Homosexualists to Force Anglican Church Weddings in UK

After this legislation goes through the homosexualists will set about hounding every priest and vicar who dares to decline them 

From Catholic Online

By Father Dwight Longenecker

Father Dwight Longenecker

England's Daily Telegraph reports here that parliament is preparing legislation to remove the ban on same-sex civil unions being religious. Some years back when they began to allow same-sex civil unions, they made it clear that these ceremonies could not be held in religious premises and were not to include religious elements in any way.

But, of course, the homosexualists complained that this still contravened their civil rights and, because they were not allowed to be "married in church," they were being treated as second class citizens. So now, bowing to their demands, the lawmakers are to allow the same-sex union ceremonies to be religious and for religious leaders to make their premises available for these rituals.

No one will be forced to conduct such services or make their premises available for such service. Oh no, such a thing would never be forced on anyone. Not in modern Britain. No sir. That would never happen, now would it?

It just happens that the homosexualists in Britain are busy, on the other hand, suing anybody they can find who denies them their "rights" -- even to the point of setting them up. So this nice Christian couple who have been running a Bed and Breakfast in a seaside town in Cornwall for years and took joy in welcoming especially a Christian family clientele are being sued by a homosexual couple because they were refused a double room.

The allegations are that the homosexual men knew the stance the couple took (it was advertised on their website) and booked a room there on purpose to push their case. They went to court, and the Christian couple lost.

Anybody, therefore, who thinks that it will stop with permission for homosexuals to have their civil unions in church buildings with religious elements if they want to (but nobody will have to if they don't want to) is seriously deluded. After this legislation goes through, the homosexualists will set about hounding every priest and vicar who dares to decline them the opportunity to conduct their same-sex marriages, and take them to court.

Where will the Church of England stand on all this? The Church of England says they don't allow same-sex unions in church, but certain renegade Anglican vicars are defying both the law of their church and the law of the land to conduct same-sex unions in their churches. They get around it by calling it a "blessing," so Adam and Steve go to the registry office for their civil union, and then they tootle along to the parish church where Rev. Lav "blesses" their union. While there are many more vicars who do not conduct the services, a good number are in favor and many more 'don't really mind.'

We shouldn't be too smug about the Brits being any worse than we are. Because of their stronger national government, it is more nationwide, but in the USA there are plenty of states that already allow same-sex civil unions, and most of the mainstream liberal Protestant denominations are already well into same-sex "marriage." The attempts at lawsuits against people infringing homosexualists' "rights" are also gathering strength.

Get ready. 

 

 

Fr Dwight Longenecker is parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary parish and chaplain to St Joseph's Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina. Visit his blog and website at www.dwightlongenecker.com

French Watchdog Says No to Same-Sex Marriage

France's law prohibiting gay marriage does not violate the constitution, the country's top constitutional watchdog ruled Friday, all but challenging parliament to debate overturning the ban.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Episcopal Bishop Presides over Wedding of Female "Priests"

The "marriage" of two lesbians in Massachusetts, regarded by the  Episcopal Church as "priests," has renewed a long-running controversy over same-sex unions in both the U.S.-based Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion with which it is affiliated.

The Rev. Mally Lloyd, a ranking official of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, "married" the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, dean and president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, on New Year's Day in Boston, according to the Patriot-Ledger. Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, the state's highest ranking Episcopal prelate, presided. Ragsdale has been a controversial figure in the 2.1 million-member denomination for both her outspoken affirmation of same-sex "marriage" and homosexual clergy, as well as her unqualified defense of abortion as a "blessing."

Bishop Shaw has also openly supported gay marriage for years. Shaw gave his parish priests permission to perform same-sex marriages soon after the 2009 Episcopal General Convention voted to allow "generous pastoral response" in such situations.

Pope: Church Must Reject All 'Alternative Models of Family Life'

Encourages Christians to reinforce faith as foundation for culture

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

All legal recognition of "alternative" means of pursuing a family life, such as homosexual "marriage" and civil union laws, threatens to undermine the true model of marriage as the permanent bond of one man and one woman for the procreation of children, said Pope Benedict XVI on Monday.

The pontiff said that “the Church sees with concern the growing attempt to eliminate the Christian concept of marriage and family from the consciousness of society."

"The Church can not approve legislative initiatives involving a reappraisal of alternative models of married life and family. They contribute to the weakening of the principles of natural law and so the relativization of all legislation and also the confusion about values in society," said the pontiff in an address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See.

The pope said that, "Marriage is manifested as a lasting union of love between a man and a woman, which is also always oriented toward the transmission of human life," noting that such a bond "requires a certain maturity of the person and a fundamental social and existential attitude."

Benedict also took the occasion to exalt the centrality of human life, particularly frail and dependent human life, as something that "always has priority over anything else." "When once we begin to distinguish - and often this happens already in the womb - between life worthy and unworthy to live, any other stage of life will not be spared, much less the elderly and the infirm," he said.

The pontiff also criticized Christians who, rather than becoming "guarantors" of the faith "without compromise," "tend to show an overriding inclination towards more permissive religious convictions." For example, those who replace the personal, moral Christian God with a mysterious "supreme being" render null the conflict between good and evil, and so rob society of the impetus to constantly pursue the good: "If God does not have His own will, then good and bad end up being indistinguishable. ... Man thus loses the moral and spiritual energy necessary for the overall development of the person," he said.

As new relationships are developing in recent times between church and state, said Benedict, it is incumbent upon Christians to "follow this development in a positive and critical way, as well as to refine men's senses for the fundamental and continuing importance of Christianity in laying the groundwork to form the structures of our culture."

Click here for the original text (in Italian).

Bishop Olmsted: 'Love Authentically' by Acknowledging Disorder of Homosexuality

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

The federal appeals court decision to overturn California's constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex "marriage" represents a threat to "cultural sanity" fueled by a line of thinking that is "absurd and only nominally rational," wrote Phoenix bishop Thomas Olmsted this week.

Olmsted said in a Tuesday column for the Catholic Sun that the decision to overturn the voter-approved constitutional language "cannot be passed over in silence," and criticized an opinion piece in The Arizona Republic that stated: “If this generation of Americans doesn’t move forward, the next one will. Young people just do not share their parents’ hang ups about gay marriage.”

"Living in an age of relativism and one marked by sound-bite triviality rather than thoughtful reasoning, such labeling of opposing opinions as 'hang ups' may come across as persuasive to some," wrote Olmsted. "But if looked at logically, and especially if seen from the perspective of God’s plan for marriage revealed in the first chapters of the Bible (as well as from the perspective of natural law), it comes off as absurd and only nominally rational.

"What is at stake here is cultural sanity and viability. Defending the clear nature and purpose of marriage is not discrimination against homosexual persons."

The Phoenix bishop questioned same-sex "marriage" proponents' dismissal of the entire order of nature in order to reconstruct a new form of marriage. "Why did God create both men and women, not just one sex? Is it merely accidental that one is born either a woman or a man? Is femininity or masculinity of little import?" Olmsted asked. "Does it not matter if a child grows up with no mother but two fathers? Does the pandemic of cultural ills born of fatherlessness in so many of our homes teach us nothing?

"Is it really all that difficult to fathom that God had a plan for marriage, which He wove into the very fabric of human nature?" he wrote. In fact, said Olmsted, the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the sake of procreation "is so deeply embedded in our human nature that every culture in history has recognized it and enshrined and protected it in law and custom." "Marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman was not an idea created by these cultures but, rather, a truth received by them as something handed down from a higher authority," he wrote.

He rejected the implication by same-sex "marriage" advocates that, of all the ages of humanity, "ours an enlightened age that is wiser than previous ones" and that judges who destroy the legal definition of marriage are "helping us finally to rise up and overthrow the 'hang ups' of billions of people who have gone before us and to free us from the shackles of religion."

Far from promoting unjust discrimination against homosexuals or a "homophobic" attitude, Olmsted insisted that recognizing homosexual tendencies for what they are - objectively disordered - manifests true love for those who experience such tendencies, while rejecting the idea that such individuals themselves are inferior or to blame.

"Love and truth go hand-in-hand. Everyone who experiences true love knows this — we want those we love to know the truth," he wrote. "As Catholics, we want to love people authentically and not in a mediocre way that would ignore dangers in a person’s life out of a shallow concern for political correctness."

Because of the nature of homosexual acts as contrary to the natural law, he explained, "to condone the homosexual lifestyle is never a move in favor of a person’s true happiness."

"Moreover," he continued, "to change the legal and societal definition of the fundamental institution of marriage in order to suit an adult sexual preference is a selfish and irresponsible corruption of the truth." The state cannot redefine a reality it has received from God, he said, noting that doing violence to true marriage "will certainly have a negative impact on love, especially for children, who suffer most when marriage is weakened."

Click here to read Bishop Olmsted's column in full.

USA Presbyterians Get Ready to Vote on Gay 'Marriage'

From LifeSiteNews

Presbyterians gathering this week in Minneapolis will face a potentially momentous decision: whether to preserve the teaching that marriage exists only between a man and a woman, or change the definition of marriage to a relationship between any "two people."

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which began Saturday and concludes July 10, will take up a series of items, among them proposed constitutional amendments to change the definition of marriage in the PCUSA Book of Order. The effect would be to allow churches to host and ministers to officiate at same-sex "marriages." Other proposals would interpret the PCUSA constitution as allowing any state-recognized same-sex "marriage" to be celebrated as a Christian marriage.

The Christian Post reported Sunday that PCUSA had selected as its moderator Cynthia Bolbach, who was the only candidate out of six to express full support for same-sex "marriage."

The Final Report of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage asserts that church members "cannot agree" on "the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community," and must therefore show "mutual forbearance."

Faithful Christians have instead encouraged the adoption of a minority report that upholds "the church's biblical, historic, and confessional position that, among all varieties of sexual relationships, only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God and blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ."

"The Scriptures and all parts of the PCUSA constitution consistently teach that marriage is instituted by God as a gift to all humankind, and that we are to honor that gift," said Alan Wisdom, IRD's Vice President for Research and Programs and Director of its Presbyterian Action committee.

"If the PCUSA embraces sexual revisionism, it would deliberately sideline itself," he said. "It would exalt western liberal notions of individual moral autonomy above shared understandings of the Bible.

"It would follow the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church on the road to theological marginalization, internal division, accelerating membership loss, and cultural irrelevance.

"Shall we assert the right to redefine marriage to suit our own contemporary notions of justice? Shall we treat marriage as if it were no different from other sexual relationships? Or shall we reaffirm the biblical vision of an exclusive, lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes created by God?"


To contact PCUSA:

100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202
phone: (800) 728-7228
presbytel@pcusa.org

Office of the General Assembly communications
phone: (888) 728-7228 x5750
OGA communications email form

Knights of Columbus Refuse to Allow Suspension of Members Who Promote Abortion, Gay Marriage

From Catholic World News

The leadership of the Knights of Columbus (K of C) has forbidden local councils to take any action against members of the Catholic fraternal organization who support legalized abortion or same-sex marriage.

A Massachusetts K of C member had proposed a resolution, to be taken up by the group's state convention, calling for the suspension of membership of any politician who gave public support to abortion and same-sex marriage. That resolution was declared inappropriate by the Supreme Advocate of the K of C, John Marrella.

In a letter to the Massachusetts K of C leadership, Marrella declared that "a subordinate council may not impose fraternal discipline with respect to a public figure's official actions on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Rather, any such discipline must be made by or at the direction of the Supreme Board of Directors."

"We recognize that some of our members who are public figures may use their public position to advocate or support policy positions that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals," Marrella conceded in his letter. He went on to admit that such public advocacy "contradicts the Catholic identity and mission of the Order."

Nevertheless, the top legal official of the K of C said that any action taken against K of C members who are public figures would "necessarily affect the entire Order." For that reason, he said, any disciplinary action should be taken by the group's top leadership.

Marrella went on to say that the K of C would not go further than the American bishops in taking public action against members whose public stands conflict with Church moral teachings. "If the public figure's bishop has not excommunicated him for his public positions on issues relating to matters of faith and morals, it would be highly inappropriate for the Knights of Columbus to do so," he wrote.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which had supported the proposed resolution at the state convention, decried the intervention by the top K of C office as an "abdication of responsibility." C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League, said: "This letter effectively kills any grassroots initiative within the Knights to address the scandal of pro-abortion pols in the Order."

The Catholic Action League charged that the K of C's refusal to take action against pro-abortion members would allow the continuation of a public scandal. "In the 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Board of Directors has never, to public knowledge, removed a single pro-abortion political figure from the Knights of Columbus," Doyle noted. "In Massachusetts, a majority of Knights serving in the Legislature voted in 2007 against a constitutional amendment restoring traditional marriage, and voted in 2005 for a law which compels Catholic hospitals to distribute the so-called morning-after pill to rape victims."

Judicial Activism 'At Absolute Worst' in Texas

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

Courts in two major Texas cities, Austin and Dallas, have granted two lesbian couples divorces -- in direct defiance of voters who amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, tells OneNewsNow that The Lone Star is experiencing what has already been happening in other states. "What we're seeing is judicial activism at its absolute worst," he comments. "This is something that was put to a vote of all the people in Texas. The vote was overwhelming – 76 percent of the state said very clearly that they wanted marriage to be a man and a woman, period."

Attorney General Greg Abbott requested both judges to reconsider, but that appeal has been declined. So the question is whether the cases might result in a constitutional challenge between the attorney general and the judges -- and Shackelford believes that they will.

"What the judge in Dallas did is just unbelievable," he contends. "Nobody even asked this judge to overturn the state constitution, but she held that the constitution is unconstitutional, and then went to a fundraiser, bragging about what she had done."

The Liberty Institute president concludes that that is pure judicial activism. He plans to take the case to the state Court of Appeals later this month.

Census used as 'Gay Gimmick'

Traditional marriage proponents are warning that homosexual activists and the Obama administration are once again working in concert to "manipulate" federal law.

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown and Charlie Butts

The Associated Press reports that the Census Bureau plans to count same-sex couples who say they are married, regardless of whether they have a marriage license (see AP article). Even though only five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex "marriages," the Census Bureau says same-sex couples should feel free to check the "husband" or "wife" boxes on the census form, rather than "unmarried partner."

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, argues that the Bureau is clearly violating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages.

"What they're obviously trying to do is magnify the numbers of homosexuals in the society," he suspects. "This dates way back in the gay movement. There was a time when homosexual activists just lied and said that ten percent of the public was gay -- that was a bald-faced lie. It took decades to finally disprove that lie, but here again we see them calling themselves married because they want to be called married. Well, that's not what the law says."

LaBarbera believes homosexual activists are using the census as their latest "gimmick" to seek affirmation of their lifestyle, and he challenges Congress to "step up" and prevent the Obama administration from promoting the "gay" agenda by dictate.

Marriage by opinion is not marriage by law

Similarly, Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes the source for the Bureau's instructions can perhaps be traced as far as the White House. (Listen to audio report)

"It's a shame that the Census Bureau, in tangent with radical homosexual activists, are choosing to use the census, which is supposed to provide objective, quantifiable information relative to varying demographics around the country, that they're using this as a tool for political activism," Barber laments.

He notes that just because a homosexual couple might call their relationship a marriage, that does not make it so. "It is directly contrary to probably the letter, at least the spirit, of the Defense of Marriage Act," he adds.

The federal law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the cultural affairs director believes the purpose in the census campaign is to "create an impression in the minds of the American people" that the movement for legalizing homosexual marriage has more steam behind it than it actually does.

New Hampshire Rallies for Chance to Vote on Marriage

Every single ballot initiative on same-sex "marriage" has upheld the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Despite all the noise, hate, anti-Christian bigotry, threats and disordered rage that will emanate from homosexualists and their anti-Christian hate bloggers over yet another referendum, at the end of the day the people of New Hampshire, like those in 30 other states, will affirm God's natural law.

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

Many New Hampshire towns have sent a message to the legislature, voicing the desire to vote on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

The state legislature recently legalized homosexual marriage after balking at giving voters a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the traditional way of being between one man and one woman. State Representative David Bates notes the issue was on the agenda in recent town hall meetings throughout the state, and 38 towns have already passed the measure.

"The results of the vote statewide showed over 60 percent of the public is in favor of having the opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment," he reports.

The state representative considers the results to be compelling, and he suggests they demonstrate what his premise was to begin with.

"The people of New Hampshire are not happy with the change of the law to redefine marriage, and they want the opportunity to vote on this constitutional amendment as 30 other states have done," he contends.

What impact that has on the legislature remains to be seen, but Representative Bates says he is so encouraged by the vote that he will resubmit legislation to take the issue to the voters. He says success depends entirely on New Hampshire residents pressuring lawmakers to vote yes.

Federal Judge's Ruling Boomerangs on California Homosexualist Groups

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Opponents of California’s constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage” have just found out that their success in gaining access to the campaign memos of the pro-family groups defending Prop. 8 has gone further than they intended.

The federal judge hearing the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case has now ruled that lawyers defending Prop. 8 will also have their turn to examine their opponents’ campaign memos, and use them as evidence to support their arguments for the constitutionality of the state marriage amendment approved by voters in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker affirmed the ruling by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, which said that Equality California and the American Civil Liberties Union, both opponents of the ban, must surrender tens of thousands of campaign emails exchanged among No on Prop. 8 groups, so that the legal team defending the California same-sex “marriage” ban can see if they contain any evidence that would bolster their case.

The ruling is a major twist of irony, since the ACLU and Equality California would not be facing scrutiny over their campaign memos had they not demanded the federal court order the release of “Yes on 8”’s campaign documents. The groups fighting the marriage amendment said they needed the opposing side’s documents in order to help them demonstrate that an anti-homosexual “animus” motivated the ban on same-sex “marriage,” making the ban unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Equality California and the ACLU appealed the original ruling to Walker – potentially considering him sympathetic as a homosexual judge – before whom they argued that their internal communications were irrelevant to the case. Attorneys defending Prop. 8 argued that the ACLU and Equality California memos would help demonstrate why a ban on same-sex “marriage” was necessary, and would prove that political power of homosexuals makes them anything but a powerless group.

But the homosexualist groups also protested that their campaign memos were protected by the First Amendment, and resorted to arguments that the Yes on 8 campaign had used to justify the protection of their own campaign documents and internal communications.

However, Walker explained that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals “determined that campaign documents may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” He also added that the circuit court’s decision was not limited to “the side that succeeded in persuading voters.”

Walker also further explained that the standard applied by the court only went so far as to protect the internal memos shared by a “core group of individuals” within a group - anything else was fair game. “The standard does not protect campaign communications that are not private and internal," the judge ruled.

The ACLU and Equality California have appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court. If Walker’s decision stands, the groups will have to comply with the magistrate’s order that they hand over non-privileged documents by March 31.

Walker said pro-family attorneys defending Prop. 8 will have until April 12 to submit evidence, before he schedules closing arguments.

Read full ruling here (via Courthouse News

Christian's Speech Deemed 'Hateful Propaganda'

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

A Christian student in the Los Angeles Community College District is carrying his free-speech case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jonathan Lopez had an assignment in a public speaking class and was required to give an informative speech on any topic. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney David Hacker tells OneNewsNow that Lopez chose to speak about his Christian beliefs. "And during that speech, when he mentioned that marriage is between a man and a woman according to his Christian beliefs, the professor called him this horrible name, refused to let him finish the assignment, and told other students in the class, 'If you're offended, you can leave,'" Hacker explains.

When no students left, the professor dismissed the class. Hacker adds that Lopez is an "A" student -- "but the problem is he never got a grade on that informative speech, and in fact, the professor wrote on his evaluation form, 'Ask God what your grade is.'"

The ADF attorney argues that demonstrates the hostility towards religion on many college campuses. The lower court in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction against the school, saying its speech code -- allowing administrators to punish Lopez's "hateful propaganda" -- is unconstitutional. That has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Vote for Marriage? You're on a Hit List

Battle looms in Supreme Court over 'gay' activist harassment

From WorldNetDaily

By Drew Zahn

A battle is set to begin in the U.S. Supreme Court, as backers of traditional marriage hope to fend off a law that would make their names and addresses public and, therefore, make them prime targets for homosexual activists intent on bullying them into silence.

The case calls into question whether voters have protected free speech and anonymity rights in signing petitions and ballot initiatives or whether states must release signatories' names and addresses as a matter of public record.

With reported cases of bullying, organized boycotts and threats of violence against the signers of traditional marriage initiatives in several states already – and homosexual activists pledging to make lists of signatories public and searchable online – lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice are concerned that voters may grow fearful of reprisal should they sign a petition seeking to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. That fear, the ACLJ is arguing in a brief filed this week before the Court, is exactly the kind of political and voter intimidation that the Constitution should protect against.

Read the rest of this entry >>

For Same-Sex Advocates, Religious Liberty Takes Backseat

The arrival of same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia this week has been celebrated by left-leaning clergy. On March 3, as same-sex couples applied for "marriage" licenses at the District courthouse, liberal clergy cheered the couples as they emerged.

Groups such as Clergy United for Marriage Equality have promoted same-sex marriage, which they have framed as a justice and equality issue. They have not supported efforts to gain an exemption for religious organizations or individuals. As a result, organizations or individuals that "discriminate" between traditional marriage and homosexual relationships must either violate their consciences or face possible hostile action by the D.C. government.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington repeatedly warned that its foster care and public adoption program would not be able to continue under the new law, because the archdiocese prefers to place children with man-woman married couples. According to the archdiocese, "although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation's capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same sex "marriage law."

The Institute on Religion and Democracy has published a paper on "Is Marriage Worth Defending?" It is available for free download at www.TheIRD.org/marriagepaper.

IRD Vice President Alan Wisdom, author of the marriage paper, commented:

"Local media have featured photos of smiling same-sex couples and stories of free cupcakes for the 302 gay "marriage" applicants. The less photogenic consequences of this policy on D.C. Catholic Charities--the city’s largest social service provider, serving 68,000 of its poorest residents--are being largely ignored.

"Liberal clergy seem all too happy to let the D.C. government force other Christians to violate church teaching and become complicit in behavior that the Bible calls sin. This is just the kind of abuse against which opponents of same-sex "marriage" have been warning.

"The religious left is more devoted to validating the latest cultural trends than to upholding timeless Christian teaching. One would hope that it would understand the danger in invoking government power against its more conservative religious opponents.

All those who value their religious freedom should be up in arms at this attempted coercion of consciences. If Catholics are not allowed to be Catholic, no one's liberty will be secure.

Children of Sodomites Prone to Suicide, Study Reveals

A study presented at the symposium in Mexico, “Homosexual Adoption: What Science Has Discovered,” revealed that most children adopted by same-sex couples display “greater levels of stress,” and suffer from “suicidal tendencies and attempts.”

Read the rest of this entry >>

Gay "Marriage" Law Forces D.C. Archdiocese to End Foster Care

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has been forced to give up the foster care program it ran with the aid of public funds, after repeated warnings that there would be no other choice should the D.C. City Council insist that the archdiocese recognize gay "marriage" partners in its employment practices.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Catholic Charities handed over the foster-care program intact to the National Center for Children and Families on February 1. Catholic Charities, whose foster program included 43 children, 35 families and seven staff, runs more than 20 social service programs for the District of Columbia and receives $20 million in city funding.

Before the City Council approved the marriage bill in December, the archdiocese pointed out that, unless religious exemption language were broadened, the law would force Catholic Charities to violate Catholic moral teaching in providing spousal benefits for "married" homosexual partners of employees. Council members ignored the request for better language protecting religious rights.

Pending a period of congressional review, the “marriage” bill will likely become law within a few weeks.

When in November critics accused the archdiocese of using the foster care program to strong-arm the city, Archdiocesan spokeswoman Susan Gibbs shot back, saying, "We are not threatening to walk out of the city."

Instead, she said, "the city is the one saying, 'If you want to continue partnering with the city, then you cannot follow your faith teachings.'"

Following news of the transfer, Catholic League president Bill Donohue said Archbishop Donald Wuerl "did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option."

"District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese," said Donohue. "Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them.

"The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church."

He continued: "Those who say that Wuerl is throwing the kids overboard are phonies. If Planned Parenthood were told that as a condition of public funding it had to refer Catholic women having second thoughts about abortion to a crisis pregnancy center, it would scream violation of church and state, refuse the money and end this program.

"Well, Archbishop Wuerl isn’t about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."

New York Times: Rampant Sodomite Polygamy Benefits Marriage

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

In discussing a new study confirming that polygamy is a staple within gay "marriages," a New York Times article has suggested that doing away with the concept of spousal fidelity in marriage represents an "evolution" that "might point the way for the survival of the institution."

NYT columnist Scott James reported January 28 on a project by San Francisco State University's Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality examining various aspects of homosexual relationships. James says the study, which is scheduled for release this month, "reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many."

"Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships," the article continues. "And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution."

Colleen Hoff, one of the study's researchers, remarked: "With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating, but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

Steve Weinstein, the editor-in-chief of the gay news service EDGE Boston, said that the research could be placed into "the category of 'studies that confirm the painfully obvious.'"

James also admits that "none of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it," with many expressing fear that "discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage."

Joe Quirk, author of the sex-themed bestseller "It's Not You, It's Biology," argued that "the combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust."

“If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages," said Quirk.

New Jersey Senate Kills Gay "Marriage" Bill

"In all the states that have allowed voters to decide the marriage question, all have kept intact the definition of marriage between a man and a woman."

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

The New Jersey state senate voted down a measure to legalize gay "marriage" this afternoon by a 20-14 margin, putting an end to a last-minute campaign to win approval before the departure of Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine, a same-sex "marriage" advocate.

Prior to the vote, lawmakers went back and forth with final speeches advocating for and against S1967, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act." Several lawmakers, including Richard Codey, sought to win over support by putting the new definition of marriage on a par with the civil rights movement.

Opponents, on the other hand, questioned why supporters of the bill refused to allow New Jersey citizens to tackle the contentious question in a referendum vote. In all the states that have allowed voters to decide the marriage question, all have kept intact the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

Prior to the vote, Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain. "

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who had promised to sign the legislation, will be replaced by Republican Governor-elect Chris Christie on January 19. Christie has vowed to veto same-sex "marriage" legislation.

Rabbi Noson Leiter of Torah Jews for Morality hailed the defeat of the bill he called a "threat to religious liberty."

"This is a tremendous Divine salvation from an existential threat of unprecedented magnitude," Leiter told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) minutes after the vote. "We are thankful to the Almighty for allowing us to participate in this." Leiter said his group, a leading orthodox Jewish advocacy organization, helped mobilized "thousands, if not tens of thousands" of Jews across New Jersey to oppose the bill.

UK Prime Minister Pledges to Force Gay Civil Union Recognition in Eastern Europe

From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to attempt to force Eastern European countries to accept as legally valid homosexual civil partnerships contracted in Britain. Brown told Attitude, one of the UK's leading homosexualist magazines, "I'm fighting to get all the countries in Europe to recognise civil partnerships carried out in Britain."

"We want countries where that hasn't been the case - especially in Eastern Europe - to recognise them. We're negotiating agreements with France and then with Spain."

"If we could show eastern Europe as well as western Europe, that this respect for gay people is due, that would be really important," said Brown. "Of course it will be tough, and will take many years, but that has never ever been a good reason not to fight."

He lauded civil partnership laws as a key achievement of the Labour party, saying it "showed our country is far more tolerant than people thought."

The Labour government's commitment to the homosexualist political agenda has been especially successful in schools where "sex education" has been made mandatory throughout all grades and opposition to homosexuality has been suppressed under the guise of combating "homophobic bullying."

Most recently, guidance issued by the Department of Education will see children as young as five taught in schools about "transsexual rights." Schools are recommended to use material produced by the government-funded homosexualist lobby group Stonewall to develop curriculum.

Homosexualist activists have made no secret of their intention to use various European Union bodies to force countries like Lithuania and Poland to accept homosexuality as a valid "sexual alternative." The proposal to force dissenting EU states to conform is a key project of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe). ILGA told the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on Fundamental Rights that recognition of civil same-sex partnerings is one of the issues of "freedom of movement and mutual recognition of LGBT families relationships in the EU."

Some are calling for resistance to Brown's plan, saying it will threaten laws protecting the family across the EU. John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children pointed to various developments that threaten the family in Europe. In January, Spain's Supreme Court ruled that parents do not have the right to opt out of the government's pro-homosexual and anti-family schools program. In September, the European Parliament passed a resolution against a new Lithuanian law seeking to protect minors from sexualization by society, and last week, eight fathers were jailed in Germany after refusing to send their children to sex education classes.

Smeaton wrote, "It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection."

NY Senate Hands Sodomites Crushing Defeat on Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill

Victory for Democrat Sen. Ruben Diaz, who led tireless campaign to defend natural marriage.

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

At about 3:00pm on Wednesday afternoon the New York State Senate voted to overwhelmingly reject legislation that would have legalized same-sex "marriage."

The measure, which would have amended New York State's Domestic Partnership Law, failed by a broad margin of 24 in favor with 38 against.

The Senate vote effectively means that same-sex "marriage" is dead in New York: a resounding victory for pro-family advocates in the state, and a heavy defeat for Gov. David Paterson and Democratic leaders, who were looking to deliver same-sex "marriage" advocates their first victory after their latest defeat in Maine.

Just moments before the vote, Sen. Tom Duane, the chief sponsor of the same-sex "marriage" bill, confidently told members of the Senate that he was looking forward to not just being "an old gay" but soon a "married gay."

However, those anticipations were dashed by a coalition of Democrats, who joined Sen. Ruben Diaz, Jr. (D-NY 32), the leader of the fight against same-sex "marriage" in the Senate, in voting their consciences with Republicans against the bill.

Debate began after a short noon recess with Sen. Duane arguing that this "legislation would provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers equal rights in New York State."

"It would make me equal in every way to everyone else in this chamber," declared Duane in his brief opening remarks.

In the final speech before the vote, Sen. Duane once more encouraged his colleagues to vote on same-sex "marriage" saying, "It's always the time to be on the right side of history!"

Only Sen. Diaz spoke on the floor of the Senate against same-sex "marriage" and he told the Senate that it was a supreme "irony" that the same gay lobby, which fought so hard and spent an enormous amount of money to wrest control of the Senate from the GOP in order to get a bill on same-sex "marriage," now "is depending on them to make this happen."

"The reality is that it has been the Republican Party and their traditional values, and the Republican Party with their moral values, and the Republican Party with their family values, that has been for years and years what has kept the values in this whole nation alive," declared Diaz. "And now they are being asked to throw away these values."

Diaz mentioned that adherents of the world's major religions - not just Evangelicals - oppose same-sex "marriage," including Jews, Muslims, and Catholics. Diaz specifically praised those Catholic bishops who signed the Manhattan Declaration as a testament of their opposition to same-sex "marriage."

"The majority of the people has opposed their will to same-sex 'marriage,'" said Diaz, pointing out that in 31 states where same-sex "marriage" was put to a vote, the people voted against it. By contrast, he continued, same-sex "marriage" was legalized in three states by court order, and by legislation in two states that have no right of referendum.

Diaz proposed that instead the Senate should let New Yorkers decide on same-sex "marriage" and appealed to the Republicans once again to hold fast to their principles and vote that the people, not the legislature decide the fate of marriage.

"Remember your rules, remember your values, remember your family values, traditional values, moral values. Go back to the defense of your traditional values, join me a Democrat, join me a Hispanic, join me a black, join me a Puerto Rican, and join me in bringing a referendum to the people," said Diaz.

However the rest of the speeches proceeded from Democrats speaking out in favor of the bill.

Sen. Malcolm Smith, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, told the Senate that at stake with same-sex "marriage" was "an individual's right to feel good about themselves."

"For the first time, all men and women will be created equal," said Sen. Eric Schneiderman, Deputy Majority Leader (D-NY 34) adding that, "This law will expand the central American ideal of equality."

Sen. Eric Adams (D-NY 20) politely accused Sen. Diaz of not speaking "from his head." Adams compared banning gay marriage to "reaching back to the most ugliest [sic] period of America," when states like Virginia had laws banning interracial marriages until the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.The senator also told his colleagues that,

"When I walk through these doors, my bible stays out.

"The statement drew a sharp rebuke from Sen. Diaz, who stated that given the crime and state of society in America, "That is the wrong statement to send." Diaz, a Hispanic Evangelical minister, urged Senators to remember their Bibles before voting.