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 Howard Dean’s Fruitless Outreach, by David Limbaugh, published Jun 2, 2006, by Townhall:

At least Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is colorful; you’ve got to give him that much. But he’s not the guy to be leading the charge to reunite the Democratic Party with so-called “values voters.”

The Washington Times’ Greg Pierce reports that Dean was outraged when he heard that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intended to call to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Dean called opponents of homosexual marriage “bigots.” He said, “At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party’s failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue.” It’s not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible,” said the enlightened Dean.

Now flashback a week or so and picture Dean on the set of the evil bigot Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” Dean appeared as part of his effort to reclaim “values voters” for the Democratic Party. On that program Dean reportedly said the party’s platform provides that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Later, Dean had to apologize to gay rights leaders for incorrectly stating the party’s platform position.

Surely I’m misreading one of these two reports. Which is it, Howard? Or, perhaps I should say, “Which face will you be wearing today: the bigoted or the enlightened one?”

Continue reading at Townhall…

By Peter LaBarbera

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated but needs to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
–Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle ii

So much for the newfound “moderation” of the Democratic Party. Party chief Howard Dean, fresh from an election season smackdown by “gay” activists for affirming that marriage is indeed between a man and a woman, is once again dutifully pushing their immoral agenda. As the Houston Chronicle and ABC News reported, Dean called for more homosexuals to run as Democratic candidates.

Dean told the crowd of homosexual activists: “We need a careful, narrow, targeted agenda to make it clear what the difference between the Democratic Party and Republican Party is before we go into the next election.”

TAKE ACTION – Let the Democratic Party know you feel about Howard Dean’s promotion of homosexual behavior. Click HERE for the Democratic National Committee’s contact page.

Also, call the White House at 202-456-1414 or click HERE to let President Bush know NOW that you oppose pro-homosexual “Hate Crimes,” ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act), and repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on open homosexuality in the armed forces — the three top items on the “gay” legislative agenda in the Democratic-led Congress.

And call your U.S. Congressman or Senators to oppose these bills at 202-224-3121.

Let’s think about the implications of Dean’s call for “gay” candidates, using the scholarship of Rob Gagnon, the nation’s premiere authority on the Bible and homosexuality. Gagnon correctly affirms that Biblically speaking, homosexuality is as egregious a sexual sin as incest, adultery and pornography. Perhaps if more people knew about just how dangerous homosexual acts are — cutting short the lives of hundreds of thousands of men from “same-sex sexual diseases” (now there’s a concept you won’t see taught in school health classes) — they might have renewed respect for the Bible’s counsel on this issue.

From Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow “Anal Intercourse” with 14-Year-Olds, by John-Henry Westen, published Nov 22, 2006, by LifeSite News:

In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for “anal intercourse” in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party’s Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.

While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. “The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention,” says a release on the resolutions.

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the “riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS.”

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads:

“WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity.”

The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

Resolution no. 46 calls for a review of the criminal code on prostitution with a view to legalizing the exploitive practice.

TAKE ACTION – E-mail Richard Peddie, President of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, to express your concern.

Excerpted from Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old, by Hilary White, published Nov 24, 2006, by Lifesite News:

The Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team announced today that they have lent the team’s name and logo to a film depicting a homosexual Leafs player. The film portrays a Leafs player who wants to “come out” as a public homosexual, his live-in partnership with the team’s lawyer and their adopted “son,” described as “a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy.”

The film is based on the book of the same title about an 11 year-old boy who is described in an Amazon.com book review as “mincing” and “swishy,” and who has to be prevented from wearing pantyhose, eyeliner and perfume to school.

“Breakfast with Scott”, now being shot on location in Toronto and Hamilton, will go ahead with the willing cooperation of the team’s management. The Toronto Star reports that actor Tom Cavanaugh who depicts the fictional player, Eric McNally, was “shocked” that the Leafs management agreed to allow the team to be depicted in a homosexual propaganda film.

Cavanaugh remarked to the Star on the significance of using the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team, one of the icons of Canadian culture as the background for a story about open homosexuals and endorsing child homosexuality. “There’s something instant to the viewer when you put on a Leafs jersey or any Original Six jersey.”

Olympic swim champion Mark Tewksbury, a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation, said, “I think it’s really great that (the team management) are supporting it. I know it’s an iconic team, but I think it makes sense this is happening in Canada because we’ve been far ahead on these issues.”

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.”

By Peter LaBarbera

When it comes to chutzpah, homosexual activists have it in spades. They work their lavender tushes off revolutionizing the age-old Judeo-Christian definitions of marriage and family; fight for “gay/straight” clubs in middle- and high schools, and homosexuality-affirming lessons for all students–even toddlers; lobby for open homosexuality in the armed forces; oppose marriage-preference adoption laws based on the absurd proposition that a child having two “gay daddies” is no worse off than one having a mother and a father; make outrageous claims that esteemed historical figures like Abe Lincoln were “gay”; and radically reinterpret the Bible to change homosexuality from an abomination to a “gift from God.”

Then they turn around and ridicule the idea that there is a “gay agenda.”

Here’s an entry from lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding:

“The Homosexual Agenda is an elusive document. We’ve been looking around for a copy for quite some time; the distribution plan is so secret that it’s almost like we need a queer Indiana Jones to hunt the master copy down. The various anti-gay forces are certain that we all have a copy and are coordinating a attack to achieve world domination.” –Pam Spaulding

Memo to Pam: you don’t have to risk being chased by a giant boulder in the Amazon to find a copy of that elusive agenda; just click this link for the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Note the last two demands under “States” in the 1972 document: “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent” and “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

Or try this link for the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington.” No agenda here, other than the calls for:

• “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin”;
• “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools”;
• “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.”
• “A massive [federal] AIDS education and prevention program that is explicit, culturally sensitive, lesbian and gay affirming and sex positive”;
• “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples”;
• All people must have access to free abortions and contraceptives on demand regardless of age.” (Strangely, abortion advocacy has long been part of the homosexual activist agenda.)