Marriage makes babies

“As citizens of California,” Catholics need “to avail ourselves of the opportunity” to overturn the the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, said the California Catholic Conference in a statement issued last week.

The California Catholic Conference is the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops.

The way Catholics can overturn the ruling, said the conference’s Aug. 1 statement, is to vote for Proposition 8 on the November ballot. The initiative, “which reads,” said the bishops, “‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California’ … simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage — and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.”

The conference’s statement spoke of the importance of marriage for society and said that, while “cultural differences have occurred” in marriage, “what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.”

The state Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage was a “radical change in public policy” that will have “many profound effects on our society,” said the bishops’ statement. For one thing, the court’s decision “discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage — and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage.” The legalizing of same-sex marriage “diminishes the word ‘marriage’ to mean only a ‘partnership’ — a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children — if there are any — are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution,” said the bishops’ statement.

The statement insists that the bishops’ view of marriage and their opposition to same-sex marriage is drawn not only from Holy Scripture or “the wisdom of tradition,” but from “what can be known by reason alone.”

The bishops said that “same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions,” because marriage does not only embrace male/female “sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate.” Marriage, too, “mirrors God’s relationship with us,” since husband and wives “offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being,” said the conference’s statement. “Any other pairing — while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved — is not marriage.”

“Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters — even if they disagree with us,” said the statement. And to protect marriage, the bishops not only urged Catholics to vote for Proposition 8 in November but “to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed” for the initiative’s passage.

— California Catholic Daily

Democratic National Committee gave $25,000 to defeat Calif. marriage amendment

The Democratic National Committee has given $25,000 to help defeat a proposed constitutional marriage amendment in California, despite the fact that a significant percentage of Democrats in the state are expected to support it this fall.

The DNC’s donation was made to Equality for All, a leading homosexual activist group in the state seeking to keep “gay marriage” legal.

If passed, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would protect the natural definition of marriage, thus overturning the state supreme court’s May decision legalizing “gay marriage.”

The DNC’s donation and others like them have helped opponents of Prop 8 raise more than $6 million, according to tabulations by the Los Angeles Times. The donation was first listed on the California Secretary of State’s website in May about a week before the high court issued its decision.

The DNC’s donation isn’t a huge surprise, being that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean supports “gay marriage.” Additionally, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama opposes Proposition 8, calling it “divisive and discriminatory.”

Earlier this year Obama wrote a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club in which he declared, “I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.”

Exit polls in 2000 showed that about a third of Democrats in California voted for Proposition 22, a statute which banned “gay marriage.” It was one of several laws overturned by the California high court’s ruling. Proposition 8 would place nearly identical language as Proposition 22 in the constitution.

Proposition 8 reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in June passed a resolution urging Southern Baptists in California to work and vote for passage of the amendment and for all Southern Baptists and other Christians to pray for its passage. The resolution passed nearly unanimously.
–30–
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Los Angeles Times confuses the ‘gay marriage’ issue

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Baptist Press

The fact that the Los Angeles Times favors “same-sex marriage” is not a new revelation. To the contrary, the paper has positioned itself in support of “same-sex marriage” for some time.

Furthermore, no informed reader will be surprised to find that the paper’s editorial position is quite liberal. Given our cherished commitment to the freedom of the press, the paper has every right to position itself this way. Intelligent readers are responsible to be aware of this fact, and take this editorial posture into account when considering the paper’s coverage of controversial issues — like “same-sex marriage” and Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 will appear on the November ballot in California. The proposition — put on the ballot by public support — is an attempt to return the state’s marriage law to where it stood earlier this year, with marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.

California’s state constitution does not mention “same-sex marriage.” In 2000 the people of California voted by an overwhelming margin to pass an initiative, Proposition 22, which stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That is where the matter stood until May 15 of this year, when California’s Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 4-3 that “same-sex marriages” must be legalized and recognized in the state. Thus, Proposition 22 and all similar laws were struck down by the court, and the court ordered that the state must allow and recognize same-sex marriages effective approximately one month later.

Proposition 8 is a citizen-initiated response to that Supreme Court decision and an effort to return marriage in California to the legal definition effective as recently as May 14 of this year. The language of Proposition 8 mirrors that of Proposition 22, but differs in that it would amend the state constitution to define marriage.

The editors of the Los Angeles Times want voters to defeat Proposition 8 and, in effect, to confirm the action of California’s Supreme Court that overturned the will of voters expressed in 2000. The fact that the paper wants to see Proposition 8 defeated is not surprising, but the arguments employed by the paper’s editors are nothing less than breathtaking.

The paper speaks to the issue in an editorial published on Aug. 8. The editors began their arguments with this introductory paragraph:

“It’s the same sentence as in 2000: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.”

The editors argue that Proposition 8 would “rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.” The California Constitution still does not mention “same-sex marriage.” No such right existed before May 15. The right exists now only by judicial action, not by any amendment to the constitution.

But, even after referring to the marriage of same-sex couples as “an existing constitutional right,” the editors went even further to declare same-sex marriage a “fundamental right.”

In their words:

“The state of same-sex marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution. As such, it could not be denied to a protected group — in this case, gay and lesbian couples.

“What voters must consider about Proposition 8 is that, unlike Proposition 22, this is no longer about refining existing California law. In the wake of the court’s ruling, the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by revising constitutional rights themselves. Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, the court did rule that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a “fundamental right” — a right that is either enshrined within the constitution, drawn from the notion of natural rights, or a necessary implication of the constitution. The court also defined homosexuals as a protected group and thus deserving of a special attention in questions of rights.

But the California Supreme Court is not the final authority in such matters — the people are. The court and its decisions are ultimately accountable to the people, who can, when motivated by great concern or outrage, change the court’s composition or amend the constitution itself.

The editors of the paper write as if the decision of the California Supreme Court is unassailable, unchangeable and irreversible. None of these things is true. The court did declare “same-sex marriage” to be a fundamental right, but that decision is now, by definition, tentative and potentially temporary. California’s voters must keep this firmly in mind. The voters of California now have the opportunity to define and defend marriage and to return the state’s definition of marriage to where it stood just three months ago.

This entire controversy, illustrated by the paper’s editorial, is an illustration of the legal, cultural and moral breakdown described by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as “rights talk.” In her 1991 book, “Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse,” Glendon defined the problem as “our increasing tendency to speak of what is most important to us in terms of rights, and to frame nearly every social controversy as a clash of rights.”

Further:

“The most distinctive features of our American rights dialect are the very ones that are most conspicuously in tension with what we require in order to give a reasonably full and coherent account of what kind of society we are and what kind of polity we are trying to create: its penchant for absolute, extravagant formulations, its near-aphasia concerning responsibility, its excessive homage to individual independence and self-sufficiency, its habitual concentration on the individual and the state at the expense of the intermediate groups of civil society, and its unapologetic insularity. Not only does each of these traits make it difficult to give voice to common sense or moral intuitions, they also impede development of the sort of rational political discourse that is appropriate to the needs of a mature, complex, liberal, pluralistic development.”

“Rights talk” is what remains when deeper questions of right and wrong are taken off the table. The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right — and the responsibility — of California voters to define and defend marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

___________________________

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at AlbertMohler.com.

PFOX’s Regina Griggs is not a liar but her detractors are false accusers

Regina Griggs, President of Parents and Friend of Ex-Gays (PFOX), has been accused of lying to the public. The latest supposed bold-faced lie is a quote mentioned in an OneNewsNow article titled “PFOX: Children incapable of self-identifying sexually” published on July 26, 2008. The following is what she is quoted as saying:

“Why are we allowing people to tell them, ‘Try it — you might like it?’ Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,”

Although Griggs didn’t respond to my inquiry, the editor of OneNewsNow did identify a 2007 CDC source. I looked up that source. Here is what the June 28, 2007 CDC report states,

“MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.”

The CDC report goes on to state:

“HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.”

The quote above could be interpreted in at least one of two ways: (1) it could mean all 13-24 yr. old males are homosexuals and have HIV, which is how Grigg’s accusers seem to interpret it. (2) Of all homosexual males 13-24, 71% have HIV, which is the more likely meaning.

A review by Gregory Rogers of the 1979 book The Gay Report, which was written by members of the gay community, corroborates the CDC report. According to Rogers, about 50% of AIDS cases in the States (formerly 70%) are gay men. It may be assumed that 70% was the finding of The Gay Report researchers.

Whether Griggs was using old or new data, the facts demonstrate her detractors are false accusers.

California marriage advocates suing over amendment language change

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, filed a lawsuit yesterday to block a change made by California Attorney General Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary. The petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but the Attorney General has changed it to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative,” according to the LA Times. “This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned” when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns continued.

The paper reports that the move has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. “He is delivering something…that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote ‘No,’” said political analyst Tony Quinn, who added that changes this substantive are “highly unusual.”

In addition to the blatantly biased title change, the summary also has been changed and now predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. The Times article then quotes the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office saying that in the long run there would “likely be little fiscal impact.”

Obama Opposes California Marriage Amendment While McCain Supports It

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

As the California Marriage Amendment debate heats up Barack Obama and John McCain have made clear their respective positions on the issue.

Two weeks after the California Supreme Court announced its decision to allow same-sex couples to “marry”, opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in placing on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment which states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If passed, the measure would reverse the recent court decision.

Mr. Obama recently made his position public in a letter sent to a San Francisco homosexual activist group.

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” wrote Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

At the same time John McCain has announced his support for the California Protection of Marriage initiative in an email received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.

“I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions,” Mr. McCain stated.

In a press release commenting on the endorsement of Senator McCain, ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice said, “We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain. As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain’s position will be an important factor to millions of Californians.”

“Senator McCain has articulated a key feature of the initiative campaign, which is that voters and not judges should be determining this issue.”

“Over 61% of the electorate has already voted to reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman. Four activist judges on the California Supreme Court in San Francisco wrongly substituted their own narrow views for the opinion of over 4 million California voters. Fortunately, voters will be able to correct that mistake in November and restore the definition of marriage to our constitution.”

“We look forward to working with Senator McCain and many other elected leaders to accomplish this. We hope that U.S Senator Barack Obama will join Senator McCain in endorsing the initiative, and would welcome his support as well.”

Source: LifeSite News

Putting Adolescents at Risk

By Dale O’Leary

Males who self-identify as “gay” before age 18 are highly likely to have been victims of sexual abuse and/or to suffer from untreated Gender Identity Disorder (GID). This puts them at high risk for a number of negative outcomes. When these problems are untreated, the boys often act out in ways that draw negative attention to themselves. The strict restriction of bullying and other mistreatment by fellow students is, of course, important, but it is equally important to address the underlying problems. Even if an adolescent boy does not suffer from sexual abuse or GID, sexual activity combined with the predictable adolescent irresponsibility carries a high risk.

A study by Lemp and associates of sexual risk behaviors of young (ages 17-22) men who have sex with men found that 22% reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14, of these 15.2% were already HIV-positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15-19, 11.6% were HIV positive. While of those who began sex with men when they were 20-22 only 3.8% were HIV positive. It is clear that every year a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

The hope that identifying boys with same-sex attraction (SSA) and providing them with HIV prevention education will reduce the risk of infection is not supported by the research. According to a review of studies of HIV prevention programs, “the efficacy of health education interventions in reducing sexual risk for HIV infection has not been consistently demonstrated…More education, over long periods of time, cannot be assumed to be effective in inducing behavior changes among chronically high risk men.” (Stall, 1988) Although AIDS among MSM (men having sex with men) is no longer making headlines, the epidemic has not subsided. Of particular concern is the wide spread use of Crystal Meth in combination with unprotected sex (barebacking). (Halkitis 2005; Wainberg, 2006)

The Lemp study also found that of the 425 homosexuals males, ages 17 to 22, they surveyed, 41.4% reported an oc­casion of forced sex. (Lemp 1994) These young men would probably qualify as vic­tims of sexual abuse. Another study of 196 homosexually active men found that 29% reported that they had been pressured at least once into having sex. Of those pres­sured 97% said that one or more of these experiences involved unprotected anal inter­course, an HIV risk. (Kalichman 1995)

The study by Osmond also found evi­dence of sexual child abuse: “some of these subjects reported that they had first engaged in regular sex with a male when they were as few as 4 years old.”(Osmond 1994) The Remafedi study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually ac­tive boys 13 to 21 found that 42% had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi 1994)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to lifelong psychological prob­lems, includ­ing depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Those promoting in-school support groups for students who think they may be homosexual frequently point to the multitude of problems among adolescents with SSA. Sexual child abuse and sexual assault must be considered as possi­ble causes.

AIDS education, which provides chil­dren and adolescents with explicit infor­mation about various forms of sexual behavior that spread the disease, may create curiosity and en­courage experimentation among young men. AIDS education has also been used as a vehicle for promoting positive attitudes toward homo­sexuality and it is possible that the number of young men experimenting with homosexuality will increase. As support groups in schools for boys who think that they might be homosexual are being set up, these boys will be encouraged to “come out.” This “coming out” will probably include engag­ing in sexual activity at an ear­lier age and more often. These young men may also become part of the urban homosexual commu­nity, traveling to centers of homosexual ac­tivity where they are likely to encounter HIV-positive adults interested in engaging in sexual activity with attractive teenagers.

The following is the conclusion of a study of the association of health risk behaviors and sexual orientation: “GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance abuse use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.” (Garofalo 1998)

Since a certain percentage of males who experience SSA in adolescence find that these feelings disappear in time, schools should not encourage adolescent boys to “come out,” but offer positive support to deal with underlying problems.

_______________________________________________________________

Robert Garofalo, et al. (1998) “The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents,” Pediatrics, 101 (5) p. 895-898.

Halkitis, P., Wilton, L., Drescher, J. eds. (2005) Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches, Haworth Medical Press: NY

Kalichman, S., Rompa, D. (1995) Sexually Coerced and Noncoerced Gay and Bisexual Men: Factors Relevant to Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection. Journal of Sex Research. 32, 1: 45 – 50.

Lemp, G., Hirozawa, A., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katx, M. (1994) Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 6: 449:454.

Osmond, D., Page, K., Wiley, J., Garrett, K., Sheppard, H., Moss, A., Schrager, K., Winkelstein, W. (1994) HIV Infection in Homosexual and Bisexual Men 18 to 29 years of age: The San Francisco Young Men’s Health Study. American Journal of Public Health. 84, 12: 1933 – 1937.

Remafedi, G. (1994) Predictors of unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual youth: knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Pediatrics. 94 : 163 – 168.

Stall, R, Coates, T, Hoff, C (1988) “Behavior Risk Reduction for HIV Infection among gay and bisexual men,” American Psychologist, 43, 11: 883.

Wainberg, Milton et al. (2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health care professionals need to know, Haworth Medical Press, NY.

This article is online at http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=239#239

Equal Access : A PFOX Request

“This is not just a conservative issue. Liberals, too, believe in human rights. This is a broader human rights issue, because people have the right to make their own decisons about their personal life — to stay in homosexuality, or to change.”

— Arthur Goldberg of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality)

Is your job or school holding a gay pride/diversity/tolerance activity? If so, would you request that they also hold an ex-gay event or include an ex-gay speaker? If your school or work sponsors a gay event or speaker, then it should also provide equal access to other sexual orientations, including ex-gays. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) will help you by providing a speaker and informative handouts for the ex-gay event.

At a time when former homosexuals face increasing intolerance, ex-gay presentations are more important than ever for others to recognize and appreciate the ex-gay community. Equal access by ex-gays supports sexual orientation diversity and tolerance.

Ask your job or school to sponsor an ex-gay event or speaker today! Below is a sample email PFOX sent to one place (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture — USDA) which celebrated a gay pride event last month:

_______________

We are Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), a non-profit organization serving families and the ex-gay community.

In your celebration of Gay and Lesbian Pride month, please consider inviting an ex-gay speaker to address one of your events. In a December 8, 2005 letter to PFOX, the Director of the USDA Office of Civil Rights affirmed that ex-gays are included in the Department of Agriculture’s non-discrimination policies. We urge you to include positive portrayals of ex-gays in your events for next year, thereby enabling former homosexuals to be open and honest about their lives in the workplace. PFOX can assist you with speakers, brochures, and handouts.

We look forward to your response. Thank you for your work as civil servants on behalf of the American people.

Sincerely,

Regina Griggs
Executive Director
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays
PFOX

Box 561, Fort Belvoir VA 22060
703-360-2225
pfox@pfox.org
http://www.pfox.org

PFOX Exposes Dangers Of Self-Identifying As ‘Gay’ Before Maturity

The Washington Post recently ran a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school.

“What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20% each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling.* Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.

“Schools should not be encouraging teens to self-identify as gays, bisexuals or transgendered persons before they have matured. Sexual attractions are fluid and do not take on permanence until early adulthood. Rather than affirming teenagers as ‘gay’ through self-labeling, educators should affirm them as people worthy of respect and encourage teens to wait until adulthood before making choices about their sexuality. If teens are encouraged to believe that they are permanently ‘gay’ before they have had a chance to reach adulthood, their life choices are severely restricted and can result in depression.”

Ex-Gay Viewpoint Suppressed

Griggs also notes that schools with Gay Straight Alliance clubs are notorious for suppressing ex-gay organizations or individuals supporting tolerance for the ex-gay community. “GSA clubs and their teacher sponsors make schools unsafe for anyone who has rejected the ‘gay’ label in their lives or who believes in ex-gay equal rights. Our efforts to reach all students are typically met with hostility and violence. Time after time, we have faced hostile gay students and teachers ripping up our ex-gay materials or demanding that we be banned from distributing our materials on campuses.”

The National Education Association’s Ex-Gay Educators Caucus recommends diversity and inclusion of the ex-gay viewpoint in public schools, but this is seldom the case, according to Griggs. “What we find is that Gay Straight Alliance leaders and their school officials routinely suppress the ex-gay viewpoint and bully into silence anyone who dares to speak up for ex-gay equality and tolerance. If schools truly cared about diversity, they would include the diversity of the ex-gay community. Former homosexuals and their supporters should have the same kind of access to public schools that GSA clubs currently enjoy.”

Griggs concludes: “Article such as the one in the Post fail to tell both sides of the bullying debate and endanger the lives of sexually confused and troubled youth who should be discouraged from self-labeling as gay, bisexual or transgendered.”

PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org.

*(Source: Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth by Remafedi, Farrow, and Deisher, in Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics 87: 869-875 June 1991.)

Protesting smut opera: the Jerry Springer production

You don’t have to be Catholic to detest production like Jerry Springer–The Opera in Concert. It is as despicable as the Springer show–maybe worse if that’s possible. That should make its anti-Christian, anti-moral, anti-decency content offensive to just about every parent, moral, and religious person everywhere.

I learned about this productions continued showing in America from the The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. TFP was born as counter-revolutionary mission by a group of Catholic Americans concerned about the multiple crises shaking every aspect of American life. American TFP was formed in 1973 to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property. They seek to defend, maintain, and restore our Christian civilization.

In a recent article titled When Opera Is Offensive: Protesting a Jerry Springer Production, American TFP outlined a few examples of the offense features that the “opera” includes:

• The crucifixion is mocked and the Eucharist is trashed.

 

• There is a lady singing “Jerry eleison” (mocking the Mass: Kyrie Eleison).

 

• Jesus is introduced as “the hypocrite son of the fascist tyrant on high.” He wears a diaper, is fat and effeminate and later admits: “Actually, I am a bit gay.”

 

• Eve gropes Jesus in a manner too indecent to describe while the Annunciation is described as a rape.

 

• God is a fat man in a white suit who complains about being blamed for everyone’s problems. He invites Jerry Springer to join Him to “sit in Heaven beside me, hold my hand and guide me.” At the end, Jerry emerges as the true savior of mankind.

 

The American TFP protests such an indecent portrayal and finds objectionable the fact that God and Christ are made to say the most filthy and absurd things. The profanity-laced production considers nothing sacred.

The “opera” has earned its blasphemous reputation. In London, the debut was the subject of a libel suit for defaming Christians. When it was to be aired on the BBC, it drew more than 60,000 complaints, according to TFP.

In America, TFP and supporters have already been active in protesting this production. “Hundreds of people were out for opening night at Carnegie Hall in New York last January.” Since they learned of the plan to put on the show in Cincinnati, the Cincinnati theater has admitted having received 14,000 letters from TFP supporters protesting the show.

In face of such insults to the Faith, Christians cannot remain silent. Other people of religious and moral conviction cannot remain silent either for the simple reason that their beliefs and moral values will be attacked next. That is why the TFP is asking us to make our voices heard by sending an e-protest which will be forwarded to both theaters automatically. Please attend the public act of reparation at the New Stage Collective in Cincinnati! (To do so, go here.)

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property web address is http://www.tfp.org.

New Youth Convention Threatens to Promote Homosexuality, Abortion

By Piero A. Tozzi

(C-FAM June 19. 2008) With the recent addition of Bolivia, seven counties have now ratified a treaty called the Ibero-American Convention on the Rights of Youth (ICRY), a document that worries Latin American social conservatives for its not-so-veiled promotion of radical social policies. The document includes references to “sexual and reproductive health” as well as “sexual orientation.”

Representatives from 14 Latin countries and the two major Iberian nations, Spain and Portugal, signed the Convention in Badajoz, Spain, in October 2005. The Organización Iberoamericana de Juventud (OIJ) spearheaded the drafting of the ICRY, with backing from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and Spain’s socialist government.

In accordance with its provisions, the treaty went into effect on March 1 after Costa Rica became the fifth country to adopt the document. In addition to Costa Rica, the other countries that have formally ratified the ICRY are Bolivia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Spain, and Uruguay.

The Convention has met some resistance, however. The Peruvian Congress rejected the treaty over concerns that “sexual orientation” language was a backdoor attempt to soften resistance to homosexual “marriage.” Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador and Andorra have thus far refrained from signing ICRY, and Mexican pro-family groups are running a campaign urging Mexican President Felipe Calderón that the government not ratify it.

The Madrid Declaration, a separate document issued in November 2005 to promote “sexual and reproductive health rights” signed by the OIJ, specifically referenced implementing ICRY’s sexual education provision. Article 23 of the ICRY states that sex education will be imparted at “all educational levels,” oriented “to full acceptance and identity [of sexuality], as well as the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases.”

Latin American pro-lifers are wary of inclusion of a right to “sexual and reproductive health.” The term has been used by UN agencies and powerful non-governmental organizations as a stalking horse for promoting abortion, even though no international treaty has defined reproductive health synonymously with abortion.

Under the ICRY, countries are required to report every two years to OIJ’s Secretary General. There is, however, no formal compliance monitoring mechanism, and ICRY’s juridical scope is not clearly defined. Supporters nevertheless see it as a “legal tool” for young people whose rights under the Convention have been breached. On the eve of the Convention’s entry into force, Costa Rica’s ambassador to Spain, Melvin Alfredo Saenz, reportedly told OIJ’s Secretary General Eugenio Ravinet Muñoz that his nation was fulfilling both an “ethical obligation” and a “juridical duty” in ratifying the ICRY.

An upcoming July Andean region youth and human rights gathering in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, sponsored by the Comisión Andina de Juristas and the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, is expected to focus on how to utilize ICRY as a juridical instrument. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, representatives from government, civil society and academia will obtain specialized training in human rights implementation using the ICRY.

—————————————————-

It’s true–the United Nations doesn’t promote abortion on demand. They just mandated it. Their many followers are leading the unborn lambs of their people to the slaughter. Seeing that Jesus died and rose again. I still suspect He will soon answer those that hate Him and love so much convenience killing. When he does, the nations, if not the world, will never be the same.

The underlying problem of many religious people wooed into believing the secular lies and lifestyles is the lack of understanding the rule of law. Jesus death was not about grace as much as it was the complete satisfaction of God legal justice. God grace cannot exist without the total satisfaction of the divine moral law. Just as the penalty for crime is never forgiveness, so too the penalty for sin or moral crime is always and everywhere capital punishment. Murders are never acquitted until tried and found not guilty. Moral crime is never acquitted without the death of the criminal or a willing sinless substitute–Jesus is the one and only. Secularists mock God and his law, but God will mock them with legal fairness and equality of justice by the truth.

It may not seem that God’s judgment is beginning to be executed but I believe it is. Consider what the gospels record about the times before the final judgment: it will be like in the days of Noah and of Lot.
Noah’s day was on of violence and indifference to God. Lot lived in a multicultural and tolerant culture where homosexuality and heterosexuality coexisted as normative. Yet, the gays attempted to defile holy angels that visited it, which means the end-game of sexual politics–justification of all immorality– seeks to destroy all morality and moral purity. That is what U.N. and all other secularists are all about.

If Latin American youth want freedom, a good and healthy life, and freedom, they will eliminate the sexual politics of immorality from their law and culture.

California frontier of the moral battle against totalitarian gay politics

On Tuesday, June 17, the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex “marriage” takes effect and thousands of homosexual couples are expected to tie the knot this year. County clerks will be required by law to issue new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

After the California’s Supreme Court claimed gays had a constitutional right to marriage, the attorney generals of ten states requested that the Court delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage until after the November elections. The Supreme Court refused the request.

Organizations like California Family Council and Campaign for Children and Families also requested that the Court delay the ruling because California citizens have placed a marriage amendment on the November 4 ballot that will restrict marriages to one man and one women. To qualify for the ballot, 694,354 petition signatures were needed, but proponents of the amendment collected 1,120,801 signatures in late April.

It should not be forgotten that California went through this same issue years ago. Citizens passed law called Proposition 22 that restricted marriage to one man and one women. Apparently, California’s judges do not care about either law or the majority of citizens. They are more concerned with advancing liberal agendas.

At least some county officials, however, have stopped conducting any civil marriage ceremonies. On June 13, Virginia-based Liberty Counsel asked the 1st District Court of Appeals to temporarily prohibit all county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until after the November election. Their decision is not yet known.

The good news is that a majority of Californians support the marriage amendment. Capitol Resource Institute conducted a national survey in which respondents were asked: Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal and binding in America? California answers this question “yes” 56.20%, and “no” 43.80%.

One of California’s (and America’s) problems is the liberal clergy who pretend to represent Jesus Christ and God. The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California issued a letter encouraging all gay couples to get a civil marriage married and then seek the Episcopal Church’s blessing. As Jesus’ apostle Paul said, Satan comes as an angel of light. I suspect the Lord of the Church will soon judge such liberals who, like Jezebel and the Nicolaitans mentioned in the Book of the Revelation, serve Satan and the politics of immorality.

The shining white lie is that Christians should not judge but loving tolerate the politics of immorality. However, scripture says to judge others according the results of their behaviors and “prophets” according to their words. Speakers for God will not contradict what He has already revealed through prior prophets, apostles, and Jesus.

Sources:

Nathan Black, California County Halts Wedding Ahead of Gay Marriage Rush, The Christian Post June 2008.

Associated Press, 10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay ‘Marriage’, May 31, 2008.

Lisa Leff, Gay ‘Marriage’ Ban Qualifies for California Ballot, June 3, 2008.

Associated Press, Group Asks Lower Calif. Court to Stop Gay ‘Marriages’, June 13, 2008.

Karen England, New Poll Finds Majority of Californians Support Traditional Marriage, Christian Newswire, June 2, 2008

Lillian Kwon, Calif. Bishop Drives Gay ‘Marriage’ Momentum to Church, The Christian Post, June 12, 2008.

Sexual politics in Argentina, an example of its global reach

(Catholic News Agency) The president of Worldwide Action of Parliamentarians and Leaders for Life and the Family, Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, warned this week the sex-ed program approved by the Federal Education Council of Argentina violates the fundamental rights of parents.

The contents of the program violate “the constitutional right of parents to participate in the education of their children in conformity with their intimate principles and convictions, violating the private sphere of the family and with that the guarantees conferred by the Constitution and by international agreements.”

Argentina’s Federal Education Council approved a sex-ed program that will be obligatory in all schools, from elementary to high school.

Along with education to promote immorality and drive business to abortion clinics, Argentine is facing the similar onslaught of gay socialist politics. The following is Catholic News Agency‘s report:

Pedro Zerolo, a well-known homosexual activist and the executive secretary of Spain’s Socialist Party (PSOE), traveled last week to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay—where he met with president-elect and former bishop Fernando Lugo—to promote gender ideology and the legalization of gay marriage in South America.

After meeting with Lugo, Zerolo said Spain and Paraguay would work together on issues of poverty, education, gender and climate change. Zerolo also met with feminist and homosexual groups, telling them he is hopeful Paraguay will “develop policies with a gender perspective.”

In Argentina Zerolo met with President Cristina Kirchner, encouraging her to “move into the future” by allowing the approval of a measure that would legalize gay unions and give gay couples the right to adopt children. If Kirchner gives the green light, the measure would go before the Argentinean Congress.

“The same people who didn’t want anything to change in Spain will oppose this law here. But I’m not worried about protests from the right and from the Church,” Zerolo said.

Zerolo was president in 1993 of the Gay Collective of Madrid. In 1998 he was elected president of the State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals. He won reelection to the post in 2000 and 2002.

As a member of Spain’s Socialist party, he was one of the main supporters of the legalization of homosexual unions in Spain. He participated in various attempts to get Spain’s Congress to modify the law on gay issues.

In 2005 he legalized his union with his gay partner. In addition to working for the Socialist Party, he is a Madrid city council member and a confidant of President Jose Luis Zapatero.

The sexual politics of fascists extends beyond America. It is global. Fascists, socialists, liberals, secularists seek to replace all public morality with their unnatural and immoral forms of relational values. Family values are largely moral ones. Just as the family is the foundation of society, morality is the means to a good society. Fascist sexual politics including homosexuality is an agenda that is good only for those who hate morality. Fascist sexual practice is a crime of multitudinous dimensions: It is a crime against God’s moral law; it is a crime against societal good; it is a crime against the family; it is a crime against children; it is a crime against human nature; it is a crime against humanity. If taken to its logical conclusion, fascist sexual politics seeks to destroy society only to satisfy their bondage to their hedonism, and the gay lifestyle leads to the end of society. An honest gay lifestyle can never produce the next generation.

Of course, fascists sexual politics is more often based on deception and lies than honesty. The women involved in Roe v Wade and Jane Doe have testified before the US Congress that their abortion cases were based on fraudulent claims. Sex education was founded on fraudulent sex research by Prof. Kinsey. Gays want everyone to believe their lies about how they were born gay or that their is some sort of gay DNA.

The louder they accuse their moral opponents of hate or homophobia the more it becomes evident that they hate God and human morality as created by God.

There are ways to their political agenda. God still answers the prayer of His people. God can thwart their political agenda and redeem their soul. People who still hold to natural morality can collective stand against their politics by protesting any and all efforts to their social and political leaders. Now is the time.

Louisiana defeats a fascist bill that would make gays a protected class

The Louisiana legislature defeated bill HB 981 Homosexual Privileges Bill on May 30. Rep. LaFonta’s bill would have forced government agencies to add homosexuality as a protected class under hiring practices.

Fascist gay activists and politicians are seeking to convince local, state, and federal government to pass this type of bill. The bill is sometimes called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA was defeated in Congress earlier this year. Whether as legislation or local ordinance, this type of law will force communities and individuals businesses and landlords to violate their First Amendment rights.

Gay rights law is the end game of liberal politics. As explained by Jonah Goldberg, the history of American liberalism is the development of fascist socialism similar to Italy’s Mussolini, Russia’s Marixist-Lennonism, Germany’s Nazism, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal carried forward by Lyndon B, Johnson’s Great Society. All of them shared the same basic ideals. The sexual politics of liberals has long been a direct effort to replace western biblically-based moral values with those usually defined as humanism. An all encompassing term for all of these political, social, and value systems is secularism.

The oft-repeated slander of the Left that the religious view, moral values, and political principles of America’s founding are somehow antiquated is the lie of propagandists. The political ideals and the moral values on which they were justified are common to human nature. The natural law basis of the Constitution is not rooted in modern secular ideals. The two are conflicting opposites. Natural law is reasoned from human nature and moral law. Human nature doesn’t change and consequently neither does moral law. The Left opposes this in order to foist upon all their immorality. Homosexuality is unnatural behavior and it is immoral. Not discriminating against it is a crime against nature.

All states should follow Louisiana’s lead.

Pass constitutional amendment thwart fascist gay agenda

The May 29 editorial on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment concluded that marriage is not under threat in Florida yet. This is an unsupportable assertion.

The liberal gay activists are unrelenting in their effort to find a judge or official in any and every state who will rule that the current legal definition of marriage somehow violates their state constitution, allowing same-sex marriages.

California, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Maryland, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon and New Jersey have struggled with this specific issue.

Florida does not exist in a cocoon unaffected by what is going on in other states.

As proof, our own attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, recently has joined eight other states in requesting the California Supreme Court to postpone the implementation of its pro-gay marriage decision until after the November ballot on the California marriage amendment.

If the traditional definition of marriage is in our constitution, then Florida is protected (at least as best as Florida voters can do on their own).

The Times-Union editorial recommends that those who would protect traditional marriage wait and act after that sought-after judge somewhere in Florida rules that gays have the state constitutional right to marry.

This is a dubious strategy at best! Stand back and do nothing, while the gay activists continue to hammer away in court after court until they achieve victory? Then act?

If marriage is worth defending later, it is worth defending now.

Twenty-seven states have passed such constitutional amendments.

The issue on this amendment is simple.

Is marriage in Florida to remain the union of only one man and one woman?

Or, is it to be radically changed to include same-sex marriages and then later perhaps polygamy or even group marriages?

If we permit same-sex couples to marry, on what rational, logical, consistent basis do we then deny marriage to the polygamists? The group-marriage proponents?

This is the right time to have this amendment on the ballot. This is the right time for its passage.

Source: Yes2Marriage.org

Opponents of Florida’s Marriage Amendment Mail Thousands of Dishonest and Factually Incorrect Letter to Petition Signers

Yes2Marriage.org has learned that the group opposing the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Red and Blue, has sent deceptive letters containing false and misleading information to what appears to be hundreds of thousands of voters who signed the Florida4Marriage.org petitions. The first of these letters, which began to be received by voters on Monday, May 12, further emphasizes the group’s strategy to attack Amendment 2 by trying to trick Floridians and misguide voters instead of debate the policy issue of whether homosexual marriages are good for Florida.

First, their direct mail piece states “people collecting petitions are not always honest about the issues they are pushing-especially if they are being paid by the signature.” This is a deliberate and verifiably false statement. At no time during the collection of marriage petitions were paid petition gathers used. 100% of the petitions were collected by volunteer citizens in communities throughout Florida.

Second, their “hit” mail piece further states that voters were “misinformed” when they signed the petition. That is an insult to the intelligence of the more than 650,000 Florida voters who signed the petition knowing full well the importance of marriage to children, families and the common good of society. Florida wants the people and not judges deciding this issue. Activist judges gave Massachusetts the first homosexual marriages– and judges just this past year in Iowa, Maryland, and California have tried to do the same.

Adding to the deliberate misrepresentations, the letter goes on to state that the Amendment will take away rights from “millions of Floridians.” Yet, the Florida Supreme Court approved the language of the amendment in 2006 and stated in their opinion: “the voter is merely being asked to vote on the singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to the union of one man and one woman.” (Advisory Opinion, Page 3). The fact is that every legal authority in Florida holds that Amendment 2 does one thing and one thing alone. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and it does not affect existing rights in anyway.

One needs only look at the signer of the letter to see that homosexual activists are behind the so called “Florida Red and Blue” group. The letter is signed by Dwain Wall, a board member of Florida Red and Blue. Mr. Wall is also the managing partner of Bridge Lifestyle Communities in Palm Beach, an exclusively gay and lesbian residential community.

The leaders of Florida Red and Blue would do a huge service to the people of Florida if they simply came clean and discussed the real issue addressed by the amendment – protecting marriage between a man and a woman. The fact is that they can not debate the public policy merits of same-sex marriage, because they are afraid they will lose like they have in the 27 other states which have also protected marriage in their state constitutions by overwhelming majorities.

For more information about the facts on Amendment 2, please visit www.Yes2Marriage.org. To schedule a media interview on this topic please call (407)251 -1957 or e-mail us at Media@Yes2Marriage.org

Colorado law signals end of gender-specific restrooms

Yesterday – May 29, 2008 – Colorado’s Governor Bill Ritter signed into law a bill that makes it illegal in that state to discriminate against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people when buying a home, renting an apartment or using public accommodations.

There are many laws already in place or under consideration – including the one currently under consideration by Ohio’s Legislature – that establish sexual orientation, gender identity and/or transgendered status as a protected class under civil rights laws. Any such law is inherently discriminatory and is a threat to some of our most fundamental freedoms.

But the Colorado law is particularly egregious.

It is the section of the law that addresses public accommodations that makes it so. This aspect of the law would make it legal for those who identify themselves as transgendered – i.e., those who were born one gender but identify themselves with the other, even temporarily – to use any public restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.

Read the statement of Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family:

“Who would have believed that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?

“Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence. The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and ‘public facilities of any kind.’ Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.

“This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially ‘bought’ state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!

“And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse.”

This is beyond belief! Pray for our country.

Source: Center for Community Values, Citizens’ E-Courier, May 30, 2008.

California Clerks Urged to Follow Marriage Laws Despite Refusal by California Supreme Court and Governor Schwarzenegger

With both the California Supreme Court and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refusing to abide by constitutional separation of powers and the California statutes recognizing only man-woman marriages, a leading California pro-family organization has contacted county clerks to urge them to be the last and best defense for man-woman marriage licenses.

On May 27, Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) faxed letters and documentation to 38 of 58 county clerks, where the man-woman marriage ethic is its strongest in California. Already several clerks have responded, telling CCF they intend NOT to issue any same-sex “marriage” licenses.

CCF’s letter and legal documentation reached clerks on Wednesday, the same day that the Schwarzenegger administration sent clerks altered marriage license application forms, replacing the statutory “bride”/“groom” requirement with unlawful “Party A” and “Party B” designations.

“We’re encouraging the clerks to abide by the express will of the written California Constitution and the man-woman marriage statutes, and to respect the democratic process which will be decided at the ballot box in November, by not issuing marriage licenses to anyone but a man and woman,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “The judges and the Governor are violating the Constitution and the statutes, but county clerks know they have a duty follow the statutes, which haven’t been changed yet. Clerks don’t have to issue homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses, and they shouldn’t.”

Gary Kreep, executive director of the San Diego-based United States Justice Foundation, is offering pro bono legal counsel to clerks who resist the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling:

“We’re asking that you please decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless and until the Legislature changes the marriage statutes, the People change the Constitution, and/or all legal options have been exhausted,” Kreep wrote the clerks. “By doing so, you will follow California law, respect the democratic process, and avoid being drawn into what dissenting California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter called the ‘majority’s foreclosure of this ordinary democratic process.’”

Source: Campaign for Children and Families, May 29, 2008.