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…

This was just too entertaining to pass over (pardon the pun)…

Excerpted from Bleating Hearts, by Mark Steyn, by Jan 8, 2007, at Washington Times:

As part of this column’s ongoing commitment to in-depth coverage of the issues that matter, we’re pleased to present the first of a new series: Sheep In The News. Here are two headlines from the last week.

From The Wall Street Journal: “Ritual sacrifice? Not on my street, some Belgians say.” And from The Sunday Times of London: “Science told: Hands off gay sheep.”

The first story is about the 25,000 sheep in Brussels who a few days ago found themselves pointed toward Mecca and then slit through the throat and bled to death.

Muslims do this to celebrate Eid al-Adha, which commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son to God and God’s willingness to settle for a ram in lieu. The Belgian Muslim population has grown so fast that there aren’t enough places in the city to perform the ritual sacrifice, and come Eid it’s like sheep drivetime at every Brussels slaughterhouse, with rams backed up ram-to-ram as far as the eye can see.

As reported by the Journal, Mohamed Mimoun grabbed his sheep, took a number and realized he was in for a two-hour wait. Even worse, en route to the slaughterhouse, he was stopped by a cop and fined for having the sheep in the trunk of his Toyota. By law, the sheep is supposed to ride in the rear passenger seats. Baa, baa, back seat.

On which note, let us turn to the gay sheep. Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they’ve had “considerable success” with injecting hormones into the rams’ brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of “Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe.”

Gay groups (human gay groups, that is: Even America does not yet have a 24/7 gay sheep lobby group with offices on K Street) are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, “the right of sheep to be gay”…

Continue reading at Washington Times…

Excerpted from Christian Magistrate Forced To Resign For Refusing to Place Children In Gay Homes, by Meg Jalsevac, published Nov 28, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Andrew McClintock, an 18 year veteran in magistrate court on the South Yorkshire Bench, is suing the British Department for Constitutional Affairs for discrimination against his religious beliefs.  McClintock says that he had no option but to resign when his superiors told him that he would not be permitted to refuse to place children in adoptive homes with homosexual parents.  McClintock says to do so would directly contradict his Christian beliefs that homosexuality is immoral.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Archbishop Warns of Gay Rights Backlash, by Jonathan Petre, published Nov 29, 2006, by Telegraph:

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, has warned the Government of a serious backlash if it attempts to force through a raft of new homosexual rights laws.

Archbishop Nichols said that the proposed regulations, designed to ensure equal treatment for gays, could mean the end of the Church’s co-operation with the Government in providing a range of welfare services.

Church officials also believe that the its seven adoption agencies could be closed if they were required to place children with gay couples in defiance of Vatican guidelines.

Speaking in St Chad’s cathedral in Birmingham, the Archbishop that the Government “must realise is that it is not possible to seek cooperation with us while at the same time trying to impose upon us conditions which contradict our moral values.”

…The Archbishop, who forced the Government into a humiliating climbdown over faith schools early this month, said the process of secular democracy in Britain was not morally neutral but was “engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework”.

…The proposed regulations could also force Christian marriage preparation and guidance agencies to cater for same sex couples and would not allow parishes, retreat houses, conference centres and hostels to refuse bookings from gay and lesbians.Faith schools could be compelled to teach that homosexuality was the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

…Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative minister, said that the proposals spelled the “end of freedom of conscience in our country”.

“They create a hierarchy of rights and whenever a homosexual right comes up against any other right the homosexual right prevails,” she said, adding that the Government “seems to have no clue that practising a religion means more than going to church”.

Continue reading in Telegraph…

Excerpted from Israeli High Court Orders ‘Gay Marriage’ Recognition, by Michael Foust, published Nov 21, 2006, by Baptist Press:

The land where Jesus once walked soon will recognize “gay marriage.”

In a landmark 6-1 decision, Israel’s Supreme Court Nov. 21 ordered the government to begin recognizing “gay marriages” from other countries, such as Canada. Although the decision doesn’t give homosexual couples the ability to “marry” within Israel’s borders, it nonetheless puts Israel at odds with countries such as Great Britain and the United States, neither of which recognizes foreign “gay marriages.” In fact, the U.S. government doesn’t even recognize “gay marriages” that occur within its borders in Massachusetts, the lone state where it is legal.

Four countries — Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands — have legalized “gay marriage,” and a fifth one, South Africa, is expected to do so within days.

The ruling by the High Court of Justice — the name for Israel’s highest court — gives homosexual couples the same legal benefits as traditional couples, including tax breaks and the ability to adopt, The Jerusalem Post reported. The decision forces the government to register the “marriages” like it does any other marriages.

“We don’t have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here,” lawmaker Moshe Gafni told Israel’s Army Radio, according to the Associated Press. “I assume that every sane person in the state of Israel, possibly the entire Jewish world, is shocked, because the significance is … the destruction of the family unit in the state of Israel.”

If you are banned by the state from acting on your faith and moral beliefs, then you are no longer free.–Peter LaBarbera

The Human Rights Commission said that Brockie’s “rights as a Christian were subordinate to those of homosexuals not to be discriminated against,” and that he “must restrict the practice of Christianity to his home and church, and not take it with him into the public marketplace.”

By Peter LaBarbera

Aging pop star and homosexual Elton John (pictured right with his longtime homosexual partner David Furnish) wants to “ban religion completely” because he says it promotes “hatred and spite against gays” (see Lifesite story below). People of faith are outraged, but do they understand that the homosexual lobby seeks to accomplish part of Elton’s dream–i.e., “banning” the outworking of traditional religion that results in speech and actions opposed to homosexuality?

There is an inherent incompatibility between rights based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) and traditional First Amendment and religious freedoms, especially for those who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. For a good book on this, I recommend my friend Janet Folger‘s Criminalizing Christianity, available on her Faith2Action’s website.

Here’s a primer on how “gay” activists and the liberal political allies (including activist judges) are moving to ban the application of religion with regard to homosexuality:

I. Step One in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Push Christian and religious speech defending Biblical sexual morality to the fringes; punish it, harass it or outlaw it altogether.

In John’s England, a Christian pro-family advocate, Stephen Green of the group Christian Voice, was recently arrested by the South Wales Police “Minorities Support Unit” simply for passing out a Biblical flier opposed to homosexuality outside a “gay” Mardi Gras event. The charges were dropped, but free speech and religious liberty are in jeopardy in this once-Christian land, with UK police hot on the trail of “homophobic” speech.

Consider the case of 67-year-old Christian street preacher Harry Hammond, a sufferer of Asperger’s Syndrome who in 2001 was holding a sign in the town square of Bournemouth with this horribly subversive message: “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism.” After Hammond was physically harassed by youths, with water poured on him and mud thrown at him, police arrested him (not the thugs) after receiving complaints from homosexuals about his placard.

Local magistrates found the preacher guilty under a 1986 law of using abusive, threatening or insulting speech that could cause harassment or distress to nearby homosexuals–even though it was Hammond who was harmed! Hammond’s sign was ordered destroyed as if it were a dangerous weapon (which seems to be how radical “queer” activists regard Biblical truth). The case was appealed to a High Court after Hammond died, but according to the Christian Voice, “the Court held that the magistrates were entitled to find the sign to be insulting because it appeared to relate homosexuality and lesbianism to immorality.” Click HERE for another good article about Hammond’s case.

Direct, Biblical speech condemning homosexuality as wrong or–God forbid–leading to hell appears to be the most likely target of “hate crimes” prosecution (or speech likely NOT to be protected by the courts) in these early days of government action protecting homosexuality as a “civil right” or “human right.”

Ralph Ovadal is a man who uses very direct speech to rally the public against the homosexual agenda. In 1996, in Madison, Wisconsin, Ovadal, then with Wisconsin Christians United (WCU), was assaulted while protesting a pro-homosexual event at a local elementary school. Despite the hateful motivation of the assailant (he despised one of the WCU signs, “Homosexuality Is Wrong“), and the existence of a strong “hate crimes” law in Madison, the attacker was never charged with a “hate crime.” Indeed, the battery charge against him was dropped and he received just a slap on the wrist despite the severe injuries caused to Ovadal.

How differently would the case have been handled had it been Ovadal who viciously attacked a homosexual protester?

II. Step Two in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Create a definition of the family that is unacceptable to Bible believers and traditional religions, then mandate that all social agencies, corporations and ministries adhere to that state definition.

Earlier this year in Boston, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that it was closing down its adoption agency after 100 years of operation, because the Church could not countenance placing adoptive children in homosexual households, which the Vatican regards as “gravely immoral.” Placing children in homosexual-led homes is required under the state’s pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law.

“Gay” rights trumps common sense, religious freedom and the best interest of children, again.

In California, a state “domestic partnership” (DP) law requires that large companies doing business with the government provide DP coverage for their employees. The state law followed a 1997 law in San Francisco (copied by New York and other major cities) that forced local businesses doing business with the city to carry DP benefits for homosexual couples if they offer benefits for married couples.

If moral-minded businessmen, landlords–and even Christian schools and popular ministries–are forced to recognize and reward sinful homosexual couples, then the practice of their religion has been banned in this key area of their life.

III. Step Three in banning religion (critical of homosexuality):
Add homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (“gender identity”) to the list of criteria for “civil rights” laws–and “diversity” policies in corporations. Then enforce these laws and policies against Christians, chipping away at the concept of religious exemptions.

Universities like Ohio State and Arizona State, citing their school’s “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination codes, have asserted that homosexual students have the right hold to leadership positions in campus Christian groups despite the “gay” students’ refusal to sign a Christian Statement of Faith (part of which proscribes homosexual practice). It is interesting to note that the campus ministries are willing to let homosexual students attend their meetings but not to assume leadership roles if they reject the group’s core beliefs.

Seems reasonable to me: do I have a “right” to be on the Board of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force?

From Prince Charles Praises Openly Gay Anglican Priest, by Terry Vanderheyden, published Oct 11, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Prince Charles, the future head of the Church of England, has sparked controversy by endorsing an openly homosexual Anglican clergyman.

Harry Williams, the former dean of Cambridge University who died earlier this year, was praised by the Prince in the forward to a new book of poems being published. The Prince of Wales wrote that Williams’ “proved to be a star; a man of intense humanity and warmth whose humour and originality created an aura of approachability,” according to a UPI report.

Williams’ 1982 autobiography meanwhile, titled “Some Day I’ll Find You,” describes the pastor’s experiences as a practicing homosexual while at Cambridge.

“I slept with several men, in each case fairly regularly,” he wrote, adding that “I have seldom felt more like thanking God then (sic) when having sex.”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary – the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention – wrote about Prince Charles that

“In just over 50 years, Prince Charles has managed to make himself a mockery of marriage and morality and to pose, as one leading British newspaper observed, as ‘a well-intentioned eccentric seeking divine inspiration.’”

Mohler added:

“There is indeed much to learn by observing the example of Prince Charles. He has become a living portrait of what happens when Christianity is separated from its central truth claims, and when faith becomes a matter of emotional aspiration rather than firm belief in the truth.”

From LifeLeague (UK):

The Advertising Standards Agency have investigated and upheld LifeLeague’s complaints against the Gay Police Association for their disgusting advert (below) that appeared in The Independent, 29.09.06.

(Click on image to enlarge and read the ad.)

The advert violated ASA guidelines on the grounds of decency, truthfulness and substantiation.

They declared that The Gay Police Association had:

[1] admitted the advert’s wording was structured in such a way as to represent non-criminal behaviour as ‘homophobic incidents’;

[2] failed to substantiate their claims about homophobic incidents;

[3] wrongly implied that Christians perpetrated the reported incidents;

[4] wrongly suggested that all of the reported incidents involved physical injury.

The Gay Police Association subsequently announced that they do not intend to use this ad again – yet they still remain unapologetic. The Independent however, did apologise for ‘offence caused’.

Continue reading at Pro-Life E-Newsletter…