church then could be disciplined…

Throughout the divine revelation right and wrong are set forth by God Himself. Consequently, for those espousing homosexual lifestyles as divinely blessed is to expose their biblical ignorance and theological liberalism, the latter basically given to writing one’s own religion.

Other denominations dealing with this matter include the Presbyterian Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Convention and segments within the Mennonite framework. Denominations which accept homosexuality as ethically legitimate include the Unitarian Society, United Church of Christ (Congregational), and the Episcopal Church of America.

Continue reading at The Conservative Voice…

The New York Times is clearly embracing this position in the culture war, using their packages of newsprint and ink multiplied by the millions to boldly state that marriage requires no gender distinctions; to reject the supremacy of the natural combination of male and female strengths in marriage; and to thumb its nose at apparently quaint notions of God’s judgment and sacred scriptures as if they were yesterday’s bird-cage liners.

— From Announcing Equality, read All the Sin That’s Fit to Print, by Brent Bozell, published Aug 30, 2002, by Townhall

Excerpted from Many U.S. Newspapers Print Gay Unions Announcements, published Jan 17, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality EDGE Boston:

Almost 60 percent of all daily U.S. newspapers now accept wedding and commitment ceremony announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

The number of papers running such announcements–883–represents a 584 percent increase since it was first measured in 2002, when only 129 newspapers said they would print such announcements.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation announced the figures Jan. 16 in relaunching and expanding its Announcing Equality campaign…

As part of the expansion of the Announcing Equality campaign, GLAAD is urging local GLBT community members and their friends and families to reach out to newspapers that currently reject or do not accept wedding announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

Only a small handful of major metropolitan newspapers do not yet have inclusive announcement policies, among them: Kansas City Star, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Virginian-Pilot, Omaha World Herald, Oklahoman, and Richmond Times-Dispatch.

GLAAD is also expanding the scope of the Announcing Equality campaign to encompass other kinds of announcements, from birth announcements and baptisms to anniversaries and graduations, as well as other forms of media. Community members are now encouraged to announce their celebrations and share their stories in office newsletters, union periodicals, church bulletins and other publications.

Continue reading at EDGE Boston…

Excerpted from After Breathing Madison’s Air Too Long, City Council Has Endorsed Oath Breaking Because It Doesn’t Like the Definition of Marriage, by Rick Eisenberg, published Jan 17, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct (a resource of Alliance Defense Fund):

They did it – and by a landslide. The Madison City Council voted overwhelmingly to allow city officials to take a special oath of office…

By a vote of 14-4, the Madison city alders (as one local blogger calls them) voted to allow those assuming office to add to the official oath a statement that they took it under protest and promise to “work to eliminate [the state’s marriage amendment]” and work to prevent any discriminatory impact from its applications.

Continue reading at Constitutionally Correct…

According to the Wisconsin State Journal article cited above, the following aldermen sponsored the “special oath”: Alds. Brian Benford, 12th District: Ken Golden, 10th District; Judy Olson, 6th District; Robbie Webber, 5th District; Austin King, 8th District; Brenda Konkel, 2nd District; Mike Verveer, 4th District; Zach Brandon, 7th District; and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

Voting against the addition (upholding their oaths of office and respecting the 59% of Wisconsin residents who voted in favor of the marriage amendment) were Alds. Cindy Thomas, 20th District; Jed Sanborn, 1st District; Judy Compton, 16th District; and Noel Radomski, 19th District.

In the words of a university blogger:

You gotta love Howard Schweber. He says exactly what I expect him to in regards to this ridiculous proposal. Madison wants to allow office-holders to basically say they aren’t really going to uphold the constitution when they take their oath of office because of the gay marriage ban…

There’s something entirely disingenuous about swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Wisconsin…except for that one part. And that one, I don’t really like that one either.

And:

…Only a few alders seem to understand what upholding the constitution means, what their oath of office entails. Most other alders displayed a complete lack of knowledge about even basic things, like the difference between state and federal constitutions, their role as elected officials, and the role of an oath. Although I shouldn’t be surprised, I’m still incredibly disappointed.

The other thing I noticed tonight was the incredibly disrespect and open resentment towards Cindy Thomas. It is one thing to disagree with what she says, but to smirk and make snide remarks while she addresses the council is completely out of line. Kudos to her for putting up with it for all these years, and still having the courage to speak up.

UPDATE — Also see Newsday story published Feb 25, 2007.

Excerpted from Millions At Stake In Gay Adult Adoption Case, published Jan 15, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…In 1991 Olive F. Watson used [a Maine adult adoption] law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971…

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

A press release from Christian Civic League of Maine, published Jan 9, 2007:

Before the 2006 elections, Maine’s foremost civil and religious rights group, the Christian Civic League of Maine, filed suit in federal court to allow the League to run a grass-roots lobbying ad, urging Maine’s two Senators to vote for the federal marriage amendment. The suit was necessary because the League was prohibited by a law sponsored in Congress by Senator Olympia Snowe which prohibited citizens groups from running broadcast ads before an election which mention the name of a federal candidate.

The suit was ultimately dismissed by a federal court and is now on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

However, this same law has now been declared unconstitutional by another federal court. In a case brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, a federal court has declared that Snowe’s law is unconstitutional as applied to grass- roots lobbying. The League’s attorney, James Bopp, Jr., is quoted in the Kennebec Journal saying that the ruling is a vindication for the League.

The League also defended free speech in the early 1990s. “Gay” activists wanted to keep their issue from being voted on. The result of that two year long legal ordeal was a strong affirmation of the League’s position. The judge even forced the state to pay the League’s legal fees.