From Is a Christian Parent Unfit to Raise a Child Whose Other Parent Identifies as a Homosexual?, by Chris Stovall, published Mar 14, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct:

This week there is news that former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned from office after publicly announcing he is a “Gay American” who had an extra-marital affair with a male staffer, has amended his divorce lawsuit to seek custody of his 5-year-old daughter. The article gives us an important clue as to what may have prompted McGreevey to seek custody: “[McGreevey’s estranged wife Dina] Matos said last month that the two ‘continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to, and until they are resolved, there will be no agreement.'”

Of course, we don’t know the specifics in the McGreevey case. But, this fits the pattern of a growing wave of attacks on parents with Biblical, traditional beliefs on sex and marriage. The Alliance Defense Fund receives a growing number of requests for assistance in this area (see, e.g., this ADF press release). One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent’s homosexual behavior. Typically, it is alleged that any discussion with the child of the Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful, or perhaps that God’s design for the family is for a man and a woman to unite to raise their children, violates a nondisparagement clause in the divorce decree meant to prevent one parent from turning the child against the other parent in the wake of a bitter divorce. Since it is not uncommon for these nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.

Christian family law attorneys must start being vigilant about this issue in divorce litigation and settlement negotiations. Given that the historic Supreme Court cases which recognized the fundamental due process right of parents to raise their children have often involved issues of moral and religious instruction, this custody dispute scenario is yet another area in which it remains to be seen exactly what impact the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in our modern era will have on the constitutional rights of parents who will not bow the knee.

By Sonja Dalton

On The View, during a debate over the 2008 presidential election, the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act, Rosie O’Donnell lashed out at Elisabeth Hasselbeck, calling her “young and wrong.” When Elisabeth, 30, objected to Rosie’s “ageism,” Rosie defended herself by saying (emphasis added):

“I know, but it’s the way that I’m able to be on this live broadcast
and love and support you
in spite of the fact that I disagree so abhorrently
with most of the things you believe,
so it is what I tell myself in order to not get into the RAGE I feel
at at some of the IGNORANT comments,
so that’s what I have to do!”
— Rosie O’Donnell on The View, Feb 28, 2007
(see the clip on ABC’s website: select “Hot Topics, War on Iraq Part 2”)

Two questions:

• If Rosie wants us to demonstrate “tolerance” (which in homosexual activist speak really means “approval of”) toward her, her homosexual “partner,” the exposure of their children to their lesbian lifestyle, and her radical political views, then why can’t she simply listen to Elisabeth Hasselbecks conservative viewpoint without feeling and expressing RAGE?

• What if this discussion had been the other way around? What if Elisabeth Hasselbeck had lashed out at Rosie O’Donnell and said “Sometimes I can barely contain the RAGE I feel at your IGNORANT comments?” Somehow, I suspect Elisabeth would either be issuing a public apology and going to “homophobia” therapy or else watching her media career go up in flames. But neither Barbara Walters or ABC insisted on a public apology from Rosie. Why is okay for Rosie O’Donnell to talk to her co-workers like this?

Her blog poetry makes obvious that Rosie O’Donnell feels badly about her lack of self-control — and that she needs Jesus Christ to heal her heart and transform her life. Keep her in loving prayer.

Contrast Mr. Jackson’s Biblical perspective to that of lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding, where she says (emphasis ours):

“Saturday’s coverage of the Summit includes a press conference with Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and other pastors speaking out against homophobia in the black church; Dyson’s speech, “The Theology of Homoeroticism;” and a debate featuring anti-equality pastor Bishop Harry Jackson. Sorry to say it doesn’t appear that Jackson learned much; spews some of his hoary anti-gay rhetoric in a Town Hall column that appears today.”

Her account of the debate is posted HERE.

——————————

From Black Gays Aggressively Enlist in the Culture War, by Harry R. Jackson, Jr., published March 12, 2007, by Townhall:

This last week I sat in a historic black American site – Mother Bethel Church in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. In keeping with the city’s tradition of being a cradle of American freedom, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was the first black congregation founded in the north. Established in 1793 by Richard Allen, a black minister who eventually became the first bishop of the AME denomination, this facility has stood as a symbol of the black struggle for freedom in both social and religious matters.

Unfortunately, last Saturday it was the site of a debate between liberal black clergy and conservatives concerning the acceptance of gays in the black church.

I felt compelled to raise my voice against the sponsoring group’s attempt to legitimize the gay life style in the black church. It took a little courage for me to attend such an event because of the lack of civility that the gay community often displays. In fact because of my conservative stand, I have been physically threatened with violence on several occasions.

Why would I risk appearing at such an event? The answer is clear in my mind. Such rallies and debate forums consist of both ardent followers and young people whom these folks are attempting to influence. In other words, I had an opportunity to dissuade some of their new converts.

Let me take a moment to give you a historic and sociological perspective of the gay movement in the black church. Most national polls in recent years have shown that blacks are more socially conservative than whites in their personal attitudes about things like same sex marriage than their white counterparts.

Despite these personal convictions, these same black citizens often vote for people that do not share their conservative perspective of the social landscape.

In a similar manner, black churches have often majored on developing an atmosphere of love and acceptance of all individuals. They preach that they serve a God of a second chance. One of the greatest examples of this attitude is Marion Barry’s 1995 winning campaign for Washington, D.C.’s mayoral post.

Barry ran on a saved-by-grace campaign. He won, despite the fact that he had been caught on video tape in the Vista Hotel using cocaine and having an adulterous liaison with a woman. Gays have enjoyed that “second chance” opportunity in black churches. Therefore, a gay appearance or someone’s past life does not stigmatize black church attendees. After all, how can someone reform if there is no dialogue or opportunity for exposure to truth.

Regretfully, gay acceptance doesn’t stop there in many cases. Many of our churches have had a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to gay members of congregations, choirs, and clergy. This means that openly gay behavior has not been condoned, but leaders in churches and denominations have not probed to identify or remove gay people. Often, rumors of gay activity outside of the church are overlooked as long as there are no incidents of solicitation or liaisons at church sponsored events. One minister I know proudly told a few other clergymen confidentially that he had been hired by a new congregation who had already employed a closeted gay music leader. His approach was to have a heart to heart talk in which he warned the man that he would report any problems he observed on church property. He went on to add that what the man did off site was his own business.

In my view, the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to this problem is the height of hypocrisy. Politics may be the place for compromise and consensus. The Church, on the other hand, should be a place of conviction and truth.

The Bible is clear in its statements against gay sexual activity.

Unfortunately, few churches preach biblical sexuality well. If they did, there would be fewer out-of-wedlock births as well as fewer practicing gays in the black church.

Church leaders must stand against the acceptance of the gay lifestyle because of social ramifications as well. Recent studies concerning same-sex marriage have shown that in Sweden and the Netherlands, where such unions have been allowed, marriage is devalued—resulting in fewer and later marriages. Secondly, they lead to rising out-of-wedlock births akin to the current black community dilemma in the U.S.

In addition to the damage that gay marriage does to the black family structure that is already under stress, legalization of gay marriage has the potential of endangering the next generation. Statistics show that children do better in school and are greater contributors to society when a mother and a father are present in the home.

In conclusion, let me state that the battle concerning same sex marriage and gay rights is just warming up in America. I am not willing just to give into the current cultural idiom which says, “Gay is Okay!” There is too much at stake.

I have compassion for people who live a gay lifestyle. Just like Jesus, I will take every opportunity to love the sinner and hate the sin. What about you?

Will you stand with me in this culture war?

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition as well as author of The Warriors Heart: Rules of Engagement for the Spiritual War Zone.

UPDATED Mar 6, 2007 — According to Appeals Court Sides With Oakland on Removal of “Natural Family” Sign, by Bob Elgecko, published Mar 5, 2007, by San Francisco Chronicle:

…The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s decision two years ago dismissing a lawsuit by the two employees, founders of a religious club called the Good News Employee Association.

In his February 2005 ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the two had other means of communicating their views, such as talking to co-workers during lunch breaks. He also said the city was entitled to enforce its ban on harassing gay and lesbian employees.

Continue reading at San Francisco Chronicle…

——————————

Excerpted from ‘Natural Family’ Called Derogatory to ‘Gays’, published Feb 15, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words “natural family, marriage and family values” constitute “hate speech” that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.

The words were used by two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests and posted a notice on a city bulletin board after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city’s e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.

But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained “statements of a homophobic nature” and promoted “sexual-orientation-based harassment.”

The women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, also were threatened with firing from their city jobs because of their posting, according to their lawsuit against the city, which alleges Oakland’s anti-discrimination policy “promotes homosexuality” and “openly denounces Christian values.”

By Peter LaBarbera

Update on the “sniper” story: an investigator with the Rapid City, S.D., police department has contacted Americans For Truth and told us that South Dakota “gay” activist Barry Wick will not be prosecuted for his “Snipers, take note” comment against this writer, posted on lesbian Pam Spaulding’s blog, because the threat was “too vague.” We have received and accepted a heartfelt apology from Mr. Wick.

Yesterday, I was asked by a suburban Chicago newspaper to comment on former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s comment, “I hate gay people.” I said that what Hardaway said was wrong (he has since apologized): we have always condemned hatred and un-Christian messages like “Rev.” Fred Phelps “God Hates Fags” signs — although of course it is perfectly acceptable to oppose homosexuality.

And Hardaway does have a point about homosexuals in the locker room: we don’t let men shower and dress in women’s locker rooms, so shouldn’t men who define themselves as sexually attracted to other men be relegated to an alternative space? Ditto for lesbians: parents of athletic daughters should be concerned about the presence of lesbian coaches and girls open about their same-sex desires in female locker rooms.

I told the reporter that Hardaway’s comments will only play to the liberal caricature of Christians and religious people who oppose homosexuality on principle as “haters.”

Here’s the problem: the same media and liberals who rush to condemn Hardaway’s comments look the other way when homosexual activists like Pam Spaulding (who runs the “Pam’s House Blend” blog) spew abject hatred against Christians or anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior. As my friend and former AFTAH Corporate Outreach Director Matt Barber describes in a column below, you don’t have to search very hard on Spaulding’s website to find evidence of her anti-Christian bigotry and hate-mongering.

And yet Duke University lauds Spaulding’s website as “fun” and “snappy.” Can you imagine Duke or any university promoting a “conservative” or religious website that engaged in regular, mean and ugly putdowns of homosexuals? Pam is the online “gay” equivalent of Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” campaign, so why is an institution of “higher learning” that ostensibly advocates “tolerance” promoting her brand of hatred?

Click HERE to write Duke University President Richard Brodhead (or call him at 919-684-2424) about Duke’s promotion of hateful lesbian and Duke employee Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian website. Politely ask for an official apology for promoting anti-religious bigotry by touting her blog.

The NBA punished Hardaway for his remarks. Yet Duke U. rewards Spaulding with accolades despite her rank bigotry against Christians. (Memo to Pam: try making your points without mocking religion or resorting to sophomoric name-calling. Hate is a two-way street.)

Fact is, Spaulding is far from alone: there are countless examples of hateful homosexual attacks against Christians, like the wicked depiction of my friend and Maine Christian pro-family leader Mike Heath’s wife Paulie below. Yet the same media who fall over themselves in the sprint to condemn “anti-gay hate” show little interest in exposing acts of anti-Christian bigotry by homosexuals. Maybe that’s because most journalists fundamentally agree with the “gay” activist agenda and don’t want to do anything to harm its image–which reporting the truth certainly would.

Conversely, these days many in the media and Hollywood are applying the “hate” (or “homophobe”) label to almost anything that does not support the homosexual activist point of view.

The worst part about the liberals’ hypocritical double-standard on “hate” is that it actually contributes to escalating anti-Christian bigotry in our culture. Tim Hardaway will be blackballed for life unless he grovels in repentance — the press will make sure of that. Meanwhile, homosexual haters like Pam Spaulding are encouraged by the media’s agenda-driven silence.

A Maine homosexual activist posted the crude, digitally-altered graphic above,
of pro-family leader Mike Heath’s lovely wife, Christian songwriter Paulie Heath,
on the Amazon.com website.

P.S. Oh, I almost forgot: here’s a real photo of Paulie Heath, whom you can book for a concert at your church or women’s retreat by clicking HERE:

Matt Barber’s CWA column:

Hate Bloggers, Death Threats and Apologies Abound
By J. Matt Barber, published by Concerned Women for America Feb. 13

Media outlets have given the story fairly wide coverage. Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D- North Carolina) recently named two leftist, anti-Christian bloggers to high profile positions with his campaign. [They subsequently resigned.] …

But another story, with perhaps more serious implications, has gone largely unreported by the mainstream media.

Last week, Concerned Women for America (CWA) broke the news about an apparent threat to the life of pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera made by a commenter on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian site Pam’s House Blend.

Spaulding is an information technology manager with Duke University Press, and her employer appears quite proud of its blustering left-wing blogger. Duke Press has even publicly praised and promoted her blog activities, calling them a “mixture of snappy prose, funny postings and serious commentary.”

So, just for fun, let’s see if we can’t yuck it up a bit with Duke University. Let’s take a look at some of Spaulding’s “snappy” and “funny” musings:

On her blog — among other things – Spaulding regularly mocks both Christ and Christians by sarcastically referring to Jesus as “jeebus.” She refers to Christians as both the “Am Taliban” (for American Taliban) and “bible beaters.” She’s doctored photos of the pope, dressing him in drag and women’s makeup, apparently implying that he’s a cross-dressing closet homosexual. Spaulding has likened a well-respected black New Jersey pastor to cult leader and mass murderer Jim Jones, and she has managed to ridicule both Christmas and pro-lifers in one fell swoop with a post titled, “Oh Fetus tree, Oh Fetus tree.”

Side splitting, isn’t it?

And if you think that’s funny, this’ll make you collapse in gales of laughter:

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera, who is married with children, someone on House Blend published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread. Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” suggested that “snipers take note” of LaBarbera’s address. Wick also suggested that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self defense and stated that, “[LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens.”

Spaulding and other members of her blog so frequently foment hatred toward Christians that it’s no real surprise that one of her posts culminated in this chilling and ostensibly illegal threat to LaBarbera’s life.

Soon after CWA broke the story, Spaulding issued a public apology to LaBarbera and removed the threatening language from her site. She has purportedly banned Wick from her blog. Spaulding indicated that she was unaware of the post, although the threat had been posted for nearly three weeks. LaBarbera was gracious enough to take her at her word and has accepted her apology.

But Spaulding should apologize further.

She should apologize to the millions of Christians around the world whom she mocks and bashes on a daily basis.

She should apologize to pro-family leaders like LaBarbera, Dr. James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye and others whom she unfairly belittles and needlessly berates.

But she probably won’t.

And since one can reasonably infer that Duke University Press has placed its stamp of approval on Spaulding’s anti-Christian tirades, perhaps it’s appropriate for them to apologize on her behalf – that is, if they don’t actually share her backward beliefs.

But don’t hold your breath.

We’ve all seen how collectively stingy Duke University staff can be with apologies. Remember the ad the lynch mob – er – faculty hastily took out condemning the Duke Lacrosse team members accused of rape? They rendered judgment before the ink was dry on the arrest warrant but arrogantly refused to apologize even after it became abundantly clear that the accused would likely be exonerated.

Still, if Duke’s stubborn liberal pride won’t allow them to apologize for enabling, if not endorsing, Spaulding’s hateful screeds, then at the very least Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead will surely denounce the threat made to LaBarbera’s life on the very blog of which Duke is so proud.

It’s a noxious paradox, really. The left loves to pay lip service to the rhetoric of tolerance and diversity, while their own bigotry is betrayed by hateful and intolerant blather such as that which pollutes the cyber-pages of Pam’s House Blend.

And they’re not saying “sorry” for it.

But someone is apologizing.

Last Wednesday, February 7, South Dakota homosexual activist Barry G. Wick faxed a letter to CWA’s Washington D.C. headquarters admitting that he was the author of the threatening House Blend comments. Wick issued what appeared to be a heartfelt apology to LaBarbera and requested that CWA pass along his sincere regrets to the Christian community. Again, LaBarbera has graciously accepted the apology and says that he has forgiven Wick.

We are all sinners – every one. Christians are commanded to forgive others as we pray the Father will forgive us. However, even in forgiveness actions have consequences. We are a nation of laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a legal process that should and must take place.

Objectively speaking, a threat to the life of another is a very serious offense, even if it’s subjectively made in jest. It must always be treated as a bona fide threat. LaBarbera has shared that when he learned of what appeared to be an imminent threat to his person; he contacted the FBI and other appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Federal law is clear. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875 (c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The legal process is in motion, and as with all serious matters of this type, our unique system of justice will determine the outcome.

In the meantime, the very Christians who are the subject of those insidious threats, hateful words, and intolerant acts of omission will – in LaBarbera’s own words – be praying for “Spaulding, Barry Wick, and all those whose embrace of homosexuality has led them to be consumed by hatred toward Christians and others who defend natural sexuality and marriage.”

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

By Peter LaBarbera

One of the fascinating aspects of the Canadian and European stories on pro-homosexuality “hate speech” enforcement is the mainstream nature of the speech now being censored. In Canada, a politician is fined for saying homosexuality is not natural or normal. Wow. Shocking, hateful stuff.

Now in France, a Member of Parliament (below) is fined for saying that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. Horrors. Jail this menace to society!

Two observations: 1) I sure am glad to be living in the good ol’ USA, where we have a First Amendment. When the American “Gay” Left tires of simply twisting the motives of pro-family advocates (e.g., comparing us to Nazis and calling Christians the “American Taliban,” as is the habit of lesbian blogger and prodigious name-caller Pam Spaulding), they will grow jealous of “hate speech” prosecutions abroad and start ratcheting up calls to ban “homophobic” speech here. Mark my words.

When that happens, the “gay” cause will lose considerable support from moderates and liberty-loving Americans who despise censorship. If it doesn’t, America as a free nation will be no longer. The good sign is that already, people are tiring of the creeping pro-“gay” Big Brotherism in corporations and the culture, dictating what can and cannot be said (e.g., “spouse”: bad; “partner”: good).

2) Where is the outcry among the American “gay” opinion-molders on the punishment abroad of Judeo-Christian “anti-gay” speech? Where is the angst over the erosion of freedom of speech in the once-“free” West? Why aren’t more homosexual leaders and writers swearing off such tyranny here, perhaps recognizing that the censors might turn on them some day?

One thing is clear: our noble cause of stopping the creation and proliferation of laws granting “rights” based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) is as much a freedom issue as it is a moral one.

——————————

The following is excerpted from French MP Fined for Using Homophobic Language, published Jan 25, 2007, by Independent (South Africa):

A court fined a conservative member of the French parliament €3 000 (about R28 000) on Thursday for abusive comments about homosexuals, the first time a politician had been prosecuted under a two-year-old law banning homophobic language.

Christian Vanneste, a member of the ruling UMP party, was quoted in the media as saying homosexuality was “inferior” to heterosexuality and would be “dangerous for humanity if it was pushed to the limit”.

The court also ordered him to pay €2 000 in damages and costs to three gay and lesbian groups who brought the case.

Gay and civil rights groups welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement it “aimed to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimise verbal and physical attacks”.

Continue reading in Independent…

According to French Politician Fined Under Gay Hate Law, published Jan 25, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…The maximum Vanneste faced was imprisonment…

Following the Douai court ruling gay activists who leveled the charge said in a statement they will continue to charge politicians who target gays, adding that hate speech inspires and legitimizes verbal and physical attacks.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Homosexual Activist Files Deceptive Practices Complaint against Ex-Gay Video 1/25/2007

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen has filed a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General’s office over an Illinois ministry promoting the video “It’s Not Gay.” Besen claims that the video, which features interviews with those who have come out of homosexuality, is deceptive. A similar charged has been filed against the American Family Association and others who promote or sell the video. Martha Kleder spoke with Matt Barber, CWA’s policy director for cultural issues and Pete LaBarbera, founder and president of Americas for Truth, the ministry targeted by Besen. Listen Online | Download

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email — Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…