| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Savage Hate | Donate | Contact |
New Hampshire, Michigan Working to Legalize Homosexual Adoption
February 27th, 2007From Two More States Consider Gay Adoption, published Feb 26, 2007, by Citizenlink:
Family advocates urge people of faith to fight back
New Hampshire and Michigan are working on legislation to make gay adoption legal.
Massachusetts legalized adoption for same-sex couples in 2006. That move led the state to mandate that Catholic Charities of Boston refer children to gay couples. The group discontinued its century-old adoption program under that pressure.
Ron Stoddart, president and executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency in California, said the family itself is at stake.
“It’s just a continuation of the cultural trend of breaking down the basic foundation blocks of the family,” he told Family News in Focus.
Stoddart said in his state, homosexuals use antidiscrimination laws to ensure they can adopt. He says it’s a formula he expects to see leveraged across the country.
“It will come up, in my opinion, not as a matter of legalizing same-sex couples being able to adopt,” he said, but through states modifying nondiscrimination clauses intended to offer protection for race, gender and religion.
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, said people of faith should keep fighting attempts to place children in homes that, by definition, exclude either a mom or a dad.
“We’re going to stand by what’s best for these children,” he said, “and what’s best for these children is to have a mom and a dad.”
Lesbian Legislator Introduces Outrageous Homosexual School Bill, SB 777
February 27th, 2007More and more it is becoming clear that the homosexual agenda cannot succeed without censorship and trampling over other people’s rights. Can you imagine the can of worms that this legislation would open up? California is reaping the whirlwind of Christian apathy in the face of evil (masquerading as tolerance). If conservatives, churches and parents don’t pull their heads out of the sand soon and stop this juggernaut, California will deserve the oppressive fate that it gets. — Peter LaBarbera
Note: For some additional background on Sheila Kuehl, click HERE.
——————————-
From Legislator Introduces Outrageous Homosexual Bill, published Feb 26, 2007, by Christian Newswire:
SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools
[California] State Senator Sheila Kuehl has introduced legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that “reflects adversely” upon homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues.
SB 777 is almost identical to last session’s highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens.”
SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a “prom king and queen” because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.
“Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents,” continued England. “The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California.”
“The term ‘reflects adversely’ is too nebulous and susceptible to broad interpretation,” said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “For instance, does it reflect adversely upon homosexuals to report statistics on the rate of AIDS infections in America, including the homosexual community? And would the terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ be considered discriminatory?”
“Last session thousands of Californians called their legislators and the governor opposing the very same piece of legislation,” continued Turney. “In fact, legislators publicly stated that they received more constituent complaints about this legislation than any other bill. It proves that when a out-of-touch group has a radical agenda to push forward, they will ignore the will of the people.”
CRI is committed to opposing legislation that uses our children as social-experiments and tramples upon long-standing traditional family values.
Dr Albert Mohler: Homosexuality in the Church – Is It Time for a New Reformation?
February 25th, 2007
Dr. Albert Mohler addresses the recent ruling by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America regarding their reluctant expulsion of openly homosexual “pastor” Bradley Schmeling from St. John’s Lutheran Church in Atlanta. The congregation’s “Trial Update” page declares Schmeling’s homosexual relationship with Darin Easler, a former ELCU “pastor” now seeking ordination in the apostate United Church of Christ. Unfortunately, while recognizing that Schmeling is in violation of church policy, the committee also suggests that the policy should be changed to accommodate openly and practicing homosexual clergy.
Listen online as Dr. Mohler encourages “pitchfork rebellion” — the laity standing firmly for Truth:
| Feb 9, 2007 | Homosexuality in the Church: Is It Time for a New Reformation? |   |
Also, Dr. Mohler recommends a book called Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor:
Is Homosexual Parenting Best for Children?
February 25th, 2007The following study was published by the American College of Pediatricians Jan 22, 2004:
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
Research data
Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.
Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36
Conclusion
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”
Read the rest of this article »
Gary Morella: American College of Pediatricians Assert Heterosexual Parenting Remains Best for Kids
February 25th, 2007The following letter appeared in the Centre Daily Times, State College, PA Feb 22, 2007:
Evidence contradicts conclusion
In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.
He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.
Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.
In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.
Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.
The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
Lisa Stevenson
State College
A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:
Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”
This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.
In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
The ACP said the following.
“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”
Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:
“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”
For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:
Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.
Attorney General (with Lesbian Sister) Unilaterally Introduces “Same-Sex Marriage” in Rhode Island
February 25th, 2007From ‘Rhode’ Rage: Ocean State Recognizes Mass. Gay Marriages, published Feb 23, 2007, by Family Research Council:
Based on the political preference of one man, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (pictured left), the state will now recognize same-sex unions performed in Massachusetts. In a letter this week, Lynch argued that because Rhode Island has not banned gay marriage, there is “no reason to deny recognition” of gay unions. Although his opinion is not binding, many of the state’s agencies are expected to follow his advice. Although he says his family situation had “zero impact” on the decision, many speculate that Lynch had personal reasons for his opinion. A week before he issued his report, Lynch attended the same-sex “wedding” of his own sister in the Bay State. This abuse of power should sound the alarm for Rhode Island’s pro-family voters and spark a movement to introduce a marriage protection amendment so that the state’s position on marriage is no longer in doubt.
Additional Resources: R.I. May Recognize Gay Unions From Mass.
Federal Judge Dismisses David Parker’s Civil Rights Lawsuit!
February 23rd, 2007From our friends at MassResistance on Feb 23, 2007:
Outrageous 38-page ruling goes further — Reinforces right of schools to teach homosexuality without parents’ knowledge or consent — US Constitution trumped by “case” law and “rational” need to teach “diversity”
Friday morning, federal judge Mark Wolf issued an outrageous and horrific 38-page ruling dismissing David Parker’s federal civil rights lawsuit against Lexington, MA school officials. David Parker had filed the lawsuit, along with his wife and Rob and Robin Wirthlin, last April after the schools refused to notify parents when teaching about homosexuality and transgenderism in the elementary school. School officials, aided by national pro-homosexual groups, had filed a motion to dismiss the case which was argued before Judge Wolf on Feb. 7.
Wolf’s ruling is every parent’s nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the “right” (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children.
In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” According to Wolf, this means teaching “diversity” which includes “differences in sexual orientation.”
In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing — that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the US Constitution?
Wolf’s reasoning uses the Goodridge ruling on same-sex marriage as well as Mass. Dept. of Education “Frameworks” and a flawed interpretation of the state Parental Notification Law — to effectively trump the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.
He bolsters his decision with a patchwork of statements from other court decisions – some going back over a decade – and declares that these past decagons are “law” which much be enforced when making his own ruling on this case.
What’s next?
The Parkers’ lawyers have already announced that they will appeal the decision in Federal Appeals Court. They continue to be upbeat, passionate about this case, and confident they will prevail.
What does this mean?
Although we had anticipated the possibility of this motion to dismiss being allowed, we had no idea that it would be done with such vehemence and blatant unconstitutional militancy. This is extremely serious. This ruling could be considered as “legally binding” in future civil cases, and reflects the extreme degree to which our judiciary has become. disconnected from our constitutional democracy.
Where does that leave parents and citizens? Do we depend on the generosity of an “appeals court” or do we take action? More on this in the next MassResistance e-mail, Monday evening…
“Gay” Rep. Introduces Counterfeit “Marriage” Bill, HB 1615, in Illinois
February 23rd, 2007By Peter LaBarbera
Homosexual Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) pushes counterfeit “marriage.”
Well, we’ve been warning you that the homosexual movement wants to make Illinois the “Massachusetts of the Midwest.” Now it’s official. The state’s only “openly gay” representative, Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has submitted a bill to legalize “same-sex marriage” in the Land of Lincoln. Harris sneakily calls his bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” –– despite evidence from Massachusetts that legal “gay marriage” leads to stepped-up discrimination against religious institutions opposed to homosexuality.
TAKE ACTION: If you are an Illinois resident, call your state representative and state senator and politely urge them to:
- OPPOSE HB 1615, the radical redefinition of marriage proposed by new homosexual State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago); click HERE to find your legislators (the page works best if you know your 9-digit zip), and click HERE to view the bill, which would strip out the common-sense prohibition in Illinois law against marriages “between two individuals of the same sex.” You can call the Illinois Capitol Switchboard at 217-782-2000.
- SUPPORT HJRCA 1, the pro-traditional-marriage constitutional amendment offered by State Rep. Dave Reis (R) –– which has languished in the IL General Assembly for years due to the Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful “gay” lobby. (In Illinois, a constitutional amendment requires a three-fifths vote by the legislature, followed by a three-fifths popular vote.)
Also, please consider making a financial gift to Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI). We don’t normally solicit funds for other organizations, but PMI urgently needs your help as it gears up for another petition drive to place a pro-traditional marriage advisory question on the 2008 Illinois ballot. PMI’s ballot measure would enable Illinois voters to call on the General Assembly to pass a constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment (like Reis’ amendment above). Make your check out to Protect Marriage Illinois and send it to: PMI, PO Box 419, Wheaton, IL 60189; or go to PMI’s website and click the “Make a Donation” button. (Gifts to PMI are not tax-deductible.)
Background
Homosexual activists, being mostly on the Left, know how politics works: they will strive to gradually build support for legalizing “gay marriage” in Illinois even if it takes decades. This is what they did before finally passing a pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” bill (which also covers the gender-confused) in Illinois in 2005.
Conservatives and people of faith, too, have to learn to think long-term. We must retain the goal of repealing all “sexual orientation” laws –– in Illinois and across the nation –– since they are incompatible with the basic American freedoms of religion, conscience and association. And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.
In his odd legislative biography, Rep. Harris –– who replaced another homosexual Chicago Democrat –– states, almost proudly, that he is the “only openly gay member of the Legislature and openly a person with AIDS.” (Please read this interesting first-hand testimonial about Harris’ sad life and pray for him if you are so moved.)
Indeed, behavior that runs contrary to nature carries a heavy physical price. When “gay” activists talk about “marriage equality,” we should answer: same-sex relationships do not deserve to be treated as “equal” to marriage because they are not — far from it. True marriage serves society and mankind by ordering the sexes and producing future generations and providing stable, mother-father homes for children.
Conversely, society has no stake in legalizing “gay marriage,” which would reward unhealthy and changeable behavior and have such ill side-effects as facilitating intentionally fatherless or motherless homosexual adoptions.
Giving immoral homosexual relationships all the rights and benefits of marriage also sends a terrible message to young people, and certainly will lead to Christians and religious people being punished for “anti-gay” discrimination. A homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” law would be a huge stepping stone toward forcing small businesses –– even religiously-owned ones such as day care centers –– to provide marital-type benefits to homosexual employees even if they oppose subsidizing that lifestyle.
And how long will it be before a church or pastor is sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple — HB 1615’s title notwithstanding?
We must do all we can to shore up real marriage by encouraging citizens to value it more and by making divorces tougher to get. Radically redefining marriage to include homosexuality would only erode this great institution further.
Center For Morality
2783 Martin Rd.
#327
Dublin, OH 43017
