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.

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…

This story illustrates the disturbing neo-reality toward which our nation is advancing as we embrace various homosexual “rights.” It will not work both ways: If homosexual adoption is “good,” adoption by faithful Christians (who oppose homosexuality) will be viewed as “evil” and will ultimately be disallowed. If so-called “homophobic hate speech” is outlawed, Christians will necessarily forfeit freedom of speech and will be persecuted for preaching repentance from homosexuality. Law cannot be morally neutral. — Sonja Dalton

——————————-

Excerpted from Adopt? We Were ‘Too Idealistic’, published Jan 25, 2007, by Telegraph (UK):

…My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.

We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months…

We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians…

We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.

We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.

The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose…

At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?

Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…

If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.

Continue reading in Telegraph…

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

A press release dated Jan 22, 2007, from Repent America:

On Friday, January 19, 2007, United States District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted summary judgment to both the City of Philadelphia and Philly Pride Presents, Inc. in the federal lawsuit brought by the Philadelphia Eleven.

PHILADELPHIA ELEVEN AFTER THEIR VINDICATION BY A PHILADELPHIA CRIMINAL COURT

On October 10, 2004, six men and five women with Repent America (RA), who became known as the Philadelphia Eleven, were arrested while ministering the Gospel on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia at a $10,000 tax-payer funded celebration of homosexuality called “OutFest,” which was organized by Philly Pride Presents, Inc.

Prior to their arrest, the Christians were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the “Pink Angels” who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities. The Philadelphia police, under the direction of Chief Inspector James Tiano, the City’s “police liaison to the gay and lesbian community,” refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed, even though they respectfully cooperated with police, obeying orders to move, short of being directed out of the event.

After spending 21 hours in jail, Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s office charged them under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law called “Ethnic Intimidation,” along with a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. If convicted, the Philadelphia Eleven could have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines each. These charges were later dismissed by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe as being without merit. Subsequently, on October 21, 2005, the Philadelphia Eleven filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia and Philly Pride Presents, Inc. for violations of their civil rights.

In his decision, Judge Stengel sided with the defendants, explaining that police were permitted to discriminate against the plaintiffs because of safety concerns coupled by Philly Pride Presents’ securement of a permit from the City to hold the $10,000 tax-payer funded celebration of homosexuality on the public streets, covering fifteen city blocks. Although Stengel conceded “the activity in question took place in a public forum,” and that “there is no doubt that the venue for Outfest, a designated section of streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia, was a public place,” he concluded that “once the City issued a permit to Philly Pride for OutFest, it was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages.”

“Obviously, we are very disappointed. We believe that the law clearly supports the rights of the plaintiffs in this case, as well as all individuals, to be able to engage in free speech activities on the public streets and sidewalks,” stated Ted Hoppe, attorney for the Philadelphia Eleven. “We do not believe that the fact that there was an event also taking place, even with a permit, diminishes that right,” Hoppe concluded.

“I cannot even begin to comprehend what Judge Stengel’s thought process was in making this decision,” stated RA director Michael Marcavage upon hearing the decision. “This ruling was entirely unexpected considering that all the evidence has been overwhelmingly in our favor, complete with video documentation, not to mention the fact that all eleven of us were vindicated of any wrongdoing in criminal court,” he continued.

“It is without question that Judge Stengel’s decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a ‘permitting scheme’ can be used by police and event organizers to ‘exclude persons expressing contrary messages’ in public areas and at public events. It is for this reason that his ruling is especially troubling and must be overturned,” Marcavage stated. “Christians must be free to speak the truths of God’s Word, warn the wicked, and to preach the Gospel in the public square without interference from government, and therefore, we will continue to battle for these God-given liberties by appealing this decision,” Marcavage concluded.

“When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” — Ezekiel 33:8-9

Note: You may read the version on Philly Pride’s website to decide which you believe to be true. Remember to pray for our enemies and for those caught up in sin.

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…

By Peter LaBarbera

Then Jesus told them this parable:

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”

— Gospel of Luke: 15:3-7)

Michael Johnston of Pure Life Ministries

Most people celebrate healthy change -– be it a man who overcomes a drug or drinking addiction, a young girl who escapes the deadly, self-loathing world of anorexia/bulimia, or a husband who stops using pornography and saves his marriage. Jesus (above) taught that there is a celebration in heaven when just one sinner repents and turns back to God.

And so, when proud, practicing homosexuals repent and say good-bye to that destructive lifestyle, we at Americans For Truth join God in celebrating it as a joyous thing. Countless thousands of people have left the homosexual lifestyle, many after converting to Christ or rededicating themselves to the faith of their youth.

But while we’re cheering, homosexual activists like Wayne Besen are grumbling and putting on their ANTI-ex-“gay” investigative hats in the hunt for another “ex-gay fraud.” Besen is one of the angriest (and most vicious) activists in the movement that oddly calls itself “gay.” Recently he embarked on a futile crusade called “Truth Wins Out” to deny the clear reality of change for people struggling with unwanted homosexual attractions.

Now Wayne and his friends think they have a new scandal because Americans For Truth is “selling” an American Family Association (AFA) video (“It’s Not Gay”) featuring an interview with ex-“gay” Mike Johnston, who lost his “ex-gay” ministry several years ago by falling back into homosexual perversion, but who now has been restored through Pure Life Ministries. In their zeal to crush AFTAH, Besen and other homosexual activists missed a wonderful story of one man’s redemption and his rescue from deep spiritual hypocrisy and sexual sin.

Celebrating Failures
Besen and his fellow homosexual activists have everything invested in the politically correct idea that people are naturally (born) “gay” -– and that “sexual orientation” (another misleading term inspired by homosexual activism) is unchangeable. They are downright cruel in hoping for and exploiting failures in the ex-“gay” movement.

Once again, the homosexual movement has it backwards: rather than applauding overcomers, the fanatics in “Wayne’s World” champion the failures -– people who tried to walk away from homosexuality but gave up, or -– even better, lost their ministries like Ted Haggard in scandal.

As the new Congress convenes in January, hate crimes legislation and ENDA (employment non-discrimination) are high on the priority list. Read on to see where similar legislation has taken our British friends…

Excerpted from Homophobia Spies in the Classroom, published Dec 28, 2006, by Evening Standard:

Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.

It called for parents and children to identify schools that ignore “homophobic” language in the playground and teachers who produce “homophobic” lessons.

And it called for head teachers to bring lessons about “homophobia” on to school timetables and to involve their pupils in gay “awareness weeks”.

The advice from Home Secretary John Reid‘s officials comes at a time of deep concern among churches that new gay rights laws due next spring will bar traditional teaching on sexual morality in schools and force them instead to include gay rights dogma in lessons.

The paper on “homophobic hate crime” is aimed at guiding police forces, local authorities, social services and schools among other public bodies.

…Urging that school incidents be reported to a “hate crime co-ordinator”…It called for reporting systems to “allow pupils and parents to make referrals direct if they feel the school is not taking the issue seriously.”

The report added: “The seriousness of using homophobic language is not fully appreciated in schools…”

Home Office minister Tony McNulty [Minister for Police & Security, pictured right] said: “…People who commit homophobic crime need to know their prejudices and actions will be tackled…”

…Colin Hart (pictured left) of the Christian Institute think tank that backed the Roberts said yesterday: “There is an element of desperation about this advice. No-one wants to see any kind of bullying in schools. But this is not about bullying of pupils who others think are homosexual. It is about punishing schools unless they try to stop pupils using “gay” as a perjorative word.”

…The Home Office guidance also said that gay lobby groups could set up “third party reporting centres” to pass to police details of “homophobic” incidents which gay individuals themselves have been too scared to report to police.

Police should then record the names and details of individuals passed on by gay lobby groups, it said.

Continue reading in Evening Standard…