Here’s what the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign wants you to know about the woman from San Francisco who will soon be Speaker for the US House of Representatives: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

(GREEN indicates a position that supports HRC’s pro-homosexual goals.)

Military Issues

H.R. 1059 – Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

Faith-based Initiatives

H.R. 27 – Job Training Improvement Act

• HRC: OPPOSES
• Pelosi: NO

Hate Crimes

H.R. 2662 – ‘To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.’

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

Boy Scouts of America

H.R. 1337 – Support Our Scouts Act of 2005

• HRC: OPPOSES
• Pelosi: NO

Workplace Discrimination

H.R. 3128 – ‘To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary.’

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

H.R. 1445 – Workplace Religious Freedom Act

• HRC: OPPOSES
• Pelosi: NO

Domestic Partners

H.R. 3267 – ‘To provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.’

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

Family Issues

H.R. 475 – Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

Immigration

H.R. 3006 – ‘To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a mechanism for United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partners for residence in the United States, and for other purposes.’

• HRC: SUPPORTS
• Pelosi: YES

Education

H.R. 2295 – ‘To prohibit a State from receiving Federal education funds unless the State has certain policies and procedures regarding the purchase or acquisition of library and classroom-based reference, instructional, and other print materials for use in elementary schools, and for other purposes.’

• HRC: OPPOSES
• Pelosi: NO

This one is incredible: Two adult men are advertising on the internet, including on MySpace, and hosting weekly parties for “gay” youth (age 17+) at their home (10:30 pm every Saturday night at 438 W Algonquin Rd, Algonquin, IL), where they openly welcome alcohol. One of the ads shows a boy standing, holding another boy whose legs are wrapped around him.

Even so, parents allow their children to attend – or are oblivious to their teen’s whereabouts. Have they seen the photos that Mark and Adam post online? Police are well aware both of the parties and the repeated violation of various laws by the homeowners and by party goers. But each week, the party goes on…

Now a young man is hospitalized after being stabbed eight times in the neck and chest at the party. His friend writes:

I have seen Adrian at the hospital. He has been stabbed eight times throughout his chest and neck. He arrived with a collapsed lung and severe loss of blood. He was read his last rights shortly after he arrived to the hospital. He is in a lot of pain. He has a strong will to live and is in for the fight of his life…

Even so, the regular party guests are defending the home as “a VERY safe place” and swearing to continue hanging out there…demonstrating just how deceived these young people are.

Where is the leadership in Algonquin?

TAKE ACTION (CORRECTED):

• Call Village President John C Schmitt at (847) 658-7643 or e-mail him.
• Call Director of Police and Public Safety Russell Laine at (847) 658-4531 or e-mail him.
• Let them both know that this sort of debauchery is completely unacceptable to you! Ask them what more they need to stop this illicit activity in your community.

The following is excerpted from LITH Man Stabbed 8 Times, by Dave Fitzgerald and Rob Phillips, published Nov 6, 2006, by Northwest Herald:

A 21-year-old man from Lake in the Hills remained in fair condition Monday at Sherman Hospital after being stabbed eight times in the chest early Sunday morning at an Algonquin home that advertises weekly parties on the Internet…

Algonquin police said they had previous problems at the home where the stabbing happened. A Web site www.party69.net directed people to a weekly house party on Saturday nights. In addition, the hosts have MySpace.com accounts that promote the parties.

The parties are advertised as a place for gay youth, and the house is publicized as a “club-like atmosphere” where partygoers must be 17 to get in and 21 to drink. A $5 donation at the door is requested, and identification is required to prove age, the ad says. Partygoers are asked to bring their own alcohol.

Algonquin police said they were aware of the parties and said they brought in a mix of people. Party organizers who live at the home, Mark Davidson, 36, and Adam Conard, 24, were charged July 16 with selling alcohol without a license and providing alcohol to minors. Davidson also was charged with obstruction of a peace officer, and Conard was charged with resisting a peace officer. A trial on those charges is scheduled for Nov. 17, according to court records.

Also, in 2005, Davidson was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a child, stemming from his hosting of an underage drinking party at the same home, according to court records.

“It’s not illegal to have a party,” Algonquin Deputy Chief Ed Urban said.

Continue reading in Northwest Herald…

Excerpted from Gay History Month in City Schools Seen Part of Trend, by Susan Brinkmann, published Nov 6, 2006, by The Catholic Standard and Times:

…For the first time, this year ninth-grade students will read a collection of short stories titled, “Am I Blue?” which is about people who have been affected by the coming-out experiences of youth…

Until two parent groups hired Liberty Counsel lawyers to stop it, a Maryland school district curriculum was about to teach 8th- and 10th-graders that Jesus condoned homosexuality because He never mentioned it by name, that Christians often use the Bible to justify hatred and that being homosexual is similar to being left-handed.

Some of the fuel behind the movement is coming from what many believe is an overly cozy alliance between the National Education Association (NEA) and gay activist organizations, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the nation’s leading pro-homosexuality education group.

“GLSEN is very closely aligned with the Gay-Lesbian caucus inside the NEA,” said Jeralee Smith, a California school teacher and the outgoing chair of the NEA’s Ex-Gay Educators Caucus.

“When the NEA’s Gay Lesbian Caucus started, I’m sure they wanted to see a gay president in charge of the NEA,” Smith said. “Well, that happened when Bob Chase became president. Chase was outed as a gay man by the Washington Blade around the end of his term as NEA president.

“It was during Bob Chase’s presidency that the Sexual Orientation Task Force was initiated, giving a whole arm of NEA leadership to gay- lesbian -bisexual -transgender (GLBT) causes,” Smith said. “In 2002, a 60-page document detailing NEA’s support of GLBT causes was adopted by the NEA executive committee, and handed to NEA delegates as a report which, technically, didn’t even require a vote.”

Since that time, pro-homosexuality curricula have been steadily creeping into schools across the country, says Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).

“Programs like this are in all 50 states, and probably in every major county in the country,” Griggs said…

What if a student later becomes ill, after having been encouraged to embrace the lifestyle by a school program that deliberately withheld information about the risks? Could the student sue?

“I was recently contacted by somebody who, because of one-sided information being provided by doctors, went through a sex-change operation. His mental issues just got worse, and he now realizes this isn’t the choice anyone should make. He wants to sue because he wasn’t provided with full information.”

In the meantime, Lindevaldsen said,

“This is all politics. It’s all politics in the courts and it’s all politics in the schools. And the pawns are our children.”

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…

From Gay Culture and the Riddle of Andrew Sullivan, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 27, 2006:

Andrew Sullivan is a man of ideas. In recent years, Sullivan has emerged as one of the most influential intellectuals in American public life. Furthermore, he has been identified with some of the most controversial issues of our times–a fact that is hardly surprising given his libertarian view of morality, conservative views of politics, Roman Catholic views of Christianity, and the fact that he is a prominent homosexual advocate…

In the October 24, 2005 issue of The New Republic, Sullivan writes about “The End of Gay Culture.” Of course, Sullivan’s perspective on homosexuality and gay culture is deeply rooted in his own homosexuality and his ardent embrace of his own homosexual lifestyle. He is anything but a dispassionate observer…

As he reviews the impact of the HIV crisis, Sullivan points to some patterns that emerged in its aftermath–patterns that would likely be missed by those outside the gay subculture. The emergence of lesbians as leaders of the major gay rights organizations was, Sullivan suggests, largely due to the fact that the gay male leaders were largely dead…

“Gay marriage is not a radical step,” Sullivan insisted…

But, even as Sullivan argued for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, more radical homosexual theorists were dismissing marriage altogether. As Sullivan explained,

“Marriage of all institutions is to liberationists a form of imprisonment; it reeks of a discourse that has bought and sold property, that has denigrated and subjected women, that has constructed human relationships into a crude and suffocating form. Why on earth should it be supported for homosexuals?”

Sullivan’s 1995 book, and his most recent article, must be read in light of his 1998 testimonial, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. This book was written after Sullivan had been diagnosed as HIV-positive. As he recalled:

“I contracted the disease in full knowledge of how it is transmitted, and without any illusions about how debilitating and terrifying a diagnosis it could be. I have witnessed first-hand a man dying of AIDS; I have seen the ravages of its impact and the harrowing humiliation it meant. I had written about it, volunteered to combat it, and tried to understand it. But I still risked getting it, and the memories of that risk and the ramifications of it for myself, my family, and my friends still forced me into questions I would rather not confront, and have expended a great deal of effort avoiding.”

When a high school friend asked Sullivan how he had contracted the virus, Sullivan informed him that he had no idea which sex partner had been the source of the viral transmission. “How many people did you sleep with, for God’s sake?,” his friend asked. Note Sullivan’s answer carefully:

“Too many, God knows. Too many for meaning and dignity to be given to every one; too many for love to be present at each; too many for sex to be very often more than a temporary but powerful release from debilitating fear and loneliness.”

In other words, the public Andrew Sullivan emerged as a major proponent of responsibility, stability, and self-control, while the private Andrew Sullivan was deeply involved in homosexual promiscuity.

All this broke into public view in 2001, when a homosexual columnist discovered that Sullivan had been posting advertisements for unprotected homosexual sex at internet web sites. The ensuing controversy within the gay community was vitriolic, even as it was revealing.

“The End of Gay Culture” is an eye-opening essay. As an exercise in cultural analysis, it demonstrates genuine insight and an insider’s perspective. More than anything else, Sullivan’s article should awaken thinking Christians to the fact that homosexuality is being normalized in the larger culture. This surely represents a matter of urgent missiological concern, for the normalization of sin represents a progressive hardening of the nation’s heart against the Gospel.

At a more personal level, this article reminds me to pray for Andrew Sullivan. I say this even as I realize that he may be more offended by my prayer than by anything else. In most of his writings, Mr. Sullivan demonstrates a consistent and ardent determination to celebrate homosexuality as central to his own self-discovery and personhood. Yet, he also reveals significant doubts. When he explains that he “never publicly defended promiscuity” nor publicly attacked it because “I felt, and often still feel, unable to live up to the ideals I really hold,” I detect a glimmer of doubt. I have faced Mr. Sullivan in public debate on issues related to homosexuality. I consider him to be among the most gifted, thoughtful, and unpredictable intellectuals on the current scene. More than anything else, I want Mr. Sullivan to find his self-identity and deepest passions in the transforming power of Christ–the power to see all things made new. Without apology, I pray that one day he will see all that he has written in defense of homosexuality, and all that he has known in terms of his homosexual identity, as loss, and to find in Christ the only resolution of our sexuality and the only solution to the problem we all share–the problem of sin.

Andrew Sullivan has been a focus of my prayer since I first learned of his HIV-positive status. I do pray that God will give him strengthened health and the gift of time. After all, our Christian concern should be focused not only on the challenge of homosexuality in the culture, but the challenge of reaching homosexuals with the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel.

Continue reading at Albert Mohler…

From the homepage of Concerned Women for America:

State Referendums
Issues facing voters this election

Strengthening marriage is one of the top priorities for strengthening America. When the radical feminists, the gay lobby, and the Hollywood culture assault the family, they are destroying the foundation of a free society. Democracy cannot long survive if its citizens have not internalized the Judeo-Christian values that make freedom and liberty possible. It is the traditional family that provides the good soil in which these moral values take root. — Janice Shaw Crouse

Excerpted from Ready to Be Dads, But They’re Going to Need Help, by Kevin Sack, published Oct 29, 2006, by Los Angeles Times:

Chad Hodge liked #694. She was a 21-year-old college student, 5-feet-5, 135 pounds, with straight brown hair, blue eyes and a narrow nose. She had won 16 awards in high school for academics and music, and scored a 1210 on the SAT. She was outgoing, intelligent, responsible and friendly, or at least she said she was. Chad wanted her to be the mother of his children.

But David Craig, Chad’s partner of seven years, had his heart set on #685. She was a teacher, 23, 5-feet-2, with wavy blond hair and light blue eyes. She wore a size 0. She had been a varsity tennis player in high school, a ballerina and a classical pianist.

For two hours on that day in early 2004, Chad and David sat in a small office at Genetics & IVF Institute, a fertility clinic in northern Virginia, and sifted through the dossiers of prospective egg donors. It felt more like catalog shopping than human reproduction.

The previous fall, they had decided to have a child through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. They would pay one woman to provide her eggs and then, after fertilizing them in vitro with their sperm, pay another woman to carry the resulting embryos to term…

Rather than creating a life in the privacy of a bedroom, Chad and David would plot this conception in law offices, doctors’ suites and Internet chat rooms…

Once Chad and David narrowed their choices to six, they were allowed to view adult photographs. They didn’t want to consider appearance at the exclusion of all else, but they couldn’t deny, in the privacy of that room, that it mattered.

“You can’t ignore it,” David said. “I mean, who wants an ugly child?”

…David…had serious reservations about being a parent. He liked their life as it was, he said, and he wasn’t convinced he was the nurturing kind.

He worried that having two good fathers might, in the end, be just as unfair as having one inadequate one…

“We want the life experience of having kids,” he told Chad, “but are we going to deny them the life experience of having a mother?”

Continue reading at Los Angeles Times…

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…