This is great, but the real “apology to the world” should come from Canada’s homosexual activists, who put their own misguided sexial affirmation goals above protecting traditional marriage and the welfare of children. Add to that their role in the destruction of freedom in Canada, which of course is sublimated to their selfish goal of forcing the acceptance of all things homosexual. — Peter LaBarbera

LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE WORLD

April 11, 2007

 

To the world’s leaders and people,

 

We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.

 

We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world.  We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.

 

We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously.  It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts.   But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case.  Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered.  Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.

 

Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.

  

Forewarned should be forearmed.

 

Signed,

 

Canada Family Action Coalition

REAL Women of Canada

United Families Canada

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Alberta REAL Women

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Third Watch Ministries

United Mothers, Fathers & Friends

Sault Ste. Marie – CFAC

Dawn Stefanowicz – Author   

MY Canada Association

Father’s Resting Place

______________________________

Media Release:  REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of Canada
“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights” 

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

 Media Release

For immediate release, April 11, 2007

Apology for Canada’s Same-sex Marriage Legislation

It is necessary to apologize to the people of the world for the difficulties caused in other countries by the legislation in Canada which permits same-sex marriages. 

It is unfortunate that some foreign same-sex partners have come to Canada to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and subsequently applied to the courts in their own country to recognize this so-called Canadian marriage.  Canadian marriage law does not demand residency requirements and this is being used by activists to attempt to change the marriage laws in their own country. 

There are many Canadians who do not, and will not, accept the marriage of same-sex partners.  Such Canadians will continue to work to restore the traditional definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman only.  To do so is not to discriminate against same-sex partners, since their relationships are markedly different from those of opposite-sex relationships, regardless of what the law in Canada states.   

HB 1826, a homosexual “marriage” bill (minus the “M-word”) — masquerading as a “religious freedom” bill — has cleared a committee hurdle in the Illinois House. The bill’s homosexual activist sponsor, State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), says HB 1826 would “protect” the religious freedom of churches and those who have a moral objection to homosexual behavior. But Harris’ view is contradicted by a legal analysis of the bill by Illinois constitutional attorney Paul Linton. CWA’s Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues, and analyst Martha Kleder discuss with AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera the homosexual activists’ crafty attempt to sell this radical “gay marriage” bill as a “compromise” measure that “protects” churches.

Click HERE to listen to the interview online.

You can also download the interview by going to the CWA site.

Linton: HB 1826 would “empty the institution of marriage of all substance” 

Memorandum

Date:  March 19, 2007

To:  Illinois pro-family groups, including Illinois Citizens for Life, Americans For Truth, Illinois Family Institute, CWA of Illinois, and Real Civil Rights Illinois

From: Paul Linton, Esq.

Re:  Analysis of Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1826

Introduction

Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1826, if enacted by the General Assembly, would create civil unions in Illinois for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  The Amendment would “deconstruct” the meaning of marriage in two vital respects:

First, it would allow same-sex couples to enjoy “all the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law . . . as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” § 105(a).  This is contrary to the longstanding public policy of Illinois (and, until very recently, every other State in the Union and every other country in the world) to confer such “protections, benefits, and responsibilities” only upon married couples who, by definition and the very nature of marriage, are opposite-sex. 

Second, it would allow opposite-sex couples to enjoy “all the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law . . . as are granted to spouses in a marriage,” § 105(a),  see also §§ 105(c), 106, 201, without actually being married, a legislative novelty that has not been adopted in any other State, including those States that have enacted civil unions statutes (Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont) or their equivalent (California’s Domestic Partner Act).  Opposite-sex couples (who, of course, may marry under current law) are included for the twin purposes of diluting the meaning of marriage and blurring the distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships (by calling them by the same name).

Amendment No. 1 would empty the institution of marriage of all substance, leaving only an empty form (i.e., the name, “marriage”) as a “consolation prize” for those who oppose same-sex “marriage.”  Marriage, however, is more than a name–it is an institution that is fundamental to the existence and continuity of societies throughout history, in all times and places.
 
Legal Land Mines

Apart from the public policy reasons for opposing Amendment No. 1, which are discussed below, there are legal reasons for opposing the Amendment, as well.

A Letter to the Lithuanian People

Published 27 March 2007
Author: Scott Lively

A warning to Lithuania of the goals of homosexual movement, which has just begun to organize there.

I am Dr. Scott Lively, an American attorney and President of Defend the Family International, a human rights NGO. I hold a Doctor of Law and a Doctor of Theology, as well as special credentials in International Human Rights. I am the author of the Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights (see www.defendthefamily.com), and an international lecturer on these topics.

I came to Lithuania to warn the Lithuanian people about the threat posed to your society by the global homosexual political movement, which has begun to organize in your nation. At the outset, let me say that I advocate a high tolerance for the people who define themselves by their choice of a homosexual lifestyle, even while I promote a low tolerance for homosexual conduct.

Homosexual activists would have you believe that tolerance for them requires total acceptance and approval of their lifestyle, but that is not obligatory, nor prudent. In fact, discrimination against homosexual behavior is necessary to protect your society from the consequences of “gay” culture, which always pushes for greater and greater liberalism in sexual attitudes, especially among young people. To see the danger of this we need look no further than Holland, where sexual liberalism promoted by the homosexual movement has led to the creation of a pedophile political party, whose right hold seats in parliament, to advocate for the legalization of adult/child sexual relationships, has been approved by the Dutch courts.

We should not, however, discriminate against persons who define themselves as homosexuals. They should be free to label themselves as they choose, no less so than other groups whose beliefs or goals are disapproved by the majority. Indeed, we can compare homosexuals to their chief adversaries, the radical nationalists. Both groups hate each other, and would like to do away with the other. Neither side is embraced by the majority, but both deserve the right to freedom of their beliefs and to freedom of speech within reasonable limits. The rest of us must be willing to tolerate these difficult neighbors to preserve civility for society as a whole.

The chief danger of the homosexual movement is that it always seeks to take away the freedom of speech from anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. In Canada, where homosexual activism has enjoyed considerable success, there are now so-called Human Rights Tribunals which have the power to punish anyone who publicly opposes homosexuality by making the offender pay a monetary fine. The money is then given to the homosexual who filed the complaint. The most recent incident involved a Catholic member of the City Council of Kamloops, British Columbia. His offence was to call homosexuality “unnatural.” One wonders if Pope Benedict himself would face arrest in Canada since he has repeatedly affirmed that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.”

Religious opinions are also silenced wherever homosexuals gain the power to do so. We can recall a case from Sweden. On June 29, 2004, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in the sermon he delivered in his pulpit in Borgholm. The title of his sermon was “Are people born with homosexual orientation or is it the result of influence by evil powers?” Pastor Green was eventually exonerated by the Swedish Supreme Court, but only over the vigorous objection of the “gay” activists in that nation (would the result have been the same if the judges were “gay“?).

Just this week In Britain, the House of Lords approved a bill to prohibit private Christian schools from teaching their students that homosexuality is wrong.

Read the rest of Scott Lively’s “Letter to the Lithuanian People” HERE

Every year, the radical group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), of Massachusetts “Fistgate” notoriety, promotes a propaganda exercise in schools called the “Day of Silence,” to engender sympathy toward GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) lifestyles. Many schools now officially back this disruptive, pro-homosexual event — so we’re calling on parents to pull their children out of school that day (Wed., April 18 this year). Parents can use the day to educate their children about the homosexual activist movement and other harmful social agendas, or to pray for people and students caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

Or, students can just read a good book at home. Time spent doing that would be far preferable to indulging in GLSEN’s pro-homosexuality groupthink. Our schools have become PC propaganda centers, and it’s way past time for parents to take a stand. Promoting unhealthy, changeable and immoral behaviors like homosexuality and bisexuality — especially to vulnerable teens (even middle schoolers!) — lacks compassion. Here is a list of schools likely to be participating in the “Day of Silence”: http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=66. — Peter LaBarbera

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact NotOurKids.com Media Coordinator – Irene Bennett (203) 926-6960

[Among the groups joining NotOurKids are: Americans For Truth, Mission America, Concerned Women for America, Culture Campaign, American Family Association of Pennsylvania, and Stephen Bennett Ministries]

Visit www.NotOurKids.com/media.html

WASHINGTON, March 27 / — A national pro-family coalition, www.NotOurKids.com, is calling upon parents to keep their children home from school on April 18 — to avoid GLSEN’s homosexual “Day of Silence,” in which students and some supportive faculty intentionally remain silent throughout the school day to protest alleged oppression of homosexuals.

“Day of Silence” (DOS) is an annual event promoted by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, and is scheduled for Wednesday, April 18 this year.  (Some schools observe DOS a few days earlier or later than the official date.) In 2006, over 4,000 junior highs, high schools, and colleges participated in DOS, according to GLSEN.

Many school district superintendents, principals, and faculty members also endorse, promote or allow DOS — subjecting traditional students to pro-“gay” activism that violates their religious beliefs and right to a non-politicized education. To find out what schools are likely participating in this year’s DOS, please visit: http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=66.

According to GLSEN, on last year’s Day of Silence, over 500,000 students nationwide were confronted with mute homosexual peers and “allies” wearing stickers and passing out cards, which stated (in part):

“… My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?”

www.NotOurKids.com is a coalition of pro-family groups who object to the disruptive political hijacking of America’s classrooms by pro-homosexual advocates. www.NotOurKids.com educates parents, teachers and America about the deceptive agenda behind GLSEN’s Day of Silence. The coalition seeks to protect America’s youth from being pressured to approve of homosexual, bisexual, or “transgender” behavior.

“Teenagers deserve an opportunity to study English, history, math, and science — without being subjected to pro-homosexual proselytizing sanctioned by school authorities. Students shouldn’t be forced to self-censor or adopt beliefs contrary to those of their parents and places of worship,” said Linda Harvey of Mission America, a coalition member.  “Even the strongest of our junior high and high school children are not equipped to serve as frontline soldiers in this culture war.”

For a complete list of the coalition’s sponsoring groups, please visit www.NotOurKids.com.

 TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to actively oppose “hate crimes” legislation (H.R. 1592: the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act). And help Janet Folger and Faith2Action’s StopHateCrimesNow.com campaign run national ads to educate Americans on the dangerous specter of federal “Hate Crimes” legislation.

Take a minute to watch both online ads about two grandmothers who were arrested under Pennsylvania’s pro-homosexual “Hate Crimes” law for sharing the Gospel at a Philadelphia “gay pride” event. Please help buy more airtime for these ads. Janet Folger is doing her part to preserve our freedom: are you doing yours? — Peter LaBarbera

                                                   ——————————————————

Rep. Conyers’ ‘Hate Grandma’ Bill Introduced in House 

By Janet Folger 

t’s all about hate. And judging by the introduction of H.R. 1592, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., must hate free speech. He must hate equality. And he must hate…grandma. And I think it’s a crime. You see, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee just introduced the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which would not only restrict our speech and remove equal justice, but it would give senior citizens (and the rest of us) less protection than homosexual activists.

So, if you’re going to mug someone, better make sure it’s grandma (unless she’s become a lesbian) – because if the guy whose money you steal happens to be a homosexual, you’re looking at a triple sentence. Go after grandma, and it’s one-third off! Hey, why don’t we save everyone a lot of time and just hand out “Conyers’ Coupons for Criminals!”

Besides it’s way cheaper than the blank check (“such sums as are necessary”) that’s included to “increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations.” Here come the thought police. HR 1592 mandates that the Department of Justice “shall award grants” to “state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.” Here come the re-education camps….

Read the rest of Folger’s article in WorldNetDaily by clicking HERE

Note how historically, until recently, homosexuality has been about shameful and deviant acts, and the morality of those acts, as opposed to personhood. — Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Homosexuals in the Military, by David Barton, published 2003, by Wallbuilders:

In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will explore the issue via three questions:

1. Has homosexuality always been incompatible with military service?
2. Why should the military be concerned with a person’s morality?
3. Why should homosexuality concern us as a society?

Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military’s inception. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.

An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington’s actions:

The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same.

Earlier this week we explored the immorality of the homosexual practice of “rimming“; here we have a story of a man who likes to have “sex” with horses and deer. Disgusting, you say? Immoral? Why so? On what objective authority does our secular society still condemn bestiality? Isn’t it simply a personal, alternative choice?

The fact is that humans are hard-wired to distinguish normal, natural behaviors from depraved, wicked acts. God instilled man with a conscience whereby we know, intuitively and with confidence, that acts of righteousness evoke joy and that other acts are wicked and morally reprehensible…at least we recognize that until we start to rationalize, unless the conscience has been seared, hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. Nearly everyone understands that having “sex” with animals is appalling — there is no organized, multi-million dollar movement to advance the rights of those with a sexual proclivity for livestock (at least not yet), no claim that they were “born that way.”

The same God who condemns bestiality as “perversion” also calls homosexual acts “detestable.” His morality is the one upon which our nation’s laws were founded. If Christian morality is exiled, whose morality will become our standard?

And the real question is this: If we as a society still believe that bestiality is immoral, why are we so foolishly embracing “proud” homosexuality as “moral” — when it clearly cannot be? — Sonja Dalton

(For more on the Biblical parallels between God’s condemnation of homosexuality and that of other sexual sins like bestiality and incest, see Professor Rob Gagnon’s website at www.robgagnon.net. Gagnon is one of the world’s leading authorities on “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” and has written a scholarly book by the name.)

——————————

Excerpted from Man Faces Probation in Animal Abuse Case, by Anna Kurth, published Mar 20, 2007, by The Daily Telegram:

A Superior man convicted of having sexual contact with a dead deer was given probation Tuesday in Douglas County Circuit Court…

Hathaway was found guilty of mistreatment of an animal in April 2005 after killing a horse with the intention of having sex with it…

“The type of behavior is disturbing. It’s disturbing to the public. It’s disturbing to the court,” Lucci said.

Continue reading in The Daily Telegram…