Excerpted from Pastor at Senate Invocation curses ‘Spirit’ of Gay Marriage, published Dec 12, 2006, by Star-Ledger (New Jersey):

A pastor delivering the invocation at the opening of yesterday’s Senate session included in his prayer a condemnation of gay marriage.

“We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage,” the Rev. Vincent Fields, pastor of Greater Works Ministries in Absecon, prayed as lawmakers listened, heads bowed. “We ask you to just look over this place today, cause them to be shaken in their very heart in uprightness, Lord, to do that is right before you.”

Earlier yesterday the [NJ state] Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to allow gay couples to form civil unions with the same rights as married couples.

Continue reading in Star-Ledger…

Dec 7, 2006, press release from Real Women for Canada:

The Canadian political system does not serve the voters well, it only serves the interests of the politicians.

The vote today on same-sex marriage, with two of the political parties, the Bloc and the NDP requiring their members to vote along party lines on one of the most significant issues of this generation, is a disgrace and a blemish on democracy.

The Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was not much better.  Begrudgingly, he allowed a free vote for his MPs , but he gravely misled his MPs and the public on the issue by claiming same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right under the Charter.  Either Mr. Dion was deliberately misrepresenting the situation or he is ignorant about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has never at any time ruled that traditional marriage was unconstitutional and that same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right.  Canadians and the Liberal party members deserve better leadership than that.

The debate is not over.

The egregious behaviour of politicians on the same-sex marriage issue necessitates that the public have a say on the issue, having been effectively ignored by the self-important politicians. There is no longer any doubt that a referendum on the issue must be called by the Conservative government.

TAKE ACTION – Begin now to let President Bush know that you oppose Federal Hate Crimes legislation.

Excerpted from Gay-Rights Activists Hopeful About Agenda’s New Prospects, by Johanna Neuman, published Dec 3, 2006, by Los Angeles Times:

Groups say they’re close to getting a hate crimes measure passed in the new Congress

…With Democrats about to take control of Congress, some of its other legislative goals appear within reach — including making violence against gays a hate crime and outlawing workplace discrimination.

…With the realignment of the House and Senate next month, gay and lesbian groups say they are tantalizingly close to having enough votes to ensure passage of at least the hate crimes bill, and perhaps the discrimination measure, which once failed in the Senate by one vote.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is [“gay”], said the hate crimes bill had a “very good chance of going to George Bush’s desk … in the first half of the year.”

He said the discrimination measure might be further off, noting that Democrats may not want to push for too much too soon.

…Some gay-rights activists now are demanding that the bill include transgender individuals, which could complicate passage.

And social conservatives contend that hate crimes bills in Sweden and Canada have squelched religious expression. “Pastors have been prosecuted for saying these things [about homosexuality] from the Bible, in their own churches,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative Concerned Women for America.

…Gay-rights activists say they expect the Democratic leadership to allow just one of their issues to get attention soon after the party takes control, for fear of alienating conservative Democrats. The hate crimes bill has the best chance of early passage, advocates say, because it has support of law enforcement groups.

…With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, social conservatives will be looking to the White House for help. “We’ll likely be relying on the president to veto,” McClusky said.

Gay-rights activists acknowledge that President Bush could be a problem, given his base of religious conservatives, but are not convinced he would use his veto power.

“Given the broad, broad public support, I’d be very surprised if President Bush would actually veto” the hate crimes bill, said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a civil rights group.

…Gay-rights groups say they have already won an important victory: They can now play offense instead of defense.

From Pro-Family Groups Find Ways to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools, by Ed Vitagliano, published Dec 6, 2006, by Agape Press:

The influence of homosexual activists within the nation’s educational system continues to grow, altering the attitudes of children and teens toward the acceptance of a destructive and depraved lifestyle.

Often without parental knowledge, local schools are instituting policy changes that not only promote respect for homosexuality, but often even celebrate it. From teacher lesson plans to books in the school libraries to special speakers addressing children in school assemblies, activists are touting the “naturalness” of homosexuality.

‘Risk Audit’ can reveal shenanigans
With so much politically-correct pro-homosexual indoctrination going on, how do parents assess the extent of homosexual activism in their own local schools?

Linda Harvey, founder of the Ohio-based pro-family group Mission America, has developed one common-sense tool. Harvey’s “Risk Audit Project” is a comprehensive survey which measures the promotion of homosexuality in a given public school district. (The survey can be downloaded for free at the organization’s website.)

The Risk Audit Project measures the extent to which public school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists by determining, among other things, whether schools have adopted pro-homosexual policies or curricula, and whether the school district is sponsoring pro-homosexual clubs, events, or activities.

For background, see New York on the Cutting Edge of Gender Confusion.

Excerpted from NY Rejects Transgender Birth Certificate Law, by Daniel Trotta, published Dec 5, 2006, by Reuters:

New York City’s health department on Tuesday rejected a proposal that would have allowed transgender people to switch the gender on their birth certificates without a sex-change operation.

…The health department cited “broader societal ramifications” for killing the proposal, noting that hospitals, schools and jails still must classify people by gender.”For example, how can you send a person with a penis to a women’s prison?” said one health department official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the department.

Continue reading at Reuters…

Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting.–Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms, by Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, published Dec 6, 2006, by Washington Post:

Mary Cheney, the vice president’s openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are “ecstatic” about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

…Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home. [Photo HERE.]

…In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney’s child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

Continue reading in Washington Post…

Excerpted from Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement, by Michael Medved, published Dec 6, 2006, by Townhall:

[Discussing the homosexual adultery of Ted Haggard, Jim McGreevey, and Eugene Robinson…]

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction—giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression– coming to terms with “who they really are.”

But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say—that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?

In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– “natural” and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.

One of the most common arguments for gay marriage also carries with it the implicit assumption that gay relationships count as inherently superior, more durable and more meaningful than their straight counterparts…

The idea of special recognition for gays and lesbians also applies to the efforts to grant homosexuals “protected status” as part of our civil rights and hate crimes legislation. No one would ever advance the idea that other common sexual behaviors based on deep-seated urges – such as chronic womanizing, or nymphomania, or obsessive addiction to pornography, or masochism – deserved governmental defense against discrimination or expressions of disapproval.

As the national argument continues to rage regarding the proper social and governmental response to homosexuality, some of the advocates for radical change have unobtrusively but unmistakably shifted their campaign from a request for equal treatment to an assertion of innate superiority. They demand for gay impulses not the same treatment accorded to heterosexual desires, but far greater latitude and acceptance, along with uniquely privileged social sanction and legal endorsement.

Continue reading at Townhall…

This article is the first in a series by my good friend here in Illinois, John Biver, of the Family Taxpayers Network. We often hear that it’s only the “fundamentalist Christians” on the “radical right” who oppose normalizing homosexuality and that we Christians are determined to impose our belief system on everyone. Well, it’s not only conservative evangelicals and Catholics who recognize the problem; John Biver’s excellent series of articles proves that there is also a strong secular argument against elevating homosexuality to normalcy. — Peter LaBarbera

The following article entitled Right and Wrong Isn’t Dead Yet, by John Biver, was originally published Jun 14, 2006, by Family Taxpayer Network:

Public opinion polls showing the progress of the “gay rights” movement are much like the poll numbers showing support for abortion in the early 1990s. Back then only the most principled political candidates ran as openly pro-life. The rest, especially those in squishy districts, kept their mouth shut out of fear of alienating what was a growing pro-choice majority.

Today – it’s a new deal. Recent polls show a reversal of earlier trends. The pro-life side improved their work, sharpened their arguments and has become more effective than ever in making the case in defense of the unborn. Websites like that of Feminists for Life’s are good examples of where that debate is going – and that’s bad news for the pro-aborts.

Certainly medical technology helped pro-lifers as well. As ultra-sound technology improved, pictures and videos made it more difficult for the other side to get away with using terms like “fetal tissue.” Other medical advances helped prove that babies were viable far earlier than poor old Justice Blackmun thought was possible.

Similarly, those who understand the serious threat to the social fabric posed by the extremist “gay rights” agenda are really only now starting to get their act together. Pop culture and the mainstream press might still be the loudest voices in the arena, but they’re no longer alone. As alternative media and the Internet mature, the proper context of the debate will be set and the defense of traditional morality will improve.

Just as technology aided the pro-lifers, the information age will aide in the debate over “gay rights.” For example, hiding the physical health consequences of certain behaviors will become increasingly difficult.

Whether they like it or not, for example, certain body orifices weren’t designed for all the uses they’re being put to. Mother Nature is stubborn and won’t make adjustments for those unable to resist strong compulsions.