The following is reprinted with permission from the Howard Center’s “Family in America” newsletter (“New Research,” December 2006; emphasis added). The Howard Center is a wonderful organization, based in Rockford, Illinois, that is home to esteemed family scholar Allan Carlson — who founded the World Congress of Families, an annual event designed to build worldwide, intellectual support for the “natural family.” This year’s Congress convenes Friday in Warsaw, Poland; check out its website to read about the battle between old-line, anti-family European Unions forces and Eastern European nations like Poland that are fighting to preserve marriage and a “culture of life” (which does NOT include teaching homosexuality as normal to children). 

We encourage you to sign up for Howard Center’s e-publication and request a sample printed copy of the “Family in America” newsletter, which is loaded with important, scholarly research on family issues. (You can call Howard Center at 815-964-5819 or e-mail info@profam.org.)

Common sense dictates that unnatural homosexual unions are more volatile than traditional marriages, and the research backs that up. Here are the Demography study’s two key findings on “gay” unions in Norway and Sweden:

1. Few homosexuals choose to “marry” or register their union with the government;
2. Homosexual unions end in divorce much more often than heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual Unions: Rare and Fragile 

Progressive activists in the United States have argued strenuously in recent years that giving homosexuals the legal right to marry will improve life for homosexual couples and will consequently benefit society as a whole.  A new study of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, however, casts serious doubt on such assertions.  For, as it turns out, relatively few homosexual couples avail themselves of this revolutionary right. And a surprisingly high percentage of those who do so end up in divorce court.

To analyze the demographics of homosexual [“marriages,”] a team of German and Norwegian scholars recently examined data collected in Norway and Sweden since these bellwether countries discarded centuries of legal tradition by authorizing homosexual unions (in 1993 in Norway and in 1995 in Sweden).  Both countries have thus now enacted laws granting homosexuals “the legal right to registered partnerships, a civil status that [the researchers believe], in practice does not deviate much from the concept of marriage.”  The legal equivalence of homosexual unions to heterosexual marriage indeed largely explains why the researchers use “the terms registered partnerships and same-sex marriage interchangeably.”   Similarly, the researchers “use the term divorce to refer to [homosexual] partnership dissolution because the divorce procedures of the marriage act [in both countries] apply to registered [homosexual] [“marriages”] as well.”

As the German and Norwegian scholars survey the available data for homosexual unions, they cannot avoid one obvious reality: “the incidence of same-sex [‘marriage’] in Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.”  Between 1993 and 2001, while Norway recorded 196,000 heterosexual marriages, the country witnessed the legal registration of only 1,293 homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, while Sweden recorded 280,000 heterosexual marriages between 1995-2002, the country saw the formation of only 1,526 registered homosexual partnerships.  The researchers accordingly calculate “a ratio of around 7 same-sex [‘marriages’] to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Norway and a comparable “ratio of 5 new partnerships to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Sweden.  The researchers remark that the numbers of same-sex [“marriages”] have run “considerably lower” than might have been expected by those relying on recent surveys of sexual behavior.  These surveys have indicated that “well over 1%” of women and between 1 and 3% of men have had a same-sex partner during the last year, with between 4 and 9% of men and approximately 4% of women reporting that they have had a same-sex partner at some time during their lives.  (The authors of the new study are too well informed to rehash the now discredited absurdity—promulgated by Alfred Kinsey—that fully ten percent of the adult male population is homosexual.) [Note: see Judith Reisman’s website for more good information on Kinsey and his fraudulent research.–Peter L.]

The data for same-sex unions in Norway and Sweden indicate, however, not only that such unions are relatively rare, but also that they are remarkably fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than do the heterosexual marriages of peers.  The statistics indeed reveal “that the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the corresponding risk for heterosexual marriages and that the divorce risk for partnerships of women is about double (2.67) that for men (1.50).”  

Some bad news and some good news. The “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592, passed the House of Representatives yesterday 237-180, but the White House issued a strong statement against it indicating a likely presidential veto of the bill. Your calls to the White House made a difference! (AFTAH and then CWA led the way in publicly calling on President Bush to clarify his stance on Hate Crimes.)

Now we need to keep calling the White House to urge a similar promise to veto the “ENDA Our Freedom” bill (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) — which would force religious business owners with 15 or more employees to violate their conscience to accommodate homosexual and “transgender” agendas in the workplace. For talking points against ENDA, click HERE.

TAKE ACTION: Call the White House and thank the President for his clear statement (below, or on PDF on the White House website HERE) on “Hate Crimes,” and urge him to do the same against the freedom-crushing ENDA. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111, or write president@whitehouse.gov (the online comment page is HERE).

Also, call your U.S. Senators on the “Thought Crimes bill,” H.R. 1592, at 202-224-3121 or by going to http://www.congress.org/. Re: ENDA, you will need to call BOTH your Senators and your U.S. Representative, since ENDA hasn’t been voted on in either chamber.

Click HERE for a roll call of the House vote on H.R. 1592 (212 Democrats and 25 Republicans voted for it). The following is the White House statement on H.R. 1592 [emphasis in bold added]:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 3, 2007 (House)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

 

H.R. 1592 – Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
(Rep. Conyers (D) Michigan and 171 cosponsors)

 

The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

 

State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State’s own hate crimes law.

 

H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

 

Moreover, the bill’s proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.

By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

Scottish Christian Party to make Holyrood election a referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulation

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930’s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

Excerpted from Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin, by Meg Jalsevac, published Mar 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Brazil’s Senate is currently engaged in a debate over proposed legislation that would criminalize anything deemed a condemnation of homosexuality.  The new legislation, labeled the ‘homophobia law’ would demand jail time for violations of the law and would not provide for any religious exception.

…According to ZENIT, priests who preached against homosexuality could face 3 to 5 years in jail and seminaries would not be permitted to reject applicants based on their sexual orientation.

…Exodus Brazil, the Brazilian branch of the international ex-homosexual ministry, has expressed grave concern about the law saying, “It will extinguish ex-gay ministry in Brazil for all practical purposes.”

Brazil has been a recent leader in pushing for gay rights and trumping traditional family values.  In 2005, Brazil legalized homosexual adoption.  As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, Brazilian ambassadors have been the driving force behind a 2006 proposal to the Organization of American States to designate sexual orientation an “inalienable right” with full human-rights protection.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

WARNING: The video includes extremely offensive images from the 2006 Dallas “Gay Pride” Parade.

To watch 2006 Dallas “Gay Pride” video, click HERE.

TAKE ACTION — AFA’s website includes a link to express your opposition to the federal “Hate Crimes” bill. We also encourage you to let Southwest Airlines know that you do not appreciate their sponsorship of open displays of moral filth in our public streets.

A glimpse of our future unless you stand…

From UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about Homosexuality, by Gudrun Schultz, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are “King and King,” a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, “Spacegirl Pukes,” about a little girl with two mommies, and “And Tango Makes Three,” telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

The schools are participating in a new government-funded program that is aimed at studying the best approach to familiarize school children with homosexual relationships — the study results will be made available to all schools to assist them in utilizing the books to normalize homosexuality.

The £600,000 No Outsiders program also includes workshops for local councils to help with the implementation of the Equality Act banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, taking effect April 6.

By Peter LaBarbera

Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— I Corinthians 6:18

Warning: Honest yet offensive descriptions of supposedly “moral” homosexual sex acts follow.

I am fascinated by the media debate launched by Gen. Pace’s simple and true statement that homosexual acts are immoral. Post-modern (read: post-Christian) liberals — who think they’re smarter than the rest of us — are apoplectic, but my heart is lifted. Isn’t moral clarity wonderful? The alternative to Pace’s honest agreement with God’s morality (no polls here) is Sen. John Warner’s and other pandering politicians’ — and the media’s — moral confusion.

If homosexual acts are not immoral, then are they moral? I know it’s disgusting, but think for a moment about what homosexual sodomy is: Dr. John Diggs says it’s almost as if anal sex “was created to spread disease.” “Gay” writer Jack Hart states that “some practices common among gays — especially rimming [“orally stimulating the anus,” according to another “gay” enthusiast] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”

Highly efficient at transmitting disease… makes sense. What is immoral and unnatural is also often very dangerous. Turns out that deviant sex and normal sex are not “equal.”

Yet our schools are telling kids that “being gay” is fine — come join our “Gay/Straight Alliance” school club! Now that’s immoral.

We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)

Is “sex” between women — sadly, a popular feature in straight male pornography — moral? Is it moral when lesbians use “sex toys” to mimic normal sex or anal sex?

Are you starting to see why the other side would rather be talking in euphemisms — equality, discrimination, “sexual orientation,” “same-sex love” and “gay” — rather than the morality of homosexual acts?

And do you see why they are desperate to block messages about healthy and happy ex-“gays,” like my friend Stephen Bennett or ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran, from reaching the public?

Of course, typical of situational ethics, the same “gay” activists who scold us for “inequality” and “discrimination” have no problem — at least for now — discriminating against the “polyamory” activists who yearn for multiple-partner marriages.

Upon what authority?

Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles — like “gay” actor Ian McKellen, who rips out the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality from the Gideon Bible when he stays at hotels.

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
— I Corinthians 6:13

The liberals’ and libertarians’ folly is that they pretend to have greater authority than God to decide these issues. (Sadly, a large chunk of America has also lost its fear of God: a new Culture & Media Institute survey found that only 52 percent of U.S. respondents “say they believe the Bible is God’s authoritative word” on how to live.) But the secularists have nothing to substitute for Biblical truth but lies and ideologies that hurt people. (Another “gay” activist, Bob Hattoy, who made a famous anti-Reagan, anti-Bush speak at the Democrats’ ’92 convention, died prematurely of AIDS — at 56 — last week.)

We spend so much time crafting palatable “public policy” positions that we almost forget that homosexuality is first and foremost a moral issue. Clear messages like Gen. Pace’s, backed by reason, will turn idealistic young people’s minds back toward the truth. Let’s make our policy arguments, to be sure, but shed our defensiveness and be clearly moral, yet humble, like Gen. Pace.

Moral-minded people owe the good general a debt of gratitude for having the courage in this cowardly and confused age to speak the Truth and publicly agree with God about immoral homosexual acts.