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.

In response to General Peter Pace’s remarks…

“I respectfully but strongly disagree with the
chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.”

— Virginia Senator John Warner, Senate Armed Services Committee,
as quoted in Top U.S. General Seeks to Calm Gay Sex Row,
published Mar 13, 2007, by Reuters

If John Warner is right, then the Apostle Paul was wrong when he wrote to the church at Corinth and said:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Whom do you believe?

TAKE ACTION — Please call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and express your support for General Pace.

Excerpted from Gen. Pace Should Not Apologize to Gays; Just Telling the Truth, by Phil Magnan, published Mar 13, 2007, by Biblical Family Advocates:

“If there is any apologizing that needs to be done, it’s by homosexual advocates who have drawn millions of young people, including soldiers into a destructive, immoral and unhealthy lifestyle.

“The homosexual community has sold the public their licentious lifestyle in the name of tolerance and freedom when they should be seeking to be freed from it. Ask the person dying from HIV if it was worth having hundreds of partners or if some of the millions who are enslaved to it would like to be free of it. We will find that the Bible warns against homosexuality not only because of the coming judgment, but that God wants people to be free from their bondage of sin through the gospel of Christ. Legitimizing homosexuality and trying to condone it as being natural does harm to the person trying to be free from it and the society that should not be tolerating it.”

By Sonja Dalton

On The View, during a debate over the 2008 presidential election, the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act, Rosie O’Donnell lashed out at Elisabeth Hasselbeck, calling her “young and wrong.” When Elisabeth, 30, objected to Rosie’s “ageism,” Rosie defended herself by saying (emphasis added):

“I know, but it’s the way that I’m able to be on this live broadcast
and love and support you
in spite of the fact that I disagree so abhorrently
with most of the things you believe,
so it is what I tell myself in order to not get into the RAGE I feel
at at some of the IGNORANT comments,
so that’s what I have to do!”
— Rosie O’Donnell on The View, Feb 28, 2007
(see the clip on ABC’s website: select “Hot Topics, War on Iraq Part 2”)

Two questions:

• If Rosie wants us to demonstrate “tolerance” (which in homosexual activist speak really means “approval of”) toward her, her homosexual “partner,” the exposure of their children to their lesbian lifestyle, and her radical political views, then why can’t she simply listen to Elisabeth Hasselbecks conservative viewpoint without feeling and expressing RAGE?

• What if this discussion had been the other way around? What if Elisabeth Hasselbeck had lashed out at Rosie O’Donnell and said “Sometimes I can barely contain the RAGE I feel at your IGNORANT comments?” Somehow, I suspect Elisabeth would either be issuing a public apology and going to “homophobia” therapy or else watching her media career go up in flames. But neither Barbara Walters or ABC insisted on a public apology from Rosie. Why is okay for Rosie O’Donnell to talk to her co-workers like this?

Her blog poetry makes obvious that Rosie O’Donnell feels badly about her lack of self-control — and that she needs Jesus Christ to heal her heart and transform her life. Keep her in loving prayer.

Watch this clip from The O’Reilly Factor to see the reaction of some radical San Francisco homosexual activists — including the anti-Catholic “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” (men dressed in drag as freakish mock “nuns”) — to 22,000 Christian young people gathering for BattleCry:

Culture War Clash

Christian youth versus secular progressive activists in San Francisco

(You’ll hear adult men demonstrating homosexual tolerance by yelling at children — for example, one screams “We don’t wanna get married, we just wanna f*** you guys.”)

Thank God for a man with the courage to tell the Truth. Send General Pace a word of gratitude HERE, for as you can see, he will be the target of much opposition:

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces… It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” — C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the pro-homosexuality Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Excerpted from Top General Calls Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Aamer Madhani, published Mar 12, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.

Continue reading in Chicago Tribune…

A press release dated Mar 7, 2007, from The Lawyers Christians Fellowship (UK):

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

Contrast Mr. Jackson’s Biblical perspective to that of lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding, where she says (emphasis ours):

“Saturday’s coverage of the Summit includes a press conference with Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and other pastors speaking out against homophobia in the black church; Dyson’s speech, “The Theology of Homoeroticism;” and a debate featuring anti-equality pastor Bishop Harry Jackson. Sorry to say it doesn’t appear that Jackson learned much; spews some of his hoary anti-gay rhetoric in a Town Hall column that appears today.”

Her account of the debate is posted HERE.

——————————

From Black Gays Aggressively Enlist in the Culture War, by Harry R. Jackson, Jr., published March 12, 2007, by Townhall:

This last week I sat in a historic black American site – Mother Bethel Church in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. In keeping with the city’s tradition of being a cradle of American freedom, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was the first black congregation founded in the north. Established in 1793 by Richard Allen, a black minister who eventually became the first bishop of the AME denomination, this facility has stood as a symbol of the black struggle for freedom in both social and religious matters.

Unfortunately, last Saturday it was the site of a debate between liberal black clergy and conservatives concerning the acceptance of gays in the black church.

I felt compelled to raise my voice against the sponsoring group’s attempt to legitimize the gay life style in the black church. It took a little courage for me to attend such an event because of the lack of civility that the gay community often displays. In fact because of my conservative stand, I have been physically threatened with violence on several occasions.

Why would I risk appearing at such an event? The answer is clear in my mind. Such rallies and debate forums consist of both ardent followers and young people whom these folks are attempting to influence. In other words, I had an opportunity to dissuade some of their new converts.

Let me take a moment to give you a historic and sociological perspective of the gay movement in the black church. Most national polls in recent years have shown that blacks are more socially conservative than whites in their personal attitudes about things like same sex marriage than their white counterparts.

Despite these personal convictions, these same black citizens often vote for people that do not share their conservative perspective of the social landscape.

In a similar manner, black churches have often majored on developing an atmosphere of love and acceptance of all individuals. They preach that they serve a God of a second chance. One of the greatest examples of this attitude is Marion Barry’s 1995 winning campaign for Washington, D.C.’s mayoral post.

Barry ran on a saved-by-grace campaign. He won, despite the fact that he had been caught on video tape in the Vista Hotel using cocaine and having an adulterous liaison with a woman. Gays have enjoyed that “second chance” opportunity in black churches. Therefore, a gay appearance or someone’s past life does not stigmatize black church attendees. After all, how can someone reform if there is no dialogue or opportunity for exposure to truth.

Regretfully, gay acceptance doesn’t stop there in many cases. Many of our churches have had a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to gay members of congregations, choirs, and clergy. This means that openly gay behavior has not been condoned, but leaders in churches and denominations have not probed to identify or remove gay people. Often, rumors of gay activity outside of the church are overlooked as long as there are no incidents of solicitation or liaisons at church sponsored events. One minister I know proudly told a few other clergymen confidentially that he had been hired by a new congregation who had already employed a closeted gay music leader. His approach was to have a heart to heart talk in which he warned the man that he would report any problems he observed on church property. He went on to add that what the man did off site was his own business.

In my view, the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to this problem is the height of hypocrisy. Politics may be the place for compromise and consensus. The Church, on the other hand, should be a place of conviction and truth.

The Bible is clear in its statements against gay sexual activity.

Unfortunately, few churches preach biblical sexuality well. If they did, there would be fewer out-of-wedlock births as well as fewer practicing gays in the black church.

Church leaders must stand against the acceptance of the gay lifestyle because of social ramifications as well. Recent studies concerning same-sex marriage have shown that in Sweden and the Netherlands, where such unions have been allowed, marriage is devalued—resulting in fewer and later marriages. Secondly, they lead to rising out-of-wedlock births akin to the current black community dilemma in the U.S.

In addition to the damage that gay marriage does to the black family structure that is already under stress, legalization of gay marriage has the potential of endangering the next generation. Statistics show that children do better in school and are greater contributors to society when a mother and a father are present in the home.

In conclusion, let me state that the battle concerning same sex marriage and gay rights is just warming up in America. I am not willing just to give into the current cultural idiom which says, “Gay is Okay!” There is too much at stake.

I have compassion for people who live a gay lifestyle. Just like Jesus, I will take every opportunity to love the sinner and hate the sin. What about you?

Will you stand with me in this culture war?

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition as well as author of The Warriors Heart: Rules of Engagement for the Spiritual War Zone.