Be sure to read The Confession (Part I) posted below…

“Many if not most of the major gay and lesbian organizations who have signed on to the fight for same-sex marriage would instantly sign off at any suggestion that they were actually encouraging gay men and lesbians to marry.” – Gabriel Rotello, in his 1997 book on the AIDS crisis, Sexual Ecology

Excerpted from The Confession, Part II, by Stanley Kurtz, published Nov 1, 2006, by National Review:

…Around the time the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement was released, a controversy broke out over news that the Boston Globe had told its gay employees to marry their partners or face losing their domestic-partnership benefits…

According to [Globe journalist Zak] Szymanski, “Many national LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] groups, despite their large investment in securing gay marriage, agree that there is a problem with a society that values marriage over all other family forms.”

For example, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and a major spokesman in the battle for same-sex marriage, said, “We’re deeply disappointed by the Globe’s decision, and >we do not feel that benefits should flow only from marriage, because a married couple does not reflect the reality of the American family, gay or straight.”

Michelle Granda, of GLAD, which Szymanski calls “the group that is widely credited with winning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” said, “We have always believed families are configured in many ways and that marriage is not the answer for all families.”

…Here we have a clear indication of the family radicalism that hides beneath the only apparent conservatism of same-sex marriage advocacy groups…

A Striking Development
In late 2005, I published a piece entitled “Here Come the Brides,” about the role of bisexuality in the drive for legalized multiple-partner marriage. It’s notable that the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto justified its radical platform, in part, by lamenting the short shrift historically given to bisexuals by the broader LGBT movement. Among the signers of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto were a number of bisexual activists. In “Here Come the Brides,” I also noted the role of Unitarian polyamory activists, and the potential role of arguments made by Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino in a pro-polyamory movement. Sure enough, the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was signed by a number of Unitarian ministers and by professor Yoshino…

A Political Future
…Jonathan Rauch offered some remarkably frank concessions: “I had originally hoped that the [same-sex marriage] debate would not be followed by a polygamy debate, but clearly it has been. Some [same-sex marriage] advocates maintained that there was no significant constituency for polygamy, but that’s proving to be wrong as well.”

…This all means that in a post-gay-marriage world, the political organization of the gay community will shift. For now, “conservative” proponents of same-sex marriage are out in front, supported by a vast array of considerably less conservative activists and lobby groups. Meanwhile, the radicals are marginalized and/or intentionally keeping a low profile. In a post-gay-marriage world, this situation will flip. The radicals will step out in front, supported by largely the same coalition of activists and lobby groups who currently support same-sex marriage. At that point, the conservatives, no longer needed to run interference for the larger movement, will be quietly put out to pasture. By then we shall be well beyond same-sex marriage. Listen carefully to the words of same-sex marriage supporters, and they confess as much themselves.

Continue reading at National Review…

Excerpted from The Confession, by Stanley Kurtz, published Oct 31, 2006, by National Review:

Suppose a large group of same-sex-marriage activists came together and made the following confession to a group of same-sex-marriage skeptics:

“Look, we’re going to level with you in a way that we haven’t up to now. We all support same-sex marriage, but for many — even most — of us, gay marriage isn’t an end in itself. It’s a way-station on the path to a post-marriage society. We want a wide range of diverse families — even ‘polyamorous’ groupings of three or more partners — to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples. In short, your worst fears are justified. The radical redefinition of marriage you’ve been worried about for so long is exactly what we want…

“And consider the complex families created when three or even four gay men and lesbians combine through, say, artificial insemination, to bear and raise children. We want recognition for these sorts of unconventional families too, even — or especially — if such recognition leads to legalized polyamory. Pretending that certain aspects of the gay community don’t exist only weakens our diverse families. The way we live is the way we live. Up to now, we’ve tried to hide it. But at last we’re ready to own up to reality, and to push for legal recognition for all types of families, even if that expands the definition of marriage until the very idea of marriage itself is stripped of meaning.”

For all practical purposes, this confession has already been offered. A good part of the substance of the above message was conveyed this past July, when hundreds of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers released a manifesto entitled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” Among other things, that statement called for recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

Continue reading at National Review…

Excerpt from New Jersy Supreme Court syllabus:

“Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”

Four justices joined the majority opinion. Take no heart, because the other three justices joined the minority opinion calling for FULL homosexual “marriage.” That’s 7-0 for marriage as God ordained it.

New Jersey’s highest court has ordered legislators to institute state-honored homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” within 180 days.

Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.
— Proverbs 14:34

Indeed, today’s decision is a disgrace to our nation.

From Senior Counsel Glen Lavy at Alliance Defense Fund:

“If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other ‘unions’ makes marriage meaningless. It’s critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only.”

Part One of Two on the Growing ‘Gay’ Threat to Freedom

It’s still a free country…well, at least mostly free (for those fortunate enough to make it out of their mother’s womb alive or who don’t live in strong “gay agenda” states like California). Houston-area small business owners Todd and Sabrina Farber are free not to do work for a couple of men who proudly embrace homosexual behavior, which the Farbers regard as sinful and deeply offensive. And homosexuals like Michael Lord are free not to do business with the Farbers, and to tell others not to as well.

But notice how that’s not good enough for some pro-“gay” activists; they think what the Farbers did by exercising their freedoms should be illegal. The truth is, many homosexual and “transgender” advocates are quite willing to place their “rights” (read: demands for government-enforced acceptance of their lifestyle) above the freedoms of religion, association and conscience of others.

There can be no doubt that the expansion of “sexual orientation” (pro-homosexuality) laws will result in the steady loss of freedom for those committed to defending healthy, Biblical sexual mores. As with the struggle over abortion, this Titanic battle between competing rights will not go away. Any American who is committed to preserving religious freedom in this great nation should understand the need for repealing all “sexual orientation” laws, lest we face a future like Britain’s where the state is arresting Christians for alleged “homophobic” behavior, which includes passing out Biblical tracts at a “gay” festival.

If such an Orwellian nightmare can happen in the land that gave Western Civilization the Magna Carta, it could happen in the good ol’ USA.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

What part of not “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion do pro-homosexual advocates and lawyers not understand? Tomorrow we will discuss a Michigan case in which a radical homosexual activist says it should have been illegal for a Catholic girls school to dismiss an employee who proudly revealed her lesbian relationship in defiance of ancient Catholic teachings.

Stay vigilant. We will not sit back and allow the (In)Tolerance Brigade to steal away our God-given American freedoms in the name of “gay rights.” –Peter LaBarbera, AFT

The following is excerpted from Christian Landscaper Won’t Soil Hands with Work for ‘Gay’ Clients, published Oct 21, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…Todd and Sabrina Farber have owned and operated The Garden Guy since 1991 and, like other landscape contractors, use the Internet to show the quality of their past work and to solicit future business.

The Garden Guy was just one of the landscaping businesses Michael Lord and Gary Lackey, a homosexual couple who has been together for nine years, requested bids from earlier this week for the new home they’re building in Houston Heights. Lord said he found The Garden Guy through an Internet search and liked the “before and after” pictures on the website.

“We sent e-mails to several local landscaping companies asking for quotes. Garden Guy called Michael back saying they would like to bid,” Lackey told the Houston Voice. Lord called the company Wednesday morning to set up an appointment.

“Michael was asked if ‘his wife would be home’ when the consultation would take place. He brushed it off, but when he was asked again if his wife would be joining, Michael said, ‘No, but my partner Gary will be.’

“Michael set up the appointment, but a few minutes later we got the e-mail.”

From The Princeton Principles, published May 26, 2006, by the Witherspoon Institute:

The “Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good” are the result of scholarly discussions that began in December, 2004 at a meeting in Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute. This conference brought together scholars from History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy to share with each other the findings of their research on why marriage is in the public interest. A consensus developed for sharing the fruit of their collaboration more widely.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four developments are especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.

The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage. Too often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason. Marriage protects children, men and women, and the common good. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. The nation’s retreat from marriage has been particularly consequential for our society’s most vulnerable communities: minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities. Marriage also offers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self. Thus, marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public interest.

We affirm the following ten principles that summarize the value of marriage- a choice that most people want to make, and that society should endorse and support.

• Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
• Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
• Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
• Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
• Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
• Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
• When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
• A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
• The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
• “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

This understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious, but the cross-cultural fruit of broad human experience and reflection, and supported by considerable social science evidence. But a marriage culture cannot flourish in a society whose primary institutions-universities, courts, legislatures, religions-not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice.

Creating a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic institutions-along with intellectual, moral, religious, and artistic leaders-point the way. But law and public policy will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nation’s leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution including:

• Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.
• Investigate divorce law reforms.
• End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
• Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
• Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.

Families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work together towards a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father in loving, lasting marital unions. The future of the American experiment depends on it. And our children deserve nothing less.

Continue reading at Princeton Principles..

Please read in its entirety this excellent article by our friend Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America.

From Jesus Is Wedded to Biblical Marriage, by Jan LaRue, published Oct 18, 2006, by CWA and Townhall:

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin will decide November 7 whether traditional marriage will be protected by their state’s constitution. Opponents from homosexual activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign are uniting with clergy to convince voters that Jesus approves same-sex “marriage.”

The Rev. Jack Rogers, “professor of theology emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and past moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” says that “supporting same-sex marriage affirms our Christian faith, strengthens our communities and supports children and families.” (Jack Rogers, “Study Changes Pastor’s Mind on Same-Sex Marriage,” The [Charleston, South Carolina] Post and Courier, Oct. 1, 2006, p. H3).

Rogers’ reasons for supporting “same-sex marriage” have a tiny tad more substance than the “silence” argument from another clergyman, Rev. Gordon McBride, the rector of Grace St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Arizona who opposes Arizona’s marriage amendment: “Jesus never said anything about it (gay marriage), so clearly it didn’t matter to him.” (Stephanie Innes, “Gay-marriage ban pits church vs. church,” Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 13, 2006).

That logic would lead to the absurd assumption that since Jesus never said anything about incest, rape, tofu or terrorism, they also clearly didn’t matter to Him.

Rogers says that “for much of his life” he “opposed same-sex marriage” until he participated “on a task force on homosexuality … in an intense nine-month process of Bible study, prayer and reflection on the issue from all angles.”

One would think that “reflection” on “all angles” about “same-sex marriage” would include the marriage angle. Rogers, however, doesn’t mention any of nearly 700 Bible verses about marriage — not one.

But then, it’s not easy to pronounce Betty and Veronica or Steve and Al together in holy matrimony as husband and wife, man and woman or bridegroom and bride.

Incredibly, Rogers fails to follow his own advice “to read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ redeeming life and ministry.” He fails to acknowledge that Christ’s lens includes all of Scripture, and what it says about marriage and homosexuality “is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Excerpted from Battle Over Gay Partner Benefits At Kentucky Universities, published Sept 12, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay.com:

The University of Kentucky may follow the University of Louisville in offering health benefits to the same and opposite-sex domestic partners of its employees, but even if the plan is approved, it could be short lived…

Both schools say that without the benefit plans they are unable to attract the best faculty and researchers.

More than 300 colleges and universities nationwide already offer benefits to domestic partners.

Still conservative lawmakers are preparing to introduce legislation nullifying the Louisville benefits, thwart any attempt at UK and prevent other publicly funded colleges and universities from attempting the same thing.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

Excerpted from Gay Community Protests Violent Porn Bill, by Marc Schoffman, published Sept 7, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality PinkNews.co.uk:

Under the government proposals, it would become an offence to possess pornographic images depicting scenes of extreme sexual violence and other obscene material punishable by up to three years in prison.

But groups involved in bondage, domination and sadomasochistic (BDSM) activities claim the law is too vague and could lead to innocent people being prosecuted despite consenting to activities.

Louise Morris, a member of the BDSM community, told PinkNews.co.uk:
“…The government do not recognise an image as being that of consensual “play,” all they see is a crime that could and will create serious harm or death. They want to dictate what my sexuality is and how I should be doing things…

“We are trying to show people that we are not freaks of nature, we are not a fanatical sex cult, we are not abnormal .. we are doing what we like and want it accepted that the things we do are perceived as safe, sane and consensual, we are not the hybrid sexual deviants that others seem to think we all are.”

She is a member of Backlash, a support group for the hobby, reportedly followed by around four million people, who are leading the petition along with other groups such as SMDykes, and Slaveboys.com, which cater for the lesbian and gay community…

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said: “The vast majority of people find these forms of violent and extreme pornography deeply abhorrent…

“Such material has no place in our society…

“By banning the possession of such material the Government is sending out a strong message – that it is totally unacceptable and those who access it will be held to account…”

Continue reading at PinkNews…