Excerpted from Liberals Aim to Push Ideas Through Congress, published Nov 16, 2006, by Associated Press:

…The president of the largest national gay-rights group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, said he has high hopes for two long-pending proposals that failed to get through the GOP-controlled Congress. One would outlaw employment discrimination [ENDA] against gays, lesbians and transgender people; another would include them among the groups protected in federal hate-crimes legislation.

Gay activists also would like to see Congress repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibits gay members of the military from being open about their sexual orientation – but a push for this may come somewhere down the road.

“Everyone remembers the fight President Clinton had when he made this his first major political issue in 1993,” said Aaron Belkin, director of a University of California, Santa Barbara think tank that studies gays and the military.

“While opinion on letting gays serve has moved leaps and bounds since then, the new Democratic Congress is not likely to come out strongly on this one from the get-go,” Belkin said.

Solmonese indicated that leading gay-rights groups will be patient with the new Democratic leadership, not pushing to have their issues be at the very top of the 2007 agenda.

“What we’ve got is a new and respectful Congress that’s open to our community, to learning the specifics of our issues,” he said. “To stress right now – ‘This is what we want and this is when we want it’ – would be premature.”

Continue reading at MSN…

By Linda Harvey of Mission America:

These incidents–vandalism, assault, intimidation–are ALREADY crimes under existing law. Adding extra punishment for “sexual orientation” incidents only makes homosexuals receive more protection than others. Is this fair?

“Hate crimes” have DECREASED in recent years, including those for sexual orientation…Check out the FBI’s web site on hate crimes, and read the stats for yourself.

These laws are a back door way to “bless” homosexuality, because they imply that it’s wrong to oppose the behavior.

We have had a law (since 1990) that enables law enforcement to count sexual orientation among hate crimes, but not to give extra punishment. Those extra penalties are what is currently being sought.

But just based on the 1990 federal law, some school districts started “anti-bias” lessons that included sexual orientation along with race and religion. Kids through curricula like the anti-Christian “Healing the Hate” middle school program, are indoctrinated to not only approve homosexuality, but to believe anyone who opposes it is evil and potentially violent. This classic propaganda is sure to escalate if a federal law is passed that gives offenders in incidents involving “sexual orientation” extra punishment.

The laws we have now are fine for protecting all citizens against crime. The new proposal is based on the lie that homosexuals are an unchanging minority who are “born that way,” which is not supportable by research or observed sexual practices of U.S. adults.

It also threatens the religious liberty of those who believe this is a harmful and sinful lifestyle. Hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation are being used in other countries to indict and fine Christians, even pastors, who publicly oppose homosexuality. Given the aggressiveness and ceaseless demands of “gay” activists,do we want to lose that right?

For the protection of our children against indoctrination and for the protection of our freedom to oppose homosexuality and to believe the whole Gospel, we must make Congress understand our opposition to adding “sexual orientation” to hate crimes laws.

Excerpted from Child Born to Lesbian Couple Will Have 2 Mothers Listed, by Laura Mansnerus, published Nov 16, 2006, by The New York Times:

A lesbian couple in South Jersey won court approval this week to have both of their names listed as parents on the birth certificate of their newborn, and the attorney general’s office said it will no longer oppose such applications.

The decision, in Family Court in Burlington County, stems from an Oct. 25 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual couples. The court gave the Legislature 180 days either to bring gay couples within the state’s marriage laws or establish a parallel system of civil unions.

“This couple was treated exactly the same way as a married couple under the law of New Jersey,” said Stephen Hyland, the lawyer for the women. “So no matter what New Jersey chooses to do legislatively, the couples have the same rights.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

Can someone explain why a man with two sets of broken marriage vows and who admitted to covert homosexuality and adultery should have a public voice in this debate? What does James McGreevey, a man who is not even divorced yet but is living with his homosexual lover, know about real love (seeking the other person’s highest good) or commitment (unselfish devotion)? – Sonja Dalton

Excerpted from McGreevey Prods NJ Lawmakers To Pass Gay Marriage Bill, published Oct 30, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey called on state lawmakers Monday to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I hope the Legislature and the government does what’s right and embraces the idea of marriage for two loving and committed individuals,” McGreevey told WNBC television.

McGreevey became the nation’s first gay governor when he announced on Aug. 12, 2004 that he was “a gay American”. The married governor, standing beside his wife then said that he had been involved in an affair with a man and would resign.

The McGreeveys separated shortly after and the governor currently lives with his same-sex domestic partner.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

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?

Excerpted from ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats May Back GOP Issues, published Nov 15, 2006, by NewsMax:

…Republicans “did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats” in last weeks elections, said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. “Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats.”

…With the addition of nine newly elected freshmen, the Blue Dogs claim 44 members, nearly 20 percent of the incoming Democratic majority. They will be led by Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., and include Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in line to become the next Agriculture Committee chairman.

The Blue Dogs were formed in 1994 after Republicans swept the long-entrenched Democrats from power. They tend to be social conservatives on such issues as abortion. But their big issue is fiscal discipline – balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt.

Continue reading at NewsMax… 

Excerpted from Casey Ran as “Pro-Life”; His First Act Seeks “Sexual Orientation” Hate Crime Law, by Meg Jalsevac, published Nov 14, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Within 24 hours of winning the bitter Pennsylvanian Senate race against incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, Democrat Senator-elect Bob Casey, Jr. let his real agendas show through. Citizenlink.org has reported that, the very day after the election, Casey announced that he would work in support of legislation to increase the scope of federal hate crimes law to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity as a victim group.

…Casey was immediately and unabashedly backed in his election bid by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a pro-“gay” activist group. On the HRC website, it claims “HRC flexed its political muscle and launched an extensive and strategic campaign in partnership with local organizations that resulted in a clear victory for fair-minded candidate Casey.”

According to the website, HRC raised over $375,000 for Casey’s campaign. It also claims that it supplied 4 office staffers and hundreds of volunteers to encourage Pennsylvanians to vote.

Casey thanked HRC the day after the election saying, “HRC got behind my campaign early and has been a tremendous help. I look forward to working with HRC’s incredible staff and membership, especially to advance hate-crimes legislation in the Senate.”

TAKE ACTION – Tell Wal-Mart to take this product off their shelves and off their website.

From Wal-Mart Hits Teens with Gay Porn How-To Manual, by Gudrun Schultz, published Nov 15, 2006, by LifeSite News:

A graphic sex-ed manual promoting lesbianism to teenage girls is now offered for sale by Wal-Mart in the United States. Called “irresponsible and obscene” and by the Institute for Canadian Values, the material contains explicit directions for engaging in oral/anal sexual acts. The book encourages same-sex experimentation, telling girls that only 10 percent of the population is actually heterosexual, while 80 percent is “mixed” or bi-sexual.

Produced by St. Stephens’ Community House in Toronto, the book titled “The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality” caused a storm of controversy earlier this fall when parents and pro-family groups first became aware of the books’ content after it was published in September.

The manual was further condemned for using obscene and derogatory language. Examples include a section entitled “My First Time F***ing a Girl” and the statement “If you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it’s a fat black dyke.”

The manual contains misleading and dangerous information on “safe” sex devises, assuring teenagers that condom use is 100 percent effective in preventing the transmission of disease. That statement contradicts the World Health Organization’s recent admission that condom use fails to protect against HIV/AIDS transmission up to 20 percent of the time, crucial information missing from the manual.

Another section on “safe” lesbian sex acts, entitled “How to use a dental dam,” encourages girls to engage in such dangerous behaviour as sewing latex squares used in dentistry into the crotch of their underwear “for added fun.”

Wal-Mart says the book, sold for $8.50, is “a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…