From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith
A US District Judge has blocked the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing its sexual harassment policy, which the judge ruled had promoted a hostile environment for the free speech rights of a Christian student.U.S. District Judge George H. King agreed with Jonathan Lopez, a student attending Los Angeles City College (LACC), that the District's policy as written had created the environment that emboldened his speech professor to call Lopez a "fascist ba***rd" for explaining his Christian beliefs and how they related to his views against same-sex "marriage."
King stated in a ruling handed down last week that key sections of the policy were "unconstitutionally overbroad" and then issued the preliminary injunction on the policy, saying that the way the policy was constructed meant it "cannot be rendered constitutional by excising words or severing sections."
Represented by lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez had filed a lawsuit against the District and LACC back in February after he had been censored and threatened with expulsion by Professor John Matteson, who had assigned the members of his public-speaking class in mid-November to give an informational speech on any topic.
Lopez decided to give an informational speech to students on his own Christian beliefs, including Christian views on marriage. Lopez had read aloud the definition of marriage from the dictionary and had also quoted two verses from the Bible, when Matteson interjected in the middle of the speech and called Lopez a "fascist ba***rd" before his classmates.
Matteson refused to let Lopez finish, and instead invited other students to leave if they felt offended. But with no student taking up Matteson's invitation to depart, Matteson ordered the class dismissed. Instead of giving the assignment a grade, Matteson mocked Lopez on his written evaluation, taunting, "Ask God what your grade is."
A week after the incident, Matteson threatened to see to Lopez's expulsion after he saw Lopez speaking with the college's dean of academic affairs.
Faced with legal action, the District disciplined Matteson, and gave Lopez an A in the course; however the ADF argued that the District's sexual harassment policy had created an environment in which Matteson felt comfortable to intimidate Lopez from stating his beliefs.
Judge King agreed that the policy violated First Amendment protections of free speech by silencing viewpoints that others would find offensive, because it failed to contain "both a subjective and objective requirement." King pointed to the District's website indicated any conduct involving sexuality could fall under the heading of sexual harassment including "sexist statements." In this context, the site stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
"Thus, the Policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies," wrote King. "While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment."
King paid particular attention to one passage from the policy that included under the sexual harassment code "conduct [of a sexual nature that] has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the individual's work or academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or educational environment."
"The Policy reaches speech unrelated to a class, such as discussions in any public and common areas at LACC. Even speech related to a class can be restricted by the Policy if the speech is not an intrinsic part of the course content," King wrote in his order.
King's order forbids the LA Community College District and the LA City College from carrying out or even promulgating the sexual harassment policy and to remove all references to the policy from its websites within fourteen days of the injunction.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Judge Sides with Christian Student Professor Called "Fascist Bas**rd" over Views on Marriage
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Chicago Elementary School to March in Gay Pride Parade
From the Illinois Family Institute
By Laurie Higgins
I am so angry I could scream -- but instead I'll write.
Nettelhorst Elementary School, a public school located in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago, has the dubious honor of being the first Chicago public school to march in Chicago's "gay pride" parade on Sunday.
According to an article in the Windy City Times, and not surprisingly, "Brad Rossi, a gay parent of a first-grade girl, and Marcia Festen, a lesbian parent of two daughters, one of whom is in kindergarten, were both crucial in bringing the idea to the school. The two worked together in the 1980s, and Rossi says that the idea came from California."
I have asked before and I will ask again, how depraved does the behavior have to become to which our public schools expose children and how young do the children have to be before conservatives and faith communities rise up in righteous indignation?
According to the Chicago Tribune, "The black metal fence in front of Nettelhorst Elementary School is obscured by thousands of strips of dyed fabric-yellows giving way to greens, then blues, purples and reds-each one tied on by the small hands of a student." How special.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Sodomites Unhappy with Obama
From Politico
By Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin
Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.
His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sunlit Uplands: We "Rejoice" in Being #1 in More Ways than One
Our effectiveness can also be measured and validated by the volume and intensity of vitriol sent our way by obviously disturbed and threatened liberals. The more effective we are at promoting our values, and thus the greater the threat the Radical Left perceives us to pose to theirs, the more intense and hostile will grow their attacks.
And on that scale, Sunlit Uplands is hurtling headlong toward the top as well. As evidenced by one particularly disturbed liberal, whose reactionary bile can only be described as over the top.
Perhaps overcome by a rush of wishful thinking, South Carolina's #4 Liberal Blogger wore his religious bigotry and personal hostility (dare we say "hate"?) on his sleeve Monday when he gleefully imagined my death:
"One can only wonder what [Cassidy's] last thoughts would be if someone ran him to ground in his parish at confession (surely, as an aside, those sessions must be truly marvelous exercises in magical realism) or taking communion for the astonishing and popular spew of hate and bigotry his blog presents daily, and pumped a few lead rounds into him."Several observations...
First, this is an instructive example of what the word "hate" means to the left-wing hypocrites who seek ultimately to criminalize the free speech and thought of anyone who dares disagree with them.
1. If a conservative traditional values advocate merely expresses disagreement with or opposition to liberals' repressive political agenda, such mere expression constitutes "hate and bigotry."
2. On the other hand, if a member of the anointed left publishes a blog post graphically fantasizing about the violent murder of a conservative, that is of course merely reasoned discourse.
We also note that South Carolina's #4 Liberal Blogger makes frequent reference to all things "gay," even posting at the top of his blog a running count of how many times even our socialist president has failed to sufficiently safeguard the "rights" of those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Thus, we feel comfortable simply asking if SC#4LB should be judged by the same standard routinely demanded by professionally-aggrieved homosexual activist groups.
Their repressive thought- and speech-control rationale goes something like this, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: "Anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay violence go hand-in-hand. The right wing is creating the most hostile atmosphere for (homosexual) people in recent memory. Hate violence is a logical extension of these rhetorical, legislative, and electoral attacks. When anti-gay rhetoric escalates, so does anti-gay violence. Hate crimes are a result of that intolerance. No one should condone violence against any group of people, nor should they contribute to an atmosphere that fosters such intolerance and violence."
Thus, because Dr. James Dobson publicly advocates traditional Biblical morality, he is accused by homosexual activists and their left-wing media allies of being morally responsible for inciting the beating death of Matthew Shepard. (In other words, by merely expressing a traditional moral code, Dobson is characterized as evil, hateful, and reprehensible.)
If Cardinal Maida of Detroit publicly supports in his state a Marriage Protection Amendment such as that approved by 77 percent of South Carolina voters, then homosexual activists say he is morally responsible for inciting the falsely alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen in Detroit -- who as it turned out, according to the medical examiner, died of arthritic paralysis. (In other words, merely by defending the mainstream value of traditional marriage, Cardinal Maida is portrayed as both evil, hateful, and reprehensible -- or as one prominent homosexual activist called him, "recklessly wicked.")
Similarly, if Sunlit Uplands regularly posts comments promoting traditional American values, Biblical morality, or even sacred music, then -- in the eyes of disturbed leftists such as SC#4LB -- this author obviously must also be both evil, hateful, and reprehensible. (And in good company, at that.)
Which raises this simple "what's good for the goose" question:
By painting Dr. Dobson and Cardinal Maida and myself as evil, hateful, and reprehensible, and thus obviously worthy of contempt, do homosexual activists and their allies create a climate of hostility in which someone might be encouraged to commit acts of violence against us? Does anti-conservative rhetoric and anti-conservative violence go hand in hand? When anti-conservative rhetoric escalates, does anti-conservative violence follow? No one should condone violence against any group of people, so should liberals continue to contribute to an atmosphere that fosters intolerance and violence toward conservatives?
If merely expressing a different point of view amounts to "hate," as leftists define the term, does that term not all the more so apply -- in the real world -- to SC#4LB's graphic imagining of my being pumped full of lead while at church? Should I now go running to the federal government to demand special protection? If someone gives me a dirty look, or worse, should I demand specially-enhanced prison sentence for my assailant? Should SC#4LB be held criminally responsible, arrested, and charged with inciting a "hate crime"?
Forbid it, Almighty God.
In the meantime, we are promised by Christ Himself that we are "blessed" when we are reviled and persecuted for righteousness' sake, when they say all kinds of evil against us falsely for His sake, and we are under His direct instruction to "rejoice and be exceedingly glad" when it happens.
It is in that spirit that we know that the time, energy, personal hostility, and intensity with which the Left attacks us is one of the surest measures of how effectively Sunlit Uplands is threatening their repressive agenda.
Along with our #1 ranking in South Carolina's blogosphere, that's cause for a lot of rejoicing.
And so we shall. And be exceedingly glad while we're at it.
Friday, May 22, 2009
British Churches to be Forced to Hire Active Homosexual Youth Workers under Equality Bill
From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White
The legislation is due to come into force next year, and churches fear that it will force them to act against their religious convictions in a broad range of areas. Eagle indicated at a conference called "Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights" in London, that the legislation "will cover almost all church employees."
"The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between," she told delegates. "While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law.
"Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment."
The bill allows a religious exemption for roles deemed to be "for the purposes of an organised religion" but restricts this definition to those who conduct liturgical celebrations or spend their time teaching doctrine.
The Daily Telegraph quoted Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister and expert on religious discrimination law, who said that the bill will leave churches powerless to defend the fabric of their organization. "This is a threat to religious identity. What we are losing is the right for organizations to make free choices," he said
Equality commissioners include the homosexual lobbyist, Ben Summerskill, the head of the leading British homosexualist activist group Stonewall. Summerskill has called for churches to be forced to employ homosexuals and for the police to stop Christians who were peacefully protesting against 'gay rights' laws outside Parliament.
Tony Grew, a homosexualist activist and the former editor of PinkNews.co.uk, wrote recently that the Equality Bill will "entrench gay rights in all aspects of public life." Grew wrote on PinkNews that the bill will open unprecedented opportunities for homosexuals.
The bill, he said will cover central government departments, local authorities, education bodies, NHS bodies and the police service, plus a wide range of other public and private bodies, including churches and church-run institutions. It will impose the "Equality Duty" on all organizations providing public services, he said, such as residential care homes that "would have to consider the needs of same-sex couples."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
More Attacks on Religious Freedom
By Bill Muehlenberg
Throughout the Western world rights talk is being used to promote the agendas of activist minority groups, and to silence Christians from publically affirming their faith. This takes many forms: hate crimes legislation, equal opportunity laws, anti-discrimination legislation, and so on.
The militant homosexual lobby especially likes these laws, because under the guise of “fairness” and “human rights” they are seeing the rights of believers to uphold their conscience in the public arena taken away, while they manage to get special rights granted to themselves by governments.
Of course the militant activists know that the two main institutions standing in the way of their agendas are the church and the family. That is why both are under such ferocious assault recently. Examples of this abound. Here in Victoria for example the activist government is holding an inquiry into its Equal Opportunity Act, and is looking to remove religious exemptions to it.
The entire 173-page document is a worry, but the main concern involves sections 75 to 77 (pp. 106-131). These sections specifically have to do with religious exemptions. I offer a link to the document below. It is vital that all concerned Victorians look at the document and put in a submission on this.
A good way to see how dangerous such moves are is to look overseas where similar attacks on religious freedom have been occurring. Chuck Colson recently had a two-part commentary on how Christians are increasingly losing their freedoms as militant homosexuals use rights legislation to silence dissent and force conformity to their lifestyle. He offers the following stories:
Read the rest of this entry >>
Focus on the Family's Dobson on Hate Crimes Bill: "Utter Evil" Coming out of Congress
By Alex Bush
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, stated on his daily radio program, Focus on the Family Daily, that "utter evil" is coming out of the United States Congress. He made the remark in reference to the recently passed Hate Crimes Bill, H.R.1913, which makes "sexual orientation," as well as race, religion, class, gender or disability, categories that are protected from "hate crimes." Bill H.R.1913 has been criticized by conservative commentators, who say that it could be used to prosecute religious leaders who simply defend traditional moral views on sexuality. Critics have also charged that the bill is redundant, since violent crimes are already punishable by law, and that the bill, by protecting special classes from "hate," effectively criminalizes thoughts rather than criminal actions.
Dobson was joined on his radio show by Congressmen Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Steve King, R-Iowa.
"Every case they bring up would not be affected one iota, not one bit, by this hate crimes legislation," Gohmert said, "What this bill does is, it starts saying [that] some classes, some types of people, are more important to protect than others. That divides America, it's un-American."
Bill H.R.1913 states that whoever "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person" commits a hate crime.
Advocates of the bill, however, have responded to religious critics, pointing out that it includes a clause, in Section 10.4, saying that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."
In addition, it states that if one is charged with a hate crime under H.R.1913, "evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial." But Gohmert emphasizes the importance of the next line of the bill: "unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense."
According to Gohmert, if a religious leader teaches "that homosexuality is wrong and someone goes out and commits a crime of violence then [the religious leader] can be arrested for inducing that person to do it and under existing Federal Law you are as guilty as the one who committed the act of violence."
Dobson then quipped in response, "So much for the 1st amendment."
Dobson also expressed his concern that, "The broad definition [of sexual orientation] could mean anything including the 30 forms of sexual deviancy that are listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
Currently the term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the hate crimes bill, and is only defined in one law in the books, a law that is not referenced in the bill. Gohmert said that when a judge is trying to figure out how to define a term that is not defined in the law and does not reference another law, the judge gives the term the plain meaning.
"Some judge is going to finally say, 'Sexual orientation' means exactly what the words say: it is whatever you are oriented toward sexually."
Congressman King, in attempting to pre-empt this catch-all definition of "sexual orientation," proposed an amendment that would prevent pedophiles from being protected under H.R.1913. Pedophilia is one of the "sexual orientations" listed by the American Psychiatry Association. The amendment, however, was rejected. "We have a record roll-call vote that shows every Democrat on the judiciary committee voting to have pedophiles protected under sexual orientation," said King.
Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, stated in April, after H.R.1913 passed through Committee but before being passed to the Senate for review, that the hate crimes bill is simply redundant, since "such acts [of violence] are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone."
H.R.1913 has passed through the House of Representatives and has been introduced to the Senate as bill S.909.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Socialist Brazilian Government to Remove "Homophobic" Christian Programming from Daytime TV
Will add warning to such programs, pushing them to 11 pm or later
From LifeSiteNews
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
The Brazilian government is considering adding warning labels to Christian programming it regards as "homophobic," according to Folha de Sao Paulo, one of Brazil's largest-circulation newspapers.According to Folha, the programs will display a warning label that reads, "not recommended for people under the age of 18."
The newspaper reports that the policy decision stems from a plan for the "promotion of the citizenship of LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transvestites, and transsexuals), which will be launched today in the afternoon by the President's Secretariat of Human Rights."
Brazil's Secretary of Justice reportedly told Folha that, while such programming would be restricted to after 11 pm, "the ideal is that they not be shown at any time."
If carried out in accordance with Brazilian President Luiz Lula's definition of "homophobia," the new restrictions will effectively ban public statements on television that identify homosexual behavior as sinful and/or unhealthy.
"Pornographic sex education classes that praise homosexuality cannot be rated as 'unsuitable for children and teens,' because they have the approval from the pro-homosexuality socialist State," writes pro-family activist Julio Severo, himself in exile from Brazil because of charges of "homophobia."
"Yet, evangelical and Catholic radio and TV shows now run the risk of being rated as 'morally harmful,' 'homophobic' and 'unsuitable for children and teens' and other attributions, until the social climate is ready for heavier measures, including jail, for those transgressing the state standard for social behaviors."
The measure is only one example of the Lula administration's national and international homosexualist policy.
Working closely with Brazilian homosexual leader Luiz Mott, Lula has created a nationwide campaign called "Brazil Without Homophobia" that seeks to normalize and legitimize the behavior of homosexuals. As LifeSiteNews has reported, Mott is an open defender of pedophilia and pederasty.
Lula is also seeking to pass an "anti-homophobia" law that would prohibit any public criticism of homosexuals or homosexual behavior. He recently reiterated his commitment to "criminalize words or acts that are offensive to homosexuality" (see LifeSiteNews coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09043008.html).
However, even in the absence of the proposed "homophobia" law the Brazilian government has already fined individuals and groups for opposing homosexuality, including the Evangelical group National Vision for the Christian Conscience (VINACC), which was ordered to cancel its pro-family campaign for quoting the Bible's strictures against homosexual unions.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Every Means Possible to Destroy the Scouts"
Legal groups join forces in defense of San Diego Boy Scouts
From California Catholic Daily
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) joined forces to file a friend of the court brief asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals penalizing San Diego Boy Scouts because of their “morally straight” values.At issue in the case are leases from the City of San Diego allowing the San Diego Boy Scouts to build and operate campgrounds and an aquatic center for use by the Scouts and the public. Lesbian and agnostic couples, who had never visited the facilities, sued the Scouts on a claim that they felt offended by the fact that the City leases the public property to a “morally straight” organization such as the Boy Scouts. There were no religious symbols at the facilities.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are pleased to join forces with ADF in this is important case to protect the Boy Scouts of America. Radical homosexuals are attempting to use every means possible to destroy the Scouts despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized their First Amendment right to have a morally-based policy excluding homosexual involvement.”
According to the Scout Oath, a Boy Scout is “to do duty to God and country… and to keep morally straight.” The lawsuit against the Scouts was brought by a self-proclaimed “agnostic” couple and a lesbian couple.
The initial three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard the case dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the couples lacked standing to sue because “offended observers” do not have a real injury in fact. That decision was subsequently reviewed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which reversed in favor of the agnostic and lesbian couples. The Boy Scouts are asking the Supreme Court to review the decision.
In their friend of the court brief, TMLC and ADF argue that the Ninth Circuit’s permissive standing rule, which is essentially a permissive ideological standing rule since the agnostics and lesbians suing the Scouts never “observed” anything, represents a new threat for faith-based organizations that choose to cooperate with the government in establishing public benefit programs. Litigants in the Ninth Circuit can now challenge programs like San Diego’s with nothing more than general offense at a tenet of an organization’s mission. So long as a person feels unwelcome by the private groups’ beliefs – without any exposure to religious symbols or denial of any services – he can sue to have the program declared unconstitutional.
According to the brief, TMLC and ADF argued that the ideological standing authorized by the Ninth Circuit’s decision would significantly impact faith-based groups’ cooperation with government to provide much needed social services. Consequently, the overarching effect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a new type of hostility to religion, where government excludes religious groups from programs simply because officials fear being sued. This new hostility is a significant public detriment because it erodes faith-based groups’ provision of much-needed public services. The brief concluded by noting that the permissive standing rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit combined with the unpredictable Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court forces government to steer away from cooperative efforts with faith-based organizations to the public detriment.
Monday, May 4, 2009
What If 'Hate Crimes' Law was Applied to Miss USA Fiasco?
By Jim Brown
A Virginia congressman says the anti-Christian hatred and bigotry of homosexual blogger Perez Hilton and his supporters underscores one of the fallacies undergirding federal "hate crimes" legislation.
Congressional backers of the federal hate crimes bill that recently passed the House repeatedly claim that it will help ensure equal protection under the law for all Americans. They also argue that the bill does not threaten free speech, but merely punishes acts of violence motivated by hate.
Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) is a former ranking member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, and founder of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. He recently took to the House floor and provided a powerful example of how the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" does not ensure equality under the law.
"Had [Hilton] done what he said he would do and stormed that stage and pulled that tiara off [Prejean's] head and [inflicted] bodily harm when he did it, there would not have been one ounce of protection under this piece of legislation for that young girl," Forbes stated.
"But after he did it, if she had in response made a statement back about the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and dislike for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any physical injury, she would have had the potential of a ten-year federal piece of legislation coming against her."
The Virginia Republican also argued that if beauty contestant's father had rushed onto the stage at the Miss USA pageant and responded to Hilton's hatred in a physical way, he would have been open to prosecution under the hate crimes bill as well.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
New Ad Warns Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Activists Want to Silence Opposition
From CNA
The ad, titled “No Offense,” also refers to attacks on beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, Miss California, after she expressed her support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Prominent Gay British Politician Jokes about Killing Miss California for Her Opposition to Same-Sex "Marriage"
From LifeSiteNews
By John-Henry Westen and Hilary White
Alan Duncan, the UK's first openly-homosexual Conservative politician and the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons is rebuffing criticism for saying on a comedy show that he would kill Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for her remarks against homosexual "marriage." Prejean made the remarks during the recent Miss American beauty pageant. (See coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042103.html)
Mr. Duncan, on the BBC comedy news show "Have I Got News For You" on Friday, described Prejean as a "silly b**ch." He added, "If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won't you?"
The Metropolitan Police have received a complaint from George Hargreaves, an outspokenly pro-family evangelical minister and the leader of the small political party, the Christian Party, whose members believe that homosexual activity is sinful.
Yesterday Hargreaves said, "Mr Duncan has crossed the line. A senior politician suggesting, even as a joke, that it is okay that Miss Prejean should be murdered for her evangelical Christian views is totally unacceptable.
"How can we stop gun and knife crime when the man who thinks he will be the next Home Secretary makes death threats?"
In later comments, Duncan continued to treat the incident as a joke. "Of course it was in jest. It is a comedy show after all. I'm sure Miss Prejean's very beautiful and that if we were to meet we would love each other. I have no plans to kill her. I'll send her a box of chocolates - unpoisoned," he told media.
George Pitcher, religion editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, wrote on Monday that the larger issue is that a senior Tory politician has said that he is opposed to the current legal definition of marriage in Britain.
"A union between a man and a woman. In current civil and ecclesiastical law that is how it is," he wrote. "So, it would seem that Mr. Duncan would want to put same-sex civil partnerships on the same civil and ecclesiastical legal footing as marriage. Is that Conservative Party policy and will Mr Duncan push for it if he becomes Home Secretary?"
Duncan, who is in a legal civil partnership with James Dunseath, is described as a "moderniser" in the Tory party and economically and socially libertarian in his political views. When Duncan announced in March 2008 that he would be entering into a homosexual civil partnership, Tory party leader David Cameron said, "I am absolutely delighted for Alan and James and wish them all the very best."
During the Miss America pageant, aired live on NBC, homosexual activist and celebrity gossip Perez Hilton, one of 13 telecast judges, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
Prejean answered, "I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."
Hilton later lambasted Prejean for her answer on his popular blog. He called her answer "the worst answer in pageant history." "She lost, not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, she lost because she's a dumb b*tch," he said.
"If that girl would have won Miss USA, California, I would have gone up on stage, I sh*t you not, ... snatched that tiara off her head, and run out the door," said Hilton.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Perez Hilton and In-Your-Face ‘Queer’ Activists: the Obnoxious Spoiled Brats of our Culture
From Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
By Peter LaBarbera
OK, where do we start with the Perez Hilton-Carrie Prejean Miss USA controversy? Earlier today I was a guest on the Bob Dutko Show on WMUZ in Detroit, and observed that Hilton epitomizes the spoiled-brat aspect of “queer” activism. It’s bad enough that this obnoxious and rude “gay celebrity blogger” calls Miss California a “dumb bitch,” and then stands behind his ugly remark after initially apologizing for it. I want to know why this nasty fellow is then treated so deferentially by the media — first by this MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell and then NBC’s Matt Lauer? Are the liberal media — like those irresponsible parents who let themselves be manipulated by their spoiled children — now so indulgent toward homosexuals that they can’t even call out an angry activist whose vicious and juvenile conduct is obvious to most everyone else? Would NBC have accorded similar respect to a right-wing blogger who blasted a homosexual contestant as a “dumb fag”? Of course not (but they would have made an example of him as a hateful bigot, which is precisely what Mr. Hilton is). Watch this YouTube of this morning’s NBC Today Show, followed by more commentary after the jump:
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
University to Student: Endorse being 'Gay' or Leave
A lawsuit has been filed against Eastern Michigan University, accusing the school of tossing a student out of a graduate counseling program because she refused to endorse homosexuality as morally good.
Julea Ward filed suit after she was dismissed from the school's counseling training for not affirming homosexuality and then refusing to recant her beliefs in "disciplinary proceedings," according to the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
WND called president Susan W. Martin's office for comment and was referred to a media relations office, where officials did not respond.
But David French, senior counsel for the ADF, said, "When a public university has a prerequisite of affirming homosexual behavior as morally good in order to obtain a degree, the school is stepping over the legal line."
Ward was dismissed from the program March 12, and the dean of the college of education affirmed the decision on March 26, according to the ADF.
"Julea has a constitutional right not to be compelled to speak a message she disagrees with. She acted as a professional counselor should – with great concern both for her beliefs and the client," ADF legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco explained.
"The two are not incompatible, but EMU's policies are incompatible with the Constitution," he said.
The ADF said EMU "requires students in its program to affirm or validate homosexual behavior within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior."
The public interest law firm said Ward never has addressed homosexual behavior in any form during counseling sessions.
"Julea did the responsible thing and followed her supervising professor's advice to have the client referred to a counselor who did not have a conscience issue with the very matter to be discussed in counseling," French said. "She would gladly have counseled the client if the subject had been nearly any other matter."
The student was targeted by the school's disciplinary process as a result of her decision, and she was "informed that the only way she could stay in the graduate school counseling program would be if she agreed to undergo a 'remediation' program … to see the 'error of her ways,'" ADF said.
The goal was to have Ward "change her 'belief system,' as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships, conforming her beliefs to be consistent with the university's views," the law firm said.
She refused and was given the choice of leaving voluntarily or having a formal review.
ADF-allied attorney Steven Jentzen of Ypsilanti, Mich., is serving as local counsel in the case.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Christian and Muslim Parents Facing Possible Criminal Charges for Opting Out of LGBT History Month
By Hilary White
UK parents could face criminal charges for having removed their children from programs held at George Tomlinson Primary School promoting the homosexual lifestyle. Waltham Forest council has announced it will prosecute parents of about 30 children who did not attend a week's worth of lessons coinciding with "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month."
A spokesman for the council said, "At George Tomlinson, parents were invited to meet with teachers and governors several weeks ago to discuss what work would be taking place throughout the national LGBT History Month, and how this work would be delivered. Regrettably, some parents chose to remove their children from school.
"The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken."
But parents who objected said they were told by the school there were no other options but to remove their children from classes if they objected to the content of the program.
Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children, Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, told the Daily Mail, "I wrote a letter to the chairman of the governors explaining that I would be taking my children out of school and he wrote back saying that there was no other option."
He said that parents had not been properly informed about the content of the program. "There was just a newsletter mentioning the week and that certain themes would be taught."
Two homosexual-themed books were read in primary classes: "King and King," about a prince who falls in love with another prince, and "Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins, Roy and Silo, who fall in love and adopt a baby penguin at a New York zoo.
Mr. Latif spoke of the disruption to his family: "My wife is very concerned she might be prosecuted ... I found it difficult to explain topics such as homosexual relationships at such a young age."
"I didn't want my children to be learning about this," he said. "If I am faced with court action, then I will just explain that these are my views.
Although the Waltham Forest council has not yet informed parents how they are to be punished, the council website says that parents of truant children can be asked to sign a contract, fined on the spot or taken to court. Councils have the power to jail parents for truancy.
Sarah Saeed, 40, also took her eight-year-old daughter out of school during the week and also says she informed the school of her plans. She is quoted as saying, "It is not an appropriate age for the children to be learning such matters." Saeed said her daughter has a "100 percent attendance record otherwise."
"This is the only time and this is the only choice I had."
Richard Littlejohn, writing in the Daily Mail, said that parents have the legal right to remove their children from lessons on religion and sex. "That's why this is being smuggled in under the radar in the guise of 'history'.
"What has any of this got to do with 'history'? ... And why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway? Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?" He noted that the Waltham Forest council is punishing the parents for standing in the way of "tolerance" training in schools.
"So why not tolerate parents who, for sincerely-held reasons, consider their children too young to be taught about gay relationships? That's because when it comes to so-called tolerance, the new, intolerant state religion of 'diversity' trumps the old religions any day of the week."
"This isn't education, it's cultural fascism," Littlejohn concluded.
In the United Kingdom, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month was established in 2005 by Sue Sanders, a lesbian, feminist and prominent figure in the homosexualist political lobby. Sanders helped to found "School's Out," the primary outlet for the homosexualist movement's work in education.
The initiative received government backing and substantial funding from the Department for Education and Skills and Equalities under deputy minister Jacqui Smith. In its second year the pre-launch event was held in the Metropolitan Police's Empress State Building. In 2007, the event took place in the hall at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The events are held in schools in February to coincide with a slower month in the schools calendar. Long standing sponsors and endorsers include the Metropolitan Police Service, the Metropolitan Police Authority, Amnesty International and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Communist Party of Britain.
Richard Littlejohn called the government support of LGBT History Month part of "Labour's deranged obsession with social engineering over genuine education."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Homosexual Republican Group Calls Pro-Family Activists "Domestic Terrorists"
From LifeSiteNews.com
By Kathleen Gilbert
A homosexualist Republican group is lobbying GOP chairman Michael Steele to turn a deaf ear to pro-family activists, who the group leader labeled in a letter "Anti-American" and "domestic terrorists." James Ensley, President of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), made the comments after the pro-family group, Americans for Truth, petitioned Steele to work to return the GOP to its conservative roots and protect true marriage."I want to urge you not to allow small biggoted [sic], anti-American and anti-Christian fringe groups such as Americans for Truth to influence you," wrote Ensley in a letter addressed to Steele.
"Groups like Americans for Truth simply want to divide Americans, and truthfully their group would be more welcome as a mainstream Nazi Germany organization, than an organization which provides any value at all in 21st Century America," Ensley continued.
Ensley said he hoped Steele would support the LCR, a radically homosexualist group, "and not listen to the radical Christian extremist domestic terrorist groups such as Americans for Truth."
Log Cabin had praised Steele's election as chairman of the GOP last month, saying the former Maryland lieutenant governor "believes in a big tent GOP" and "is an inclusive leader who will bring a new energy and a new vision to the GOP at a critical time." Following Log Cabin's endorsement of Steele, Americans for Truth of Homosexuality (AFTAH) petitioned Steele to strengthen the GOP's conservative roots by protecting marriage as between one man and one woman.
WorldNetDaily (WND) reports that the Georgia Republican Party responded to Ensley's inflammatory rhetoric, stating, "While a healthy debate on the issues can help strengthen us as a party, to use the word 'terrorist' to describe those that disagree with you is not appropriate." Georgia GOP spokesman Doug Reineke emphasized that the Log Cabin Republicans were an independent group not officially associated with the Georgia Republican Party.
Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) "really have an anti-Christian animus, an anti-Christian bigotry about them, which would actually stoop to calling us ... terrorists," AFTAH President LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).
"We see the same trend: this Log Cabin group is seated as if it's a hugely important constituency to the GOP, and what I'm trying to tell people is: 'Look, these guys have 20,000 members nationwide - 20,000,'" La Barbera said. "It's a tiny organization that's not worth losing millions and millions of conservatives, pro-life, pro-family Republicans over."
After Californians voted into law Proposition 8, adding to the state constitution the true definition of marriage, LCR sent an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court arguing that the voter-approved amendment should be overturned because it denies a "fundamental right" to same-sex "marriage."
"If you're crusading to overturn the popular will of California voters on defending marriage between a man and a woman - to me, don't call yourself a Republican," LaBarbera told LSN. "That's a radical thing to do - even some gays don't say we should overturn that vote. There's really nothing distinguishing them - when it comes to the hardcore homosexual activism - they're just like the Democratic gay activists. That's what they value most highly. "
Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute also condemned Ensley's words, stating: "It appears that James Ensley just came out of his bigot closet, hurling pernicious charges - with no evidence - at not only Mr. LaBarbera but also at countless others who share the view that homosexual behavior is immoral behavior." (See: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271)
Both AFTAH and the Illinois Family Institute are encouraging followers to urge Steele to oppose the homosexualist agenda.
To contact GOP Chairman Steele:
Email: chairman@gop.com
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Censorship Query Uncovers Pro-'Gay' Activist
A Michigan television station agreed to broadcast a Christian documentary critical of the "gay rights" movement, but later backed out – and now a family values organization is questioning whether the station's about-face was influenced by a former newsroom executive who is a homosexual activist. As WND reported, WOOD-TV of Grand Rapids, Mich., originally agreed to air the hour-long paid program "Speechless: Silencing Christians," a documentary seeking to expose the agenda of homosexual activists and their impact on families and freedom of religion. The station later canceled the agreement shortly after the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual organization, issued a national alert against the film urging people to call for its cancellation.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Pro-Marriage Supporters in California Face Threats
From Associated Press
By Steve Lawrence
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors."No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.
Read the rest of this entry >>
"Gay Rage" is Redundant: A Message to Our Critics
South Carolina's liberal blogosphere seems to have more than its share of enraged homosexualists. We don't expect them to like everything we publish here at Sunlit Uplands, and frankly, we don't care.
We will not engage their steady stream of insults, nor will we post coarse, insulting comments. We welcome comments of opposing points of view and will readily publish all that are civil. We will not provide a forum for those who coarsen the culture. Our intention is to defend, and in a small way to help in the renewal of a culture that is Christian and fully human.
So let the heathen rage! Our bet is that no one "is laughing" at their behavior, and most will find their manic rants rather tiresome after awhile.
Monday, January 5, 2009
San Francisco Parish Defaced with Swastikas
From Catholic World News
A Catholic parish in San Francisco was defaced with swastikas and other graffiti on Saturday night. “It appears the vandals are upset about the Catholic Church's support of Proposition 8, which made same-sex marriage illegal in California,” according to a local media report. The parish-- Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church-- has the well-deserved reputation of being “gay friendly.”
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
