Excerpted from Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia”, by Gudrun Schultz published Feb 27, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian…
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Words have meaning. To be a virgin is not just to abstain from sexual intercourse with a man, but to remain completely chaste and pure. It’s no more accurate to say that a sexually active lesbian is a virgin that it was for Bill Clinton to say “I did not have sex with that woman” — and furthermore, it’s terribly dangerous to mislead young people like this. When young people heard Bill Clinton equivocate and deny that oral sex was indeed sex, they felt liberty to try it themselves — and now society is reaping the consequences. Similarly, if Suze Orman identifies herself as a lesbian while calling herself a virgin, she sends a confusing and mixed message — and a deceitful one — to young women.

Homosexual sex may not carry the “risk” (or as we Christians like to think if it, the great blessing) of pregnancy, but homosexual sex practices (lesbian, “gay,” or “trans”) substantially increase the risk of physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to the human body and soul. If Suze Orman has been in a lesbian relationship for seven years, she is no virgin. If you “experiment with” or engage openly in homosexual sex (or are heterosexually intimate, even without intercourse), you cannot please God unless you repent (ie, change). — Sonja Dalton

——————————

The following is excerpted from She’s So Money (an interview with financial guru Suze Orman), by Deborah Solomon, published Feb 25, 2007, by New York Times Magazine:

Q: Are you married?

A: I’m in a relationship with life. My life is just out there. I’m on the road every day. I love my life.

Q: Meaning what? Do you live with anyone?

A: K.T. is my life partner. K.T. stands for Kathy Travis. We’re going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I’m still a 55-year-old virgin.

Q: Would you like to get married to K.T.?

A: Yes. Absolutely. Both of us have millions of dollars in our name. It’s killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa.

Continue reading at New York Times Magazine…

If you read only one article about the homosexual agenda this year, make this be the one. It describes homosexual activist and Quark founder Tim Gill‘s stealth strategy of targeting pro-family, Republican state legislators for defeat by funneling “gay” donors’ money to these candidates’ opponents. The plan worked and the result is that states like Iowa are now facing a burst of pro-“gay” legislation fueled in part by out-of-state checks — about which the average citizen knows nothing.

We don’t imagine that The Atlantic Monthly’s editors would be quite so upbeat about this story if it were about secret donations from evangelical moneymen targeting pro-homosexual state legislators. But now is not the time for sour grapes. Instead, we need concerted action to stop this sneaky plot from succeeding in the form of new “sexual orientation” laws.

One more thing: isn’t it telling that Patrick Guerriero, the former head of the national Log Cabin Republicans — a group dedicated to advancing homosexual interests in the GOP — took a job to help achieve Democratic takeovers of state capitols? More proof that the Log Cabin activists are homosexuals first, and Republicans second. After all, this is the same “Republican” group that refused to endorse President Bush for re-election because he supported a Federal Marriage Amendment (horrors!). And yet there are still plenty of “moderate” Republicans who insist that the key to the party’s success is tilting more toward the Log Cabins and away from the GOP’s conservative, religious base. — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

The following is excerpted from They Won’t Know What Hit Them, by Joshua Green, published March 2007 in Atlantic Monthly:

The software mogul Tim Gill has a mission:
Stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started.
How a network of gay political donors is stealthily
fighting sexual discrimination and reshaping American politics.

…Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, …was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage.

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. …If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians…

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics…

Tim Gill is best known as the founder of the publishing-software giant Quark Inc., and for a long time was one of the few openly gay members of the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans…In 2000, he sold his interest in Quark for a reported half-billion dollars in order to focus full-time on his philanthropy.

Gill’s principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities. His serious involvement in politics is a more recent development, though geared toward the same goal. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns…

“My goal is to see that all Americans are treated equally regardless of sexuality,” he told me when we met.

…Gill decided to find out how he could become more effective and enlisted as his political counselor an acerbic lawyer and former tobacco lobbyist named Ted Trimpa, who is Colorado’s answer to Karl Rove. Trimpa believes that the gay-rights community directs too much of its money to thoroughly admirable national candidates who don’t need it, while neglecting less compelling races that would have a far greater impact on gay rights—a tendency he calls “glamour giving.” Trimpa cited the example of [a prominent, Democratic presidential candidate]: an attractive candidate, solid on gay rights, and viscerally exciting to donors. It feels good to write him a check. An analysis of [the candidate’s] 2004 Senate race, which he won by nearly fifty points, had determined that gays contributed more than $500,000. “The temptation is always to swoon for the popular candidate,” Trimpa told me, “but a fraction of that money, directed at the right state and local races, could have flipped a few chambers. ‘Just because he’s cute’ isn’t a strategy.”

Together, Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it—to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence. Their chief cautionary example of such a villain is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who once compared homosexuality to “man on dog” sex (and was finally defeated last year, at a cost of more than $20 million)…

Gill’s idea was to identify vulnerable candidates like Danny Carroll and move quickly to eliminate them without the burden of first having to win the consent of some risk-averse large organization or board of directors. Another element of this strategy is stealth. Revealing targets only after an election makes it impossible for them to fight back…

In the 2006 elections, on a level where a few thousand dollars can decide a close race, Gill’s universe of donors injected more than $3 million, providing in some cases more than 20 percent of a candidate’s or organization’s budget. On Election Day, fifty of the seventy targeted candidates were defeated, Danny Carroll among them; and out of the thirteen states where Gill and his allies invested, four — Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington — saw control of at least one legislative chamber switch to the Democratic Party… Gill’s stealth campaign was both effective and precedent-setting. For the first time, in a broad and organized way, gays had taken the initiative in a sweeping multistate strategy and had mostly prevailed.

 

From Two More States Consider Gay Adoption, published Feb 26, 2007, by Citizenlink:

Family advocates urge people of faith to fight back

New Hampshire and Michigan are working on legislation to make gay adoption legal.

Massachusetts legalized adoption for same-sex couples in 2006. That move led the state to mandate that Catholic Charities of Boston refer children to gay couples. The group discontinued its century-old adoption program under that pressure.

Ron Stoddart, president and executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency in California, said the family itself is at stake.

“It’s just a continuation of the cultural trend of breaking down the basic foundation blocks of the family,” he told Family News in Focus.

Stoddart said in his state, homosexuals use antidiscrimination laws to ensure they can adopt. He says it’s a formula he expects to see leveraged across the country.

“It will come up, in my opinion, not as a matter of legalizing same-sex couples being able to adopt,” he said, but through states modifying nondiscrimination clauses intended to offer protection for race, gender and religion.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, said people of faith should keep fighting attempts to place children in homes that, by definition, exclude either a mom or a dad.

“We’re going to stand by what’s best for these children,” he said, “and what’s best for these children is to have a mom and a dad.”

More and more it is becoming clear that the homosexual agenda cannot succeed without censorship and trampling over other people’s rights. Can you imagine the can of worms that this legislation would open up? California is reaping the whirlwind of Christian apathy in the face of evil (masquerading as tolerance). If conservatives, churches and parents don’t pull their heads out of the sand soon and stop this juggernaut, California will deserve the oppressive fate that it gets. — Peter LaBarbera

Note: For some additional background on Sheila Kuehl, click HERE.

——————————-

From Legislator Introduces Outrageous Homosexual Bill, published Feb 26, 2007, by Christian Newswire:

SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools

[California] State Senator Sheila Kuehl has introduced legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that “reflects adversely” upon homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues.

SB 777 is almost identical to last session’s highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens.”

SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a “prom king and queen” because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

“Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents,” continued England. “The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California.”

“The term ‘reflects adversely’ is too nebulous and susceptible to broad interpretation,” said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “For instance, does it reflect adversely upon homosexuals to report statistics on the rate of AIDS infections in America, including the homosexual community? And would the terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ be considered discriminatory?”

“Last session thousands of Californians called their legislators and the governor opposing the very same piece of legislation,” continued Turney. “In fact, legislators publicly stated that they received more constituent complaints about this legislation than any other bill. It proves that when a out-of-touch group has a radical agenda to push forward, they will ignore the will of the people.”

CRI is committed to opposing legislation that uses our children as social-experiments and tramples upon long-standing traditional family values.

Read SB 777

By Peter LaBarbera

Homosexual Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) pushes counterfeit “marriage.”

Well, we’ve been warning you that the homosexual movement wants to make Illinois the “Massachusetts of the Midwest.” Now it’s official. The state’s only “openly gay” representative, Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has submitted a bill to legalize “same-sex marriage” in the Land of Lincoln. Harris sneakily calls his bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” –– despite evidence from Massachusetts that legal “gay marriage” leads to stepped-up discrimination against religious institutions opposed to homosexuality.

TAKE ACTION: If you are an Illinois resident, call your state representative and state senator and politely urge them to:

• OPPOSE HB 1615, the radical redefinition of marriage proposed by new homosexual State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago); click HERE to find your legislators (the page works best if you know your 9-digit zip), and click HERE to view the bill, which would strip out the common-sense prohibition in Illinois law against marriages “between two individuals of the same sex.” You can call the Illinois Capitol Switchboard at 217-782-2000.
• SUPPORT HJRCA 1, the pro-traditional-marriage constitutional amendment offered by State Rep. Dave Reis (R) –– which has languished in the IL General Assembly for years due to the Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful “gay” lobby. (In Illinois, a constitutional amendment requires a three-fifths vote by the legislature, followed by a three-fifths popular vote.)

Also, please consider making a financial gift to Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI). We don’t normally solicit funds for other organizations, but PMI urgently needs your help as it gears up for another petition drive to place a pro-traditional marriage advisory question on the 2008 Illinois ballot. PMI’s ballot measure would enable Illinois voters to call on the General Assembly to pass a constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment (like Reis’ amendment above). Make your check out to Protect Marriage Illinois and send it to: PMI, PO Box 419, Wheaton, IL 60189; or go to PMI’s website and click the “Make a Donation” button. (Gifts to PMI are not tax-deductible.)

Background
Homosexual activists, being mostly on the Left, know how politics works: they will strive to gradually build support for legalizing “gay marriage” in Illinois even if it takes decades. This is what they did before finally passing a pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” bill (which also covers the gender-confused) in Illinois in 2005.

Conservatives and people of faith, too, have to learn to think long-term. We must retain the goal of repealing all “sexual orientation” laws –– in Illinois and across the nation –– since they are incompatible with the basic American freedoms of religion, conscience and association. And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.

In his odd legislative biography, Rep. Harris –– who replaced another homosexual Chicago Democrat –– states, almost proudly, that he is the “only openly gay member of the Legislature and openly a person with AIDS.” (Please read this interesting first-hand testimonial about Harris’ sad life and pray for him if you are so moved.)

Indeed, behavior that runs contrary to nature carries a heavy physical price. When “gay” activists talk about “marriage equality,” we should answer: same-sex relationships do not deserve to be treated as “equal” to marriage because they are not — far from it. True marriage serves society and mankind by ordering the sexes and producing future generations and providing stable, mother-father homes for children.

Conversely, society has no stake in legalizing “gay marriage,” which would reward unhealthy and changeable behavior and have such ill side-effects as facilitating intentionally fatherless or motherless homosexual adoptions.

Giving immoral homosexual relationships all the rights and benefits of marriage also sends a terrible message to young people, and certainly will lead to Christians and religious people being punished for “anti-gay” discrimination. A homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” law would be a huge stepping stone toward forcing small businesses –– even religiously-owned ones such as day care centers –– to provide marital-type benefits to homosexual employees even if they oppose subsidizing that lifestyle.

And how long will it be before a church or pastor is sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple — HB 1615’s title notwithstanding?

We must do all we can to shore up real marriage by encouraging citizens to value it more and by making divorces tougher to get. Radically redefining marriage to include homosexuality would only erode this great institution further.

TAKE ACTION — First, contact IL State Rep Greg Harris
and express your opposition to this legislation.

Springfield Office:

258 – W Stratton Office Bldg

Springfield, IL 62706

(217) 782-3835

(217) 557-6470 FAX

District Office:

1967 W. Montrose

Chicago, IL 60613

(773) 348-3434

(773) 348-3475 FAX

Then contact your own representative and ask them to OPPOSE this bill.
You can find your legislator’s contact information HERE.

——————————–

Excerpted from Lawmaker: Legalize Gay Marriages, by Doug Finke, published Feb 22, 2007, by PJ Star:

State Rep. plans to introduce bill aiming to equalize rights

A Chicago Democrat wants Illinois to be the second state to legalize gay marriages.

State Rep. Greg Harris (pictured left) plans to introduce legislation today to permit same-sex couples to get married. Although four states recognize civil unions among gays, only Massachusetts provides for gay marriages.

“It would extend the same rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples in Illinois as are previously enjoyed, or not enjoyed, by heterosexual couples,” Harris said. “If you look at recent polls … people of Illinois very thoroughly understand that same-sex couples deserve the same rights and benefits” as heterosexual couples.

David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, disagreed…

Harris, who is gay and represents a district with a large homosexual population, acknowledged that pushing for legalized gay marriages rather than civil unions will be controversial.

“It is undoubtedly true that the word marriage is a very emotionally charged term, so there may have to be some negotiations on that,” he said. “From my community, we believe we should have the full, equal rights as our heterosexual siblings to marry who we choose, and we should call it marriage. We should not call it civil union.”

Continue reading at PJ Star…

By Peter LaBarbera

Update on the “sniper” story: an investigator with the Rapid City, S.D., police department has contacted Americans For Truth and told us that South Dakota “gay” activist Barry Wick will not be prosecuted for his “Snipers, take note” comment against this writer, posted on lesbian Pam Spaulding’s blog, because the threat was “too vague.” We have received and accepted a heartfelt apology from Mr. Wick.

Yesterday, I was asked by a suburban Chicago newspaper to comment on former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s comment, “I hate gay people.” I said that what Hardaway said was wrong (he has since apologized): we have always condemned hatred and un-Christian messages like “Rev.” Fred Phelps “God Hates Fags” signs — although of course it is perfectly acceptable to oppose homosexuality.

And Hardaway does have a point about homosexuals in the locker room: we don’t let men shower and dress in women’s locker rooms, so shouldn’t men who define themselves as sexually attracted to other men be relegated to an alternative space? Ditto for lesbians: parents of athletic daughters should be concerned about the presence of lesbian coaches and girls open about their same-sex desires in female locker rooms.

I told the reporter that Hardaway’s comments will only play to the liberal caricature of Christians and religious people who oppose homosexuality on principle as “haters.”

Here’s the problem: the same media and liberals who rush to condemn Hardaway’s comments look the other way when homosexual activists like Pam Spaulding (who runs the “Pam’s House Blend” blog) spew abject hatred against Christians or anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior. As my friend and former AFTAH Corporate Outreach Director Matt Barber describes in a column below, you don’t have to search very hard on Spaulding’s website to find evidence of her anti-Christian bigotry and hate-mongering.

And yet Duke University lauds Spaulding’s website as “fun” and “snappy.” Can you imagine Duke or any university promoting a “conservative” or religious website that engaged in regular, mean and ugly putdowns of homosexuals? Pam is the online “gay” equivalent of Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” campaign, so why is an institution of “higher learning” that ostensibly advocates “tolerance” promoting her brand of hatred?

Click HERE to write Duke University President Richard Brodhead (or call him at 919-684-2424) about Duke’s promotion of hateful lesbian and Duke employee Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian website. Politely ask for an official apology for promoting anti-religious bigotry by touting her blog.

The NBA punished Hardaway for his remarks. Yet Duke U. rewards Spaulding with accolades despite her rank bigotry against Christians. (Memo to Pam: try making your points without mocking religion or resorting to sophomoric name-calling. Hate is a two-way street.)

Fact is, Spaulding is far from alone: there are countless examples of hateful homosexual attacks against Christians, like the wicked depiction of my friend and Maine Christian pro-family leader Mike Heath’s wife Paulie below. Yet the same media who fall over themselves in the sprint to condemn “anti-gay hate” show little interest in exposing acts of anti-Christian bigotry by homosexuals. Maybe that’s because most journalists fundamentally agree with the “gay” activist agenda and don’t want to do anything to harm its image–which reporting the truth certainly would.

Conversely, these days many in the media and Hollywood are applying the “hate” (or “homophobe”) label to almost anything that does not support the homosexual activist point of view.

The worst part about the liberals’ hypocritical double-standard on “hate” is that it actually contributes to escalating anti-Christian bigotry in our culture. Tim Hardaway will be blackballed for life unless he grovels in repentance — the press will make sure of that. Meanwhile, homosexual haters like Pam Spaulding are encouraged by the media’s agenda-driven silence.

A Maine homosexual activist posted the crude, digitally-altered graphic above,
of pro-family leader Mike Heath’s lovely wife, Christian songwriter Paulie Heath,
on the Amazon.com website.

P.S. Oh, I almost forgot: here’s a real photo of Paulie Heath, whom you can book for a concert at your church or women’s retreat by clicking HERE:

Matt Barber’s CWA column:

Hate Bloggers, Death Threats and Apologies Abound
By J. Matt Barber, published by Concerned Women for America Feb. 13

Media outlets have given the story fairly wide coverage. Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D- North Carolina) recently named two leftist, anti-Christian bloggers to high profile positions with his campaign. [They subsequently resigned.] …

But another story, with perhaps more serious implications, has gone largely unreported by the mainstream media.

Last week, Concerned Women for America (CWA) broke the news about an apparent threat to the life of pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera made by a commenter on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian site Pam’s House Blend.

Spaulding is an information technology manager with Duke University Press, and her employer appears quite proud of its blustering left-wing blogger. Duke Press has even publicly praised and promoted her blog activities, calling them a “mixture of snappy prose, funny postings and serious commentary.”

So, just for fun, let’s see if we can’t yuck it up a bit with Duke University. Let’s take a look at some of Spaulding’s “snappy” and “funny” musings:

On her blog — among other things – Spaulding regularly mocks both Christ and Christians by sarcastically referring to Jesus as “jeebus.” She refers to Christians as both the “Am Taliban” (for American Taliban) and “bible beaters.” She’s doctored photos of the pope, dressing him in drag and women’s makeup, apparently implying that he’s a cross-dressing closet homosexual. Spaulding has likened a well-respected black New Jersey pastor to cult leader and mass murderer Jim Jones, and she has managed to ridicule both Christmas and pro-lifers in one fell swoop with a post titled, “Oh Fetus tree, Oh Fetus tree.”

Side splitting, isn’t it?

And if you think that’s funny, this’ll make you collapse in gales of laughter:

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera, who is married with children, someone on House Blend published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread. Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” suggested that “snipers take note” of LaBarbera’s address. Wick also suggested that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self defense and stated that, “[LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens.”

Spaulding and other members of her blog so frequently foment hatred toward Christians that it’s no real surprise that one of her posts culminated in this chilling and ostensibly illegal threat to LaBarbera’s life.

Soon after CWA broke the story, Spaulding issued a public apology to LaBarbera and removed the threatening language from her site. She has purportedly banned Wick from her blog. Spaulding indicated that she was unaware of the post, although the threat had been posted for nearly three weeks. LaBarbera was gracious enough to take her at her word and has accepted her apology.

But Spaulding should apologize further.

She should apologize to the millions of Christians around the world whom she mocks and bashes on a daily basis.

She should apologize to pro-family leaders like LaBarbera, Dr. James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye and others whom she unfairly belittles and needlessly berates.

But she probably won’t.

And since one can reasonably infer that Duke University Press has placed its stamp of approval on Spaulding’s anti-Christian tirades, perhaps it’s appropriate for them to apologize on her behalf – that is, if they don’t actually share her backward beliefs.

But don’t hold your breath.

We’ve all seen how collectively stingy Duke University staff can be with apologies. Remember the ad the lynch mob – er – faculty hastily took out condemning the Duke Lacrosse team members accused of rape? They rendered judgment before the ink was dry on the arrest warrant but arrogantly refused to apologize even after it became abundantly clear that the accused would likely be exonerated.

Still, if Duke’s stubborn liberal pride won’t allow them to apologize for enabling, if not endorsing, Spaulding’s hateful screeds, then at the very least Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead will surely denounce the threat made to LaBarbera’s life on the very blog of which Duke is so proud.

It’s a noxious paradox, really. The left loves to pay lip service to the rhetoric of tolerance and diversity, while their own bigotry is betrayed by hateful and intolerant blather such as that which pollutes the cyber-pages of Pam’s House Blend.

And they’re not saying “sorry” for it.

But someone is apologizing.

Last Wednesday, February 7, South Dakota homosexual activist Barry G. Wick faxed a letter to CWA’s Washington D.C. headquarters admitting that he was the author of the threatening House Blend comments. Wick issued what appeared to be a heartfelt apology to LaBarbera and requested that CWA pass along his sincere regrets to the Christian community. Again, LaBarbera has graciously accepted the apology and says that he has forgiven Wick.

We are all sinners – every one. Christians are commanded to forgive others as we pray the Father will forgive us. However, even in forgiveness actions have consequences. We are a nation of laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a legal process that should and must take place.

Objectively speaking, a threat to the life of another is a very serious offense, even if it’s subjectively made in jest. It must always be treated as a bona fide threat. LaBarbera has shared that when he learned of what appeared to be an imminent threat to his person; he contacted the FBI and other appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Federal law is clear. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875 (c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The legal process is in motion, and as with all serious matters of this type, our unique system of justice will determine the outcome.

In the meantime, the very Christians who are the subject of those insidious threats, hateful words, and intolerant acts of omission will – in LaBarbera’s own words – be praying for “Spaulding, Barry Wick, and all those whose embrace of homosexuality has led them to be consumed by hatred toward Christians and others who defend natural sexuality and marriage.”

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.