By Peter LaBarbera

When it comes to chutzpah, homosexual activists have it in spades. They work their lavender tushes off revolutionizing the age-old Judeo-Christian definitions of marriage and family; fight for “gay/straight” clubs in middle- and high schools, and homosexuality-affirming lessons for all students–even toddlers; lobby for open homosexuality in the armed forces; oppose marriage-preference adoption laws based on the absurd proposition that a child having two “gay daddies” is no worse off than one having a mother and a father; make outrageous claims that esteemed historical figures like Abe Lincoln were “gay”; and radically reinterpret the Bible to change homosexuality from an abomination to a “gift from God.”

Then they turn around and ridicule the idea that there is a “gay agenda.”

Here’s an entry from lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding:

“The Homosexual Agenda is an elusive document. We’ve been looking around for a copy for quite some time; the distribution plan is so secret that it’s almost like we need a queer Indiana Jones to hunt the master copy down. The various anti-gay forces are certain that we all have a copy and are coordinating a attack to achieve world domination.” –Pam Spaulding

Memo to Pam: you don’t have to risk being chased by a giant boulder in the Amazon to find a copy of that elusive agenda; just click this link for the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Note the last two demands under “States” in the 1972 document: “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent” and “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

Or try this link for the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington.” No agenda here, other than the calls for:

• “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin”;
• “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools”;
• “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.”
• “A massive [federal] AIDS education and prevention program that is explicit, culturally sensitive, lesbian and gay affirming and sex positive”;
• “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples”;
• All people must have access to free abortions and contraceptives on demand regardless of age.” (Strangely, abortion advocacy has long been part of the homosexual activist agenda.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading at MSN…

By Linda Harvey of Mission America:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading at 365Gay…

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpted from Dem triumph raises gay hopes, by Joshua Lynsen, published Nov , 2006, by the pro-homosexuality New York Blade:

…Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the Democratic victories, which included the election of several gay-friendly lawmakers across the nation, signified “a great day for LGBT Americans.”

…Stafford, Solmonese and others said Democrats would give new priority to gay initiatives when the 110th Congress convenes in January.

Perhaps the greatest push will be to advance a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“An inclusive ENDA is a very top priority for our community, and I think Congress will put that at the top of their agenda,” Stafford said. “That is something that is very doable.”

Other priorities included a federal hate crimes bill that covers crimes motivated by hatred of gays and transgender people, and a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s ban on openly gay service members.

“Could we have a hate crimes vote in the first six months? Could we have a hearing on gays in the military?” Solmonese said. “Absolutely.”

…Americans for Truth, which is billed as “the only national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda,” pledged to counter efforts by HRC and others.

President Peter LaBarbera told the Blade, “conservative groups and pro-family groups” are “gearing up” to derail ENDA and the hate crimes bill.

Continue reading in New York Blade…

Excerpted from N.Y. Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice, by Damien Cave, published Nov 7, 2006, by The New York Times:

…Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender…

Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts…

“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city…

The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.)…

Continue reading at The New York Times…

How much is this lengthy debate costing Alaska taxpayers?

Excerpted from Same-Sex Benefits Dispute, by Andrea Gusty, published Nov 1, 2006, by KTVA:

Same-sex benefits for state and municipal employees: it’s been a seven-year debate in Alaska. The governor’s even called a third special session about it. The debate over same-sex benefits has been raging for the last seven years.

This summer the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage to provide health and retirement benefits for same-sex partners of state employees and retirees by the first of the year. What is being debated now is what the eligibility requirements for those benefits will be…

Earlier this week, the Anchorage Superior Court ordered the state commissioner to rewrite state regulations to include same sex couples–a move the Alaska attorney general [David Marquez, pictured left] says is, “inappropriate.”

Continue reading at KTVA…