by Nathan Cherry
We’ve all heard of a Christian being sued for refusing to take part in a same-sex ceremony. Sure you have. There’s a baker in Colorado, a photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, these are just a few of the many people being attacked by LGBT activists and the government for refusing to violate their religious convictions. (If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, click here.)
From Christian Concern
A High Court Judge has ordered the Mayor of London to provide full, copies of emails and other documents sent to and from his office “in order to get to the bottom” of his decision to ban a Christian charity’s bus advertisement.
During the 2012 London Mayoral Election, Boris Johnson banned adverts by Core Issues Trust (CIT), a charity which supports men and women dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction. At the time of the ban, the Mayor was about to address an election meeting organised by the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall.
The proposed adverts by CIT, which read “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" were a response to bus slogans by Stonewall reading, “Some People Are Gay. Get Over It”, which the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) had sanctioned.
Last month, the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Dyson, ruled that the High Court must re-investigate the ban after new email evidence was revealed following a Freedom of Information request by CIT.
One significant email from Mr Johnson’s Director of Communications, Guto Harri, stated: “Boris has just instructed TfL to pull the adverts”. This and other evidence had not been disclosed at the original High Court hearing, when the Judge, Mrs Justice Lang, upheld the ban on CIT's adverts.
At this week’s hearing, Mrs Justice Lang reviewed the new email evidence and said, “I am still not satisfied that the full story is being told.”
Parents – do you know what is being taught in your children's schools? FIND OUT NOW.
A parents' rights group will urge the Secretary of State for Education to direct all primary schools to show a new homosexual bullying film to every parent before it is screened to their children. The film, entitled "Free", has been produced by Stonewall, the homosexual rights group, which plans to send the film to every primary school in Britain (see today's edition of "Metro", the free London newspaper).
Antonia Tully, national co-ordinator of Safe at School, said: "Parents should see this film before it is shown to their children. It is disingenuous to bill this film as a resource to crack down on bullying. Of course we want to see an end to bullying in schools, but bullying has become a smokescreen for promoting homosexuality to young, impressionable children."
Mrs Tully continued: "Most parents want their children to learn that all bullying is wrong. This film risks giving children a disproportionate message about homophobic bullying, and other types of bullying could get over-looked. Schools and parents should be aware that this film is yet another vehicle to normalise same-sex relationships in the minds of very young children."
From Christian Concern
A classic from 2003, by Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online
There is a mystery at the heart of the gay-marriage debate. I call it the “libertarian question.” The libertarian question (really a series of questions) goes like this: Why should any form of adult consensual sex be illegal? What rational or compelling interest does the state have in regulating consensual adult sex? More specifically, how does the marriage of two gay men undermine my marriage? Will the fact that two married gay men live next door make me leave my wife? Hardly. So how, then, does gay marriage undermine heterosexual marriage? Why not get the state out of such matters altogether?
The libertarian question is mysterious because, in modern society, we find it difficult to understand the continuing necessity of shared moral standards — and of collective taboos against actions that violate those standards. Traditional societies depend on shared moral sentiments and collective taboos. Modern democracies, for the most part, have rejected these forms of collective morality in favor of an emphasis on personal freedom. Yet the truth is, although their workings are mysterious to us, shared moral codes (and a structure of taboos that guards those codes) can never be entirely dispensed with.
Let’s approach the libertarian question about gay marriage from a new angle. The flap over Senator Rick Santorum’s remarks has raised the question of incest. If homosexual sex is declared private, why won’t consensual adult incest fall under the same sort of protection?
London, 5 March 2014: A parents' rights group will urge the Secretary of State for Education to direct all primary schools to show a new homosexual bullying film to every parent before it is screened to children. The film, entitled "Free", has been produced by Stonewall, the homosexual rights group (see today's edition of "Metro", the free London newspaper).
Antonia Tully, national co-ordinator of Safe at School, said: "Parents should see this film before it is shown to their children. It is disingenuous to bill this film as a resource to crack down on bullying. Of course we want to see an end to bullying in schools, but bullying has become the smokescreen for promoting homosexuality to young, impressionable children."
Mrs Tully continued: "Most parents want their children to learn that all bullying is wrong. This film risks giving children a disproportionate message about homophobic bullying and other types of bullying could get over-looked. Schools and parents should be aware that this film is yet another vehicle to normalise same-sex relationships in the minds of very young children."
by Joseph Backholm, Family Policy Institute
The story is actually two years old, but it couldn't be more timely.
New Mexico Governor Suana Martinez believes that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Gov. Martinez also needs haircuts.
But two years ago, her hair stylist, Antonio Darden, said that he would refuse to cut the Governor's hair as long as she continues to support the natural and historical understanding of marriage.
According to Darden, "It's just equality, dignity for everyone. Everybody should be allowed the right to be together."
Why is it that you know about the florists, photographers, and bakeries who didn't want to be part of same-sex weddings but you don't know about the stylist who refused to cut the Governor's hair?
Instead of filing a lawsuit, Gov. Martinez simply found someone else to cut her hair.
By Ben Johnson, LifeSite News
Walt Disney World has decided it will stop funding the local Boy Scouts of America chapter beginning next year unless the childhood group allows open homosexuals to serve as Scoutmasters.
The Disney corporation said the BSA violates its non-discrimination policy. Disney World's VoluntEARS program allows employees to trade volunteer work for donations to a charity of their choice. But the scouts will no longer be eligible for these funds.
Disney World's VoluntEARS program allows employees to trade volunteer work for donations to a charity of their choice. But the scouts will no longer be eligible for these funds.
It is not clear how much money the amusement park provided to the scouts annually. However, that revenue stream may be available again if the scouts change their policy before January 1, 2015.
Homosexual groups said the decision is a sign of their growing influence in the culture, especially in the realm of children's entertainment.
Deena Fidas, the director of workplace equality for the Human Rights Campaign, said, “When you think about brands that exemplify childhood, you think of Disney, and with them dissociating with BSA, it speaks volumes of where we are with the views we want to send to young people."
On May 23, the Boy Scouts approved a resolution saying that “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”
But the group drew the line at adulthood and in the case of leaders.
March 3rd, 2014 Jill Posted in Gay Activism Comments Off
by David Virtue, VOL
The evangelical Anglican Archbishop of the largest province in the Anglican Communion has written a letter to the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali commending him for his stand against the "erroneous teaching and practice of homosexuality."
The Most Rev. Nicholas D. Okoh, Primate of Nigeria, called on the Ugandan Archbishop to "stand firm in upholding the authentic Gospel and the historic heritage of our Church by rejecting the erroneous teaching and practice of homosexuality.
"We further wish to encourage you to stand firm in your resolve to please God and not men; to remain immovable and to resist all manner of negative foreign influences," said Archbishop Okoh. He concluded his letter reassuring him of his support, friendship, fellowship and solidarity.
The Anglican Church of Uganda said it may consider breaking away from their mother church in England if it pressures Uganda over a tough new anti-homosexuality law recently enacted in Uganda.
"The issue here is respect for our views on homosexuality, same sex marriage as a country and church. If they are not willing to listen to us we shall consider being on our own," continued Archbishop Stanley Ntagali.
"Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture, and no one in the leadership of the church can say legitimize same sex unions or homosexuality," he said, urging the "governing bodies of the Church of England to not take the path advocated by the West".
"If they do we shall have no choice but to be on our own," he concluded.
March 3rd, 2014 Jill Posted in Gay Activism Comments Off
From World Net Daily
A recent military report on sexual assault in the military shocked many in Washington and around the nation, but a leading expert on military personnel revealed the prevalence of men assaulting other men is one of the major headlines in this study.
The extended analysis of the report first appeared in Monday’s edition of the the Washington Times.
The Defense Department survey of sexual assault in the military during fiscal 2012 estimated 26,000 assaults took place in the armed forces. Nearly 3,000 of them were formally reported. Just more than 6 percent of women reported being victims of assault and 1.2 percent of men said the same. Given the much larger number of men in the military, those numbers suggest 14,000 of the assaults in the Pentagon study happened to men.
Among the assaults formally reported, 88 percent of reports came from women and 12 percent from men. The numbers are getting dramatically worse.
“The number of reports of sexual assaults among military personnel have actually increased by 129 percent since 2004,” said Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who pointed out the number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949 in just eight years.
She told WND when factoring in civilians working for or around the military, the increase in that time is 98 percent.
By Brendan O'Neill, Spiked
Anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent should find the sweeping consensus on gay marriage terrifying.
I have been doing or writing about political stuff for 20 years, since I was 18 years old, during which time I have got behind some pretty unpopular campaigns and kicked against some stifling consensuses. But I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking. This is the only issue on which, for criticising it from a liberal, secular perspective, I’ve been booed during an after-dinner speech and received death threats (‘If you’re dead, you can’t talk shit about gay marriage’). It’s the only issue on which both hard right-wingers and the wettest leftists have told me to STFU. It’s the only issue on which even friends have said, ‘Stop writing about it. It isn’t worth it.’
Many are commenting on the juggernaut-like rise to respectability of the gay marriage issue. Christopher Caldwell of the Weekly Standard says gay marriage has gone ‘from joke to dogma’ in a decade. Time magazine says there has been a ‘seismic social shift’ on gay marriage, which has been ‘as rapid and unpredictable as any turn in public opinion [in history]’. Another gay-marriage supporter says ‘the pace and scale at which acceptance of marriage equality has shifted is breathtaking’, which he puts down to the efforts of the warriors for ‘marriage equality’. There has been a ‘sea change’ in attitudes, commentators tell us, especially in political circles, where everyone who’s anyone (or who wants to be) now genuflects at the gay-marriage altar. Even Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, scourge of liberals everywhere, now accepts the idea of gay marriage, leading one observer to tell gay-marriage proponents: ‘Lay down your guns… the enemy has surrendered.’
How do we account for this extraordinary consensus, for what is tellingly referred to as the ‘surrender’ to gay marriage by just about everyone in public life? And is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rightsy side won? I don’t think so. I don’t think we can even call this a ‘consensus’, since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It’s better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, ‘phobic’, or otherwise beyond the pale.
By Bishop David Anderson, AAC
By Bruce Hausknecht, CitizenLink
by J.C. von Krempach, J.D., Turtle Bay & Beyond
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D., C-Fam
Angry over not getting a same-sex-friendly definition of the family into a new UN document, the Obama Administration tried to delete language agreed upon by the founders of the UN and repeated in documents since then.
Regularly contentious in recent decades, the family has been a diplomatic football with one side eager to recognize “diverse forms of the family” while the other holds on to the understanding that the family is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” taken directly from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Behind closed doors, US negotiators asked to replace the definition of family from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a lengthy new description of families that have “diverse forms and functions” and express “diversity of individual preferences.”
The proposed definition excluded the notion of the natural family, based on the union of a man and woman, as the norm for the procreation and upbringing of children. The US effort was ultimately rejected by UN member states.
The move puts the United States in an odd position.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has almost sacred status at the United Nations. It is regarded, together with the UN Charter, as a founding document of the new world order set in place after World War II.
What’s more, the UN definition of the family is reflected in the constitutions of nearly 120 countries.
By Hilary White, LifeSite News
“I am a homosexual, but I’m against ‘gay marriage,’” a French pro-family activist told an Italian Catholic opinion paper earlier this month.
To the enemies of marriage equality:…For years and years I've strategically bit my tongue.Had I not, I would have sided with you. I would have agreed with you. Marriage equality will, in time, fundamentally destroy "traditional marriage," and I, for one, will dance on its grave.It's not a terribly difficult conclusion to draw.As same-sex couples marry, they will be forced to re-imagine many tenets of your "traditional marriage." In doing so, they will face a series of complicated questions…. As questions continually arise, heterosexual couples will take notice – and be forced to address how much "traditional marriage" is built on gender roles and perpetuates a nauseating inequality that has no place in 2014….So yes, I told a white lie while soldiering on toward this inevitable outcome. I bit my lip in favor of dignity and equality….
February 27th, 2014 Jill Posted in Gay Activism Comments Off
By Peter Baklinski, LifeSite News
An editor at Canada’s leading homosexual news agency has defended nudity at Toronto’s annual Pride parade, which is billed as a “family friendly” event.