Below is the homosexual magazine OUT‘s list of its “Power 50” of influential homosexuals. OUT calls it “our first annual ranking of the homos who really make the world go round. These are queers you don’t want to mess with.the 50 most influential homosexuals in America.” (PC language lesson 101: they can use words like “homos” and “queers”; we can’t.)

We are intrigued by the fact that the same movement that once cried out for “privacy” and “to be left alone” feels free to publicly declare people’s homosexuality for them (Anderson Cooper, No. 2, and Jodie Foster, No. 43). On the other hand, if OUT is right, it might explain Cooper’s bias in his reporting on the homosexual issue: in a recent interview that the CNN host did with pro and con advocates on a “gay parenting” story, he blatantly favored the “gay” side in his questioning.

Regardless of whether Cooper practices homosexuality, as a professional he should be completely even-handed in his treatment of this controversial moral question. So, by the way, should the New York Times — Gay Mafia (No. 7) or no Gay Mafia. — Peter LaBarbera

1. David Geffen
2. Anderson Cooper
3. Ellen DeGeneres
4. Tim Gill
5. Barney Frank
6. Rosie O’Donnell
7. The New York Times Gay Mafia: Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliott, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, and Eric Wilson
8. Marc Jacobs
9. Andrew Tobias
10. Brian Graden
11. Jann Wenner
12. Andrew Sullivan
13. Suze Orman
14. Joe Solmonese
15. Fred Hochberg
16. Christine Quinn
17. Perez Hilton
18. Scott Rudin
19. John Aravosis
20. Sheila Kuehl
21. James B. Stewart
22. Nick Denton
23. Tom Ford
24. Nate Berkus
25. Adam Moss
26. Jim Nelson
27. Lorri L. Jean
28. Adam Rose
29. Annie Leibovitz
30. Simon Halls and Stephen Huvane
31. Bryan Lourd
32. Bryan Singer
33. Jonathan Burnham
34. Brian Swardstrom
35. Robert Greenblatt
36. Chi Chi LaRue
37. Dan Mathews
38. Neil Meron and Craig Zadan
39. Ingrid Sischy
40. Marc Cherry
41. Carolyn Strauss
42. Irshad Manji
43. Jodie Foster
44. Christine Vachon
45. André Leon Talley
46. Hilary Rosen
47. Matthew Marks
48. Benny Medina
49. Mitchell Gold
50. David Kuhn

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.

CCF MEDIA: News Releases
CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
For Immediate Release
March 26, 2007

Teaching California Kindergarteners to be Transsexual, Bisexual and Homosexual?
 
Thomasson: Parents are expecting Governor Schwarzenegger to be consistent and veto these outrageous bills, like he did last year

From the Campaign for California Families Website

Sacramento, California –– In a repeat of legislation vetoed last year by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists are pushing a pair of bills (SB 777 and AB 394) that would require all textbooks, instructional materials, school-sponsored activities, all school policies, and all teacher training courses to promote the transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles to children as young as kindergarten. 

The flagship bill, SB 777 by lesbian state Senator Sheila James Kuehl (Democrat – Santa Monica), would indirectly force textbooks, instruction materials, and school activities to promote “sexual orientation” (defined as homosexual and bisexuality) and “gender” (defined as including transsexuality) in all grades in California public schools.

Last year, Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill by Kuehl (SB 1437), saying it was unnecessary because current law already protects students from sexual orientation discrimination, and because the term “reflects adversely” is “extremely vague and potentially confusing.”

By prohibiting any textbook or instruction “reflecting adversely” upon a variety of sexual lifestyles, SB 777 would, in effect, require all instruction to positively portray transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality because silence on these sexual lifestyles would no longer be permitted. Consequently, schools would have to promote “same-sex marriages” and even sex-change procedures.

“SB 777 requires all teachers, all textbooks, and all instructional materials to promote cross-dressing, sex-change operations, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual ‘marriages,’” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California-based pro-family organization, who observed today’s pro-SB 777 rally at the State Capitol. “Parents are expecting Governor Schwarzenegger to be consistent and veto these outrageous bills, like he did last year. This is not about safety – this is about sexual indoctrination in the classroom.”

SB 777 incorporates the strange Penal Code definition of “gender” and places it into the Education Code, reading: “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” This means boys becoming girls and girls becoming boys would have to be positively portrayed in health textbooks, sex education classes and school assemblies.

Because SB 777 would affect all instructional materials, the bill will change textbooks and curriculum as well as guest speakers, informational handouts, and school assemblies. The new, “non-discriminatory” materials would have to include:

• Sex-change handouts (Omitting sex-change material in sex education class would “reflect adversely”)
• Transvestite speakers (Limiting classroom speakers to biologically-born men and biologically-born women would “reflect adversely”)
• Transsexual, bisexual and homosexual videos (Showing videos depicting only the traditional family or man-woman relationships would “reflect adversely”)

Additionally, because parental units are gender-specific, married couples or a family with a “father and a mother” would be portrayed as mere stereotypes – outdated ideas –– and could be prohibited from textbooks because their discriminatory inclusion “reflects adversely.” Under SB 777, school curriculum in every public school throughout California, in every grade K-12, would have to portray transsexual and bisexual “parents” as normal. In essence, SB 777 would teach schoolchildren that there is no such thing as the natural family.

The California Department of Education would enforce SB 777, threatening and taking legal action against any elementary and secondary school district that did not positively portray transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to children.

“SB 777 means good-bye to textbooks that say you’re either a boy or a girl, that marriage is only for a man and a woman, and that the natural family is a father, a mother, and their children,” said Thomasson. “SB 777 means radical curriculum changes that include transvestite speakers and transsexual videos, classroom handouts on sex-change operations, and curriculum teaching children homosexual ‘marriage’ is completely normal. This bill is frightening for parents who want trustworthy schools, not schools that sexually indoctrinate their own children — children as young as kindergarten!”

The language of the second bill, AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (Democrat – Van Nuys), has not been finalized. However, the bill is expected to be amended to force schools to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to children throughout school policies and teacher training classes.

Last year, when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill by Levine (AB 606), he said the bill was unnecessary since existing law “already prohibits discrimination and harassment in California public schools.”

— end —

CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families in California and America. CCF stands for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
 

From Clinics Recruit Surrogates to Provide Kids for Gay Couples, published Mar 20, 2007, by Citizenlink:

When will the Catholic church hierarchy exercise Biblical church discipline and expel those who work directly against their teachings on homosexuality and extramarital sex? At the website for the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Nichols writes:

TAKE ACTION — Let Archbishop Nichols know that the issues are perfectly clear: Children should not be placed with unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. Agencies which exist to embody Christian teachings must not be compelled by government to act against their religious beliefs. Catholic adoption agencies should not be placing children with homosexuals or unmarried, cohabiting couples.

——————————–

Excerpted from Birmingham Archbishop: “Oh by the way,” Britain’s Catholic Adoption Agencies Already Adopt to Gay Singles, by Hilary White, published Jan 29, 2007, by LifeSite News:

…Archbishop Vincent Gerard Nichols of Birmingham admitted that his own adoption agencies were already adopting children to homosexual singles.

Nichols told the BBC’s Newsnight on Tuesday that his agencies were happy to place children with single gay people, just not couples. Catholic agencies are equally happy to place children with unmarried but cohabiting couples, despite clear and even more widely understood Catholic teaching on the sinfulness of such arrangements.

The announcement has frustrated those defending the rights of Christians to their conscience who are complaining that the laxity of their bishops has caused the argument to unravel.

One popular clerical Catholic blogger, Fr. Tim Finigan, a seminary professor and founder of a pro-life organisation for priests, wrote that while it might be possible for a Catholic adoption official to allow a child to be adopted by a person with homosexual temptations, it is impossible for a Catholic to agree to adoption to those who adhere to the “gay” philosophical and political outlook.

“I cannot see how it would be possible for a Catholic agency to place a child with someone who defined themselves publicly as ‘gay’, was regularly part of the gay ‘scene’, was involved in sexually active gay relationships, or opposed the teaching of the Church.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. — Matthew 19:6

Pray for the six children whose homes have been broken, whose fathers have been left behind…and the many more just like them.

Excerpted from Gay Marriage Advocates Switch Strategies, by Ray Henry, published Mar 17, 2007, by Associated Press:

Aronda Kirby and Digit Murphy were once married to men, received the tax breaks for married couples and were legally permitted to take family leave if their husbands or children got sick. Both women lost those protections when they came out as lesbians, divorced their husbands and set up a new household together with their six children.

Now, with couples like Murphy and Kirby in mind, some gay rights advocates who previously fought for “marriage or nothing” are shifting strategies. Rather than fighting to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, they’re lobbying for the protections marriage provides…

“We’ve had all the rights, so we want them back,” Murphy said. “We don’t care how we get them.”

Continue reading at TBO.com…

From Is a Christian Parent Unfit to Raise a Child Whose Other Parent Identifies as a Homosexual?, by Chris Stovall, published Mar 14, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct:

This week there is news that former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned from office after publicly announcing he is a “Gay American” who had an extra-marital affair with a male staffer, has amended his divorce lawsuit to seek custody of his 5-year-old daughter. The article gives us an important clue as to what may have prompted McGreevey to seek custody: “[McGreevey’s estranged wife Dina] Matos said last month that the two ‘continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to, and until they are resolved, there will be no agreement.'”

Of course, we don’t know the specifics in the McGreevey case. But, this fits the pattern of a growing wave of attacks on parents with Biblical, traditional beliefs on sex and marriage. The Alliance Defense Fund receives a growing number of requests for assistance in this area (see, e.g., this ADF press release). One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent’s homosexual behavior. Typically, it is alleged that any discussion with the child of the Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful, or perhaps that God’s design for the family is for a man and a woman to unite to raise their children, violates a nondisparagement clause in the divorce decree meant to prevent one parent from turning the child against the other parent in the wake of a bitter divorce. Since it is not uncommon for these nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.

Christian family law attorneys must start being vigilant about this issue in divorce litigation and settlement negotiations. Given that the historic Supreme Court cases which recognized the fundamental due process right of parents to raise their children have often involved issues of moral and religious instruction, this custody dispute scenario is yet another area in which it remains to be seen exactly what impact the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in our modern era will have on the constitutional rights of parents who will not bow the knee.

News Release

Americans For Truth about Homosexuality
www.americansfortruth.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

Gay activists have adopted a ‘CSI’ tactic of ‘Censoring, Smearing and Intimidating’ moral critics like Gen. Peter Pace and Dr. James Dobson. By trying to silence critics and equating moral beliefs with hate, bigotry and “homophobia,” the homosexual movement is fueling a dangerous cultural clash between religious freedom and “gay rights.”

TAKE ACTION — Please call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and express your support for General Pace, and call your Congressman and Senators at (202)224-3121 to oppose: 1) ending the military’s homosexuality ban; 2) pro-homosexual, pro-transgender “Hate Crimes” legislation; and 3) the “ENDA Our Freedom” bill: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make businesses more susceptible to harassing lawsuits by “gay” and “transgender” activists.  

Naperville, IL –– Americans For Truth president Peter LaBarbera called on the media to be neutral in the culture war over homosexuality and to cover the “gay” movement’s disturbing “CSI” strategy of Censoring, Smearing, and Intimidating critics who publicly disagree with homosexual behavior.

“Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, gave voice to historic Judeo-Christian truth when he said homosexual acts and adultery are immoral, yet instantly he was accused of ‘blind prejudice’ and called a ‘homophobe,’” LaBarbera said.

“The same gay activists who denounce name-calling against homosexuals were quick to demonize Pace –– equating his sincere religious beliefs with hate, prejudice and fear,” he said. “Worse, the homosexual lobby is honing its strategy of trying to silence conservatives like Ann Coulter and Dr. Dobson by lobbying the media to drop them as contributors.”

The media — who despise censorship — should hold gay leaders accountable for trying to silence critics, and more seriously cover the growing clash between religious freedom and gay rights, LaBarbera said.

The following are recent conservative victims of homosexual intolerance:

Gen. Pace: Diversity magazine blasted Pace as a “homophobe.” The homosexual group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) assailed his “blind prejudice.” Does criticizing historically sinful behavior mean that you “fear” homosexuals or make you a bigot?

Ann Coulter: After poking fun at political correctness (AFTAH criticized Coulter for her F-word comment about a Democratic presidential candidate), GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and HRC sought to deny Coulter’s commentator role on CNBC. GLAAD intoned: “[N]o credible news organization should be associating itself with Coulter.” Should GLAAD, which regularly smears Christian groups like Americans For Truth as “hate” organizations, be denied media time?

Dr. James Dobson: After Dobson criticized homosexual parenting in a Time magazine guest column (“Two Mommies Is One Too Many”), GLAAD and HRC urged homosexuals to write and ask Time to deny Dobson a future platform to spread “misinformation.” Usually groups criticize their foes’ arguments; GLAAD seeks to silence them altogether.

Matt Barber: Now with CWA, in 2005 Barber was fired from his management position at Allstate Corporation after writing an online article against “gay marriage” –– on his own time.