Excerpted from When Nancy Met Harry, by Jeffrey Lord, published Oct 5, 2006, by The American Spectator:

The Pride Parade.

That’s what it’s called in San Francisco when the community gathers for a parade during the annual San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration. It is, by all accounts, a wingding of a celebration, too. As the San Francisco Chronicle, the media sponsor of the Pride Parade,…bursting with civic pride, was also pleased to publish the marching order of the parade and all its celebrants. It’s quite a list. A who’s who of San Francisco. Then Supervisor and now Democratic mayor Gavin Newsom, members of two Democratic Clubs, California Democratic legislators, the police, sheriff and fire departments and even the director of the Golden Gate Bridge were marching right alongside celebrants from Vulva University [which offers “Sex Wisdom Classes”], The Stud Bar [“a queer establishment since 1966”], and Leather Pride.

It is, in short, the San Francisco political establishment whooping it up with its constituents…

Celebrant number 31 was the late Harry Hay [photos]…famous not only as a founder of the gay rights movement, for his one-time relationship with actor Will Geer (who played Grandpa Walton on The Waltons TV series,) he was also known for being featured in the 1976 documentary film of gay life titled Word Is Out. When he died the following year after the parade, at 90, the New York Times Magazine featured him in “The Lives They Lived,” its annual pictorial salute to famous Americans who had passed away during the preceding year. In addition to laudatory obits in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, the Chronicle did a considerably flattering obituary. “Harry Hay, gay rights pioneer, dies at 90.” The paper favorably notes a number of things in Harry’s life, including his left-leaning politics, his connection with the Communist Party in the 1930s and his founding of “The Mattachine Society,” a group the Chronicle calls “the first sustained homosexual rights organization in the United States.”

…The Chronicle, however, left something else out of the obituary entirely…

Harry Hay was a fierce advocate of man/boy love. While The Chronicle simply ignored Harry’s views, the North American Man/Boy Love Association was only too delighted to put up a collection of Harry’s views on the need for young boys to have older men as sexual partners.

From my good friend Brian Camenker and his team at MassResistance.org comes this fascinating excerpt from the esteemed British historian Paul Johnson‘s 1996 book, The Quest for God (emphasis added):

There were a great many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behaviour ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by its churches, as a great moral evil, but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect.

We were proven totally mistaken. Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched. Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult.

This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views — including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints — on radio and television.

Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental — and to most of us horrifying — changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour.

Excerpted from Foley’s Fall Spotlights Growing Velvet Mafia Influence in GOP, published Oct 9, 2006, by WDC Media:

Amid the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal, one consequence appears to be an increasing exposure of the influential role homosexuals have within the Republican party. As the New York Times reported Sunday, homosexuals in the Republican Party — sometimes known by insider slang terms including the “velvet mafia” or the “pink elephants” — are a well-established force in the GOP.

According to the Times, many of these homosexual Republicans “have held crucial staff positions for decades,” and this has been even more the case in recent years…

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth believes the media have taken great pains to avoid using the words “homosexual” or “gay” in coverage of the Foley scandal. “There’s clearly an effort here to make this somehow a pedophile issue or something that’s separate from the homosexual issue,” he asserts, “and, of course, this is right up the homosexual alley.”

There is a well-documented history of homosexual men pursuing underage boys, LaBarbera says; but homosexual activists are getting help in burying this fact. “What we’re seeing here,” he contends, “is another effort by the media, working with the gay lobby, to separate out Foley’s predations on a teenage boy from the homosexual issue.”

The media is not being intellectually honest about the Foley situation or the pattern that it illustrates, the pro-family activist insists. “There’s a long history of homosexuals being predators on teenage boys,” he says.

“The fact is, if you go all the way back to the days of ancient Greece, there were homosexual relationships between adult men and teenage boys; so it’s really ridiculous to say this has nothing to do with homosexuality,” LaBarbera notes. He says the media’s reporting of the Foley scandal has been marked by a great deal of political correctness, while the media have actually helped homosexual activists bury the truth.

Continue reading at WDC Media…

Excerpted from Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada – Battleground Homosexuality, by John Henry-Westen, published Oct 6, 2006, by LifeSite News:

The gloves have come off, the Parliamentary debate in Canada has moved beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ and on to refusing freedoms for those with religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality and those with conscientious reasons for opposing it. The mere suggestion of a ‘Defence of Religions Act’, to be put forward should the attempt to restore traditional marriage fail, has created a firestorm in the overwhelmingly pro-gay media and in Parliament with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc arguing ferociously against such a proposal.

The Regina Leader Post newspaper, has joined the fray demonstrating the lack of tolerance for opposition to homosexuality. While the paper would allow for priests to oppose homosexuality publicly, it suggests that opposition by non-clergy should be illegal. “There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion’s tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far,” says the editorial in the paper today.

In today’s Globe and Mail in his column, “Sex, religion, politics, boom“, Rick Salutin, described in Wikepia as “a strong advocate of left wing causes”, castigates those who advocate the religious protection law as “yearning for authoritarian leadership”. He adds that such religious, conservative moral movements have historically given “rise to fascist movements which weren’t necessarily rascist. God, of course, would be the strongest leader.” However, contrary to Salutin’s charges, the Nazis and Italians fascists mercilessly persecuted and murdered those who held traditional Chistian beliefs and especially murdered thousands of clergy who preached faithful Christian doctrine.

The current Prime Minister, while Leader of the Opposition during the introduction of the homosexual ‘marriage’ legislation warned that if passed the legislation would hamper the free speech rights of Canadians opposed to homosexual ‘marriage’ and the freedoms of religious groups in Canada. He promised to protect religious and free speech rights.

However, when the Globe and Mail claimed that a source has revealed a legal proposal to protect religious and free speech freedoms vis a vis homosexual ‘marriage’, the Conservatives denied knowledge of any such measure…

“Given the current climate, DORA would be of value in making clear that expressions of moral and religious opinions about sexual orientation do not amount to hate speech. Already we have seen unfortunate examples in Canada whereby religious Christians who simply have been articulating Church doctrine in regard to homosexuality and gay unions have been censured and punished by human rights tribunals. It is not fanciful to imagine that these same individuals might, in future years, be thrown behind bars for expressing their religious beliefs.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Congressional Page Scandal Takes on Anti-gay Bent as Details Emerge, published Oct 6, 2006, in the pro-GLBT Dallas Voice:

As the Republican Congressional leadership scrambled to determine the true scope of the sex scandal surrounding former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and at the same time distance themselves from the Florida Republican, GLBT and progressive activists condemned what they characterized as the anti-gay bent of the response from both office holders and right-wing leaders…

Many gay rights and progressive activists, while criticizing Republicans’ handling of the situation, are even more incensed at efforts by the GOP and right-wing leaders to deflect attention from Republican officials by linking pedophilia to homosexuality.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said “right-wing leaders have wasted no time in turning the Foley-Hastert scandal into an attack on gay Americans and advocates for equality.”

He pointed as examples to comments such as those by Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, who said, “When you hold of tolerance and diversity, this is what you end up getting. … [neither Republicans nor Democrats] seem likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child abuse.”

Linda Harvey, writing in World Net Daily, described Foley’s behavior as “typical behavior for homosexuals,” and Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth, said the scandal “illustrates the dangers of the GOP’s growing flirtation with pro-homosexual policies,” according to a report on the Christian Newswire.

LaBarbera listed Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., and former Rep. Bob Baughman, R-Md., as “outed or openly homosexual male Congressmen” who have been caught in sex scandals in the past.

“Three homosexual Congressmen have been involved in sexual seductions of minor boys, yet ‘gay’ activists ridicule anyone who suggests there is a predatory component to male homosexuality,” he told the Christian Newswire.

Frank’s former boyfriend had used the congressman’s Washington, D.C.-apartment as headquarters for a male prostitution ring, without Frank’s knowledge. Studds was censured by the House for having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Bauman was charged with soliciting a 16-year-old boy for sex in 1980.

Studds and Frank were both re-elected after the scandals broke.

Continue reading at Dallas Voice… 

Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.

– I Peter 2:11-12

Excerpted from Psychologist’s Association with Family Group Costs Job, published Oct 4, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…Technically, Michael Campion’s work for the department simply was ‘not renewed,’ but since even city officials confirm they have been unable to attract a single complaint about him, pro-family groups are citing liberal interests’ objections to his former association with their efforts as a reason.

“They want to demonize Christians, and they’re willing to play hardball,” Pete LaBarbera, spokesman for the Illinois Family Institute, told WND.

…LaBarbera said Campion’s difficulty was that he was run over by a strong homosexual lobby in the city. He said his own organization also took a hit from a Minneapolis news report that said the IFI opposes civil rights for gays.

“The position we take on a sexual orientation law is that by making a right based on sexual behavior it doesn’t fit the traditional civil rights model,” he said.

…”Obviously he’s being treated because of his Christian association in the past,” LaBarbera said. “People all over the nation have to be watching this case with a great amount of care. If you go to the Catholic church that believes homosexuality is a disorder, does that mean you can’t have a federal job?”

He said simple logic confirms that one cannot determine rights on “how people have sex.”

…”The liberal ‘diversity’ lobby is going after Mike because of his deeply-held religious and moral beliefs. In fact, no homosexual police officers have come forward with charges of bias,” LaBarbera said. “How ironic that the forces of ‘tolerance’ are now leading a new assault on civil rights, this time against people of faith.”

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…

Excerpted from Speculation Flies on Fallout from Foley, by Douglas Turner, published Oct 4, 2006, by The Buffalo News:

… “This is a story that people can understand,” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute told The Buffalo News. “Other issues, like the conviction of [lobbyist] Jack Abramoff and two congressmen, may have gone over people’s heads. This is about the welfare of young people. For that reason I think this will have a very, very significant effect on the election.”

…Peter LaBarbera, spokesman for Americans for Truth, an evangelical lay organization, denounced what he called “the GOP’s growing flirtation with pro-homosexual policies.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, “When a party holds itself out as the guardian of values, this is not helpful.”

Continue reading in The Buffalo News…

Excerpted from The Road to Nowhere? Middle Church, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 3, 2006, by Crosswalk:

Bob Edgar wants to rescue America from the religious right. In his new book, Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right, Edgar intends to reset the nation’s agenda when it comes to matters of Christian concern.

…Edgar could have offered a careful, exegetical, historical, and theological engagement with moral issues. Instead he offers irresponsible generalizations such as this: “The Bible mentions abortion not once, homosexuality only twice, and poverty or peace more than two thousand times. Yet somehow abortion and homosexuality have become the litmus test of faith in public life today.”

How can an intelligent reader, armed with even the slightest knowledge of the Bible and the Christian tradition, take such a statement seriously? The Bible does not mention abortion only in the sense that it does not make direct reference to the practice of surgical abortion as is common today. The Bible speaks clearly to the sanctity of human life and to the priority of protecting unborn life. Furthermore, to state that the Bible mentions homosexuality “only twice” indicates that Edgar has redefined homosexuality as something other than that which the Bible addresses in numerous passages.

There can be no doubt that the Bible’s consistent judgment is that homosexual acts are inherently immoral and sinful. The Christian church in all of its major branches has understood this for two thousand years. This has been a true ecumenical consensus until recent years when some more liberal churches in the West have abandoned the Christian tradition in order to endorse homosexual practice.

Thus, it is an act of intellectual dishonesty for Edgar to claim to speak for “classic historical Christianity.”

Just in case we might miss his point, Edgar offers this assessment of Scripture: “The far religious right is fond of condemning homosexuality because they say the Scripture is immutable and its words are literal.” Again, Edgar identifies the scriptural consensus that homosexuality is sinful as an example of the radical nature of the “far religious right” [italics his]. Once again, one need not be very conservative to end up in Edgar’s category of the far religious right…

In an amazing passage, Edgar asserts: “People of faith must be able to conduct a respectful and open conversation about all aspects of sexuality including homosexuality. God has a lot to say on all these topics, and if we skip the listening and rush straight to the judging–an enterprise in which we’re not supposed to be involved anyway–we can’t hope to make serious progress in our discussion.”

Statements like this must leave us wondering if this author actually means to be taken seriously. His book is filled with moral judgments–judgments about ecology, justice, racism, and a host of other issues. But when it comes to sexuality, Edgar offers the facile suggestion that moral judgment is “an enterprise in which we’re not supposed to be involved anyway.”

In other words, when Edgar makes moral judgments, he’s not being judgmental. But when others moral judgments, they are being judgmental. The Bible does not say that we are not to make moral judgments, or that we are not to judge moral behavior. Indeed, the Bible makes absolutely no sense if that is the case. The Bible–in both Old and New Testaments–is filled with moral judgment and with advisement on how we are to make such judgments. Of course, the judgments we are to make concern behavior, not the heart. We are expressly forbidden to judge another’s heart. That distinction is missing from Edgar’s analysis.

…What separates Bob Edgar and biblical Christianity is the fact that God has told us how He is going to judge humanity–and the crucial issue in that judgment is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

When it comes to matters of public policy, evangelicals surely do not have all the answers. Furthermore, evangelicals are well served by a reminder that our moral agenda needs to be broader than the issues of the daily headlines.

Nevertheless, conservative Christians did not decide to make abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research front-line issues. It is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty to suggest that evangelicals prompted the national debate on those issues. On all of these fronts, evangelicals are simply calling on the Christian church to stand by its historic convictions and moral wisdom.

Continue reading at Crosswalk…