To express your appreciation to Indianapolis Colts Coach
Tony Dungy for his firm stand, click HERE.

From Dungy Affirms Opposition to Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, by Kevin Jackson, published Mar 21, 2007, by The Christian Post:

Tony Dungy, the Christian coach of this year’s Super Bowl champions, clearly laid out his position against same-sex “marriage” Tuesday night.

In front of a crowd of 700 at the Indiana Family Institute (IFI)’s banquet, the Indianapolis Colts coach agreed with IFI’s position of defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“I appreciate the stance they’re taking,” he said, according to the Indianapolis Star, “and I embrace that stance.”

Before the awards dinner, several pro-homosexual and gay rights groups had criticized Dungy for attending the event. IFI, which has affiliations with Focus on the Family, has been a major voice in supporting a marriage amendment that is currently in the Indiana House, legally defining marriage as one man and one woman. The gay rights groups felt the professional football coach should stay away from all politics.

“We’re not anti-anything else,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we’re trying to promote the family – family values the Lord’s way.”

The coach went on to say that his comments should not be looked at as “gay bashing,” but that everything he said should be looked at from his foundation on faith.

Dungy attended the banquet held in Carmel, Ind., about 20 miles north of Indianapolis, to receive the group’s “Friend of the Family” award. Past recipients include Shirley Dobson, co-founder of Focus on the Family, and former federal independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

During his speech, the night’s honoree said he was not ashamed to be at the event.

“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.”

In a two-part series against Catholic teachings against birth control (posted Part 1, Jun 14, 2006 and Part 2, June 14, 2006), Amanda Marcotte wrote:

From Keeping Pace with the Right Stuff, by Jan LaRue, Esq, published Mar 16, 2007, by Culture and Media Institute:

Apparently some sensitivity sops in the White House have decided that we can’t have the military man charged with saving us from the Jihadists sounding soooo insensitive and judgmental.

There’s no other plausible explanation for the Marine chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doing a mea culpa lite after stating a self-evident truth about homosexual conduct: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

That’s what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs, told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune on Monday. Pace equated homosexual acts with adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Pace also said he supports the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy, which prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation.

The usual moral savants in Congress, who like to say “it’s wrong to say what’s right and wrong,” quickly passed judgment on Pace.

Leading the congressional critics’ chorus was the perpetually perplexed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco): “We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” Couldn’t somebody think to ask Pelosi whether Pace’s moral judgment about adultery is morally acceptable?

Our nation needs to decide whose morality best represents us: that of General Peter Pace or that of disgraced former governor Jim McGreevey…

Excerpted from Former N.J. Governor Discusses Sexuality, published Mar 17, 2007, by Associated Press:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after revealing that he was gay, says culture is outpacing politics in the acceptance of homosexuality…

McGreevey also addressed comments made earlier this week by the Pentagon’s top general…

“Gen. Pace’s remarks were so terribly unfortunate, not only because that’s what he believes but the notion that don’t ask, don’t tell actually encourages people to be less than honest, less than open, less than transparent,” McGreevey said.

Continue reading at TBO.com…

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. — Matthew 19:6

Pray for the six children whose homes have been broken, whose fathers have been left behind…and the many more just like them.

Excerpted from Gay Marriage Advocates Switch Strategies, by Ray Henry, published Mar 17, 2007, by Associated Press:

Aronda Kirby and Digit Murphy were once married to men, received the tax breaks for married couples and were legally permitted to take family leave if their husbands or children got sick. Both women lost those protections when they came out as lesbians, divorced their husbands and set up a new household together with their six children.

Now, with couples like Murphy and Kirby in mind, some gay rights advocates who previously fought for “marriage or nothing” are shifting strategies. Rather than fighting to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, they’re lobbying for the protections marriage provides…

“We’ve had all the rights, so we want them back,” Murphy said. “We don’t care how we get them.”

Continue reading at TBO.com…

At Americans For Truth, we are in an ongoing and very politically incorrect battle to restore the definition of homosexuality: homosexuality is behavior — changeable behavior, not an innate, unchangeable trait or identity.

Homosexuality is what you do,
not “who you are,”
as proved by the many ex-“gays” and ex-“lesbians”
now living joyful lives, whether celibate or in heterosexual marriage.

That battle is made tougher by the liberal media’s push-back from the opposite direction. Note how talk show host Larry King, in his CNN interview last week with a GOP presidential candidate, distorted Gen. Peter Pace’s statement against “homosexual acts”:

LARRY KING: “The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — ‘is a sin’ and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you?”

Quote him exactly? Here is what Gen. Pace actually told the Chicago Tribune: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…” — you can listen to the Tribune interview with Gen. Pace HERE.

——————————

The following is taken from a transcript of yesterday’s CNN “Larry King Live” interview with a GOP presidential candidate dealing with homosexuality and “gay marriage”:

LARRY KING: The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — “is a sin” and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you? ….

Excerpted from The Myth of Moral Neutrality, by Gregory Koukl, published Mar 16, 2007, by Townhall:

Gen. Peter Pace was vehemently denounced and condemned earlier this week for expressing a personal moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. The criticisms excoriated Pace for making a value judgment, while implying that the denunciations themselves were morally neutral. In reality, Pace’s critics expressed a moral judgment, too. They declared his comments wrong, not just factually but morally – and their moral outrage was palpable.

…This reflects one of the most entrenched assumptions of moral relativism in our society today: that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing of personal views are allowed. Each of us takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others. This is the essence of tolerance, or so the argument goes.

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance. An extremely articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood. The piece is called, “Self-Definition: Morality.”…

Faye Wattleton’s assessment is based on the notion of neutral ground, a place that implies no moral judgment. Wattleton is not neutral, however, as her own comments demonstrate.

In her article, Wattleton in effect argues that each of us should respect another’s point of view. She then implies, however, that any point of view other than this one is immoral, un-American, and tyrannous. If you disagree with Wattleton’s position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid. Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs…

It’s important to have an informed and civil public dialogue about public policy, and homosexual rights is a delicate subject made more difficult when one side is accused of moral judgment. Both sides are making moral judgments; it’s the nature of the issue. The question we should be discussing is which moral judgment makes the best public policy? It’s not possible to be morally neutral so it would be much more productive if everyone owned up to their moral values.

Continue reading at Townhall…

From The View from the Bottom, by Robert Knight, published Mar 16, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

The girls on “The View” are unanimous: Homosexuality is not only morally right but probably ought to be encouraged if we want to keep our military strong.OK, maybe mandating homosexuality in the military won’t fly just yet. For now, the ABC morning show’s talkers will have to be content fighting amongst themselves as to who is more outraged by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality, like adultery, is immoral.

The gals were in good media company. Not one of Tuesday’s morning or evening news shows on ABC, NBC or CBS featured a single person defending the general’s remarks. The tone was overtly hostile, with stories moving smartly through a laundry list of talking points found on homosexual activist groups’ websites. The Washington Post managed a March 13 trifecta: an editorial, “The Right to Serve,” an op-ed by Republican homosexuality booster and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military,” and a news article by Ann Scott Tyson, “Sharp Drop in Gays Discharged From Military Tied to War Need.”

It’s not as if the American people are clamoring for the military to welcome open homosexuality. Despite some profoundly distorted polls like the recent Zogby survey of military personnel, a large segment of the American people believe, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual behavior is immoral. According to the Cultural and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey released on March 7, which polled 2,000 demographically representative Americans, 49 percent say flatly that homosexuality is “wrong.” Only 14 percent of Americans say homosexuality is “right.” The stampede to end the ban isn’t coming from the public, but from the media and some liberal politicians backed by the homosexual lobby.

On “The View,” the ladies opened the March 13 program by trashing the general, who wasn’t there to defend his honor.

Nor was anyone else inclined to do so, even designated “conservative” Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She openly wondered whether Pace harbors vices of his own that drove him to say what he did. This is a standard homosexual propaganda technique: Attribute dark motives to anyone who won’t salute the rainbow flag. You can look it up in their strategy manual, a book entitled “After the Ball.”

Rosie O’Donnell, a famous out lesbian, predictably came unglued. Over the past few years, she has defined herself primarily by her sexual behavior, and then claimed that people with moral qualms about homosexuality are bigots who are assailing her identity.

Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:

Joely Fisher: “We need to open General Pace’s closet and see what’s in there.”

Joy Behar: “Do you think people who are homophobic are gay closeted cases themselves?”

Fisher: “Or sexually repressed or uncomfortable with their own sexuality in any way?”

O’Donnell: “So if you are a gay person you are immoral. You are innately bad. You are less than, because you are gay. It’s like saying all lefties are witches.”

Hasselbeck: “He likened it to adultery, an adulterous person in the armed services would face some sort of punishment or some sort of slap on the wrist. …”

Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”

Behar: “If you’re saying it’s immoral the way adultery is, then let gay people get married. Then it won’t be immoral.”

O’Donnell: “Can you be a straight person who is a horrible person, who is adulterous and has no morals?”

Fisher: “And have a leg up”

O’Donnell: “But it’s impossible for a gay person ever to be treated equal, which is the premise of this country, that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, all people, even the gay ones. (Bares her teeth, shouts) General Pace, wake up! It’s 2007. There’s a war on! Leave the gays alone!” (applause)

After Rosie’s outburst, Hasselbeck explained why everyone doesn’t just go ahead and cheerfully accept homosexuality as moral:

“What happens is there’s this group of, you know, religious believers, be it Christian or whoever, who believe certain sins are worse than others. They do believe homosexuality is a sin, because they are not guilty, guilty of it, then they say, ‘It’s not my sin so I will focus on that,’ then pretty much hide the fact that I’m guilty of some other things as well.”

Later, she opined that, “We should not judge one another. I feel that’s the root of Christianity. You shall not judge.”

Does that mean we’re not to judge adultery? Promiscuous sex? Polygamy? Prostitution?

Inquiring Viewers want to know.