The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it’s facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations: homosexuality.

To many onlookers, this seems strange or even tragic. Why can’t Christians just join the revolution?

And make no mistake, it is a moral revolution. As philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University demonstrated in his recent book, “The Honor Code,” moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But this is hardly the case with the shift we’ve witnessed on the question of homosexuality.

In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than “moral deficiency.”

The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By now the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives lose. Next, the denomination ordains openly gay candidates or decides to bless same-sex unions.

This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God’s revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. We believe that God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the way to holiness, but to true happiness.

Thus we cannot accept the seductive arguments that the liberal churches so readily adopt. The fact that same-sex marriage is a now a legal reality in several states means that we must further stipulate that we are bound by scripture to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman—and nothing else.

We do so knowing that most Americans once shared the same moral assumptions, but that a new world is coming fast. We do not have to read the polls and surveys; all we need to do is to talk to our neighbors or listen to the cultural chatter.

In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.

This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is what we truly believe.

It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.

My hope is that evangelicals are ready now to take on this challenge in a new and more faithful way. We really have no choice, for we are talking about our own brothers and sisters, our own friends and neighbors, or maybe the young person in the next pew.

There is no escaping the fact that we are living in the midst of a moral revolution. And yet, it is not the world around us that is being tested, so much as the believing church. We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach.

==============================

>>Christians Urged to Wake Up to Reality of GLBT Agenda (Christian Post, 101019)

Dr. Michael Brown believes Christians have already lost the battle when it comes to public opinion on homosexuality and gender identity issues.

Pro-gay books are being read in elementary school classrooms, teachers are being mandated to use gender neutral language, gay activists have been welcomed in the White House, and young evangelicals see no problem with same-sex marriage.

Yet the prevailing thought in churches is that “this stuff is happening elsewhere” or that Jesus is coming back soon and “we’re out of here any minute,” Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus, lamented.

“[We can] put our heads in sand or we can recognize that massive transformation is happening in our society right in front of our eyes, on our watch,” he told Christians over the weekend at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, N.C.

Author of 20 books, Brown has spoken to revival in America, the need for moral and cultural revolution and Jewish outreach throughout his ministry career. But homosexual issues were never on his radar.

“This is not something that made sense for me to focus on,” he said.

It was just six years ago when he felt a divine mandate to start dealing with the issue.

Since then he has realized that many Christians have largely avoided the issue as well.

“The definitions of male and female are being eroded but don’t sweat it because praise the Lord you had a lovely service last Sunday,” he said sarcastically. “Don’t let me disturb you with these trivialities.”

Brown wants to awaken the conscious of Christians and bring them to a “divine reality” about what’s happening in America.

There is a need to reach out to homosexual men and women with compassion, he said, but at the same time there is “a gay activist agenda that we must resist.”

The speaker and author listed a host of examples, particularly in the public school system, to demonstrate how much GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) activism has advanced.

Currently, the Los Angeles Unified School District has a policy on “ensuring equity and nondiscrimination” for “transgender and gender nonconforming students.” The policy defines gender identity as “one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

In San Francisco, the school policy for restroom accessibility states, “Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.”

And the policy for locker room accessibility states, “Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.

In other words, if Joey’s convinced he’s Jane, then he can use the girls’ locker room and restroom, Brown summarized.

Pro-gay books have also become prevalent in the classrooms. Just ten years ago, it was difficult to get a copy of Heather Has Two Mommies. Now, Brown has been able to collect stacks of similar children’s books.

They include One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads; Two Daddies and Me; Oh The Things Mommies Do!: What Can Be Better Than Having Two?; and the coloring book Girls Will Be Boys Will Be Girls.

Recently, middle school students in Washington, D.C., were given surveys that asked them about their gender (male, female or transgender) and sexual orientation (straight, bisexual, gay or lesbian, nor sure).

Even the largely religious state of North Carolina is not exempt. A preschool teacher in Charlotte was told not to address the class as “boys and girls” but rather as “friends.” In Burke, one Christian girl quit her high school softball team because she was the only non-lesbian, Brown said.

Many schools are also using the Riddle Homophobia Scale, where repulsion, pity, tolerance, and acceptance are measured as homophobic. Meanwhile, “positive levels of attitudes” that are encouraged toward GLBT persons include support, admiration, appreciation, and nurturance.

“Like it or not, this is coming to a community near you,” Brown warned.

All the while, Christians have not concerned themselves with the issue and pastors are afraid to speak out for fear of being perceived as homophobic, he lamented.

“The fact is, when our answer is ‘let’s retreat more quickly,’ we’re already defeated,” Brown said. “When our main concern is ‘I don’t want to be perceived as bigoted, intolerant and hateful, therefore I’ll say nothing instead of speaking truth in love,’ we’re already defeated.”

There is an abysmal lack of teaching and preaching on the issue, he pointed out.

“We’ve been silent because this is unpopular, because people will be offended, because ‘one of my biggest givers in the church has a daughter who’s gay.’”

And while some may be extra sensitive in these times because of the recent bullying of GLBT students and teen suicides spotlighted in the media, Brown pointed out that there are some 4,000 to 5,000 suicides a year among teens and little is said about the other kids.

“I want to find out what these real problems are so we can address them,” he commented.

Brown made clear that he isn’t trying to stir up anything hateful. Rather he is speaking out of love and a broken heart. He also stressed that he is not an alarmist or extremist and that he has done careful research.

“If I’ve given you information, it’s based on facts. It’s not cherry picking things to give a misleading impression,” he said.

He has packed all the collected information into a 475-page book that is slated for release in February.

Though he has published with major publishers before, no secular or Christian publisher was willing to go near his new book, titled A Queer Thing Happened to America: What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

His book was rejected by about 20 publishers, all of whom said the title needs to be changed and that the contents are too controversial.

“You have Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, kindergarten kids being taught terms like gender queer, queer theology and study programs in our schools, and [yet] to have a book [titled A Queer Thing Happened to America] is too controversial to touch,” Brown said.

The book, he stressed, does not have a single hateful syllable in it. He calls for compassion and understanding of gay and lesbian persons while taking issue with gay activism.

“We fail to understand the struggles,” he said. “Can you imagine what someone goes through, raised in the Lord and believing they must be condemned, crying themselves to sleep every night, hoping that they’ll change the next day and their desires don’t change. And then they meet someone and they love this person and they feel like it’s God but it can’t be God and they have to be celibate for the rest of their life and as the best answer you tell them to just suck it up.”

Brown is calling on Christians to repent of their sins against the GLBT community, particularly for making homosexuality out to be the worst of sins. He himself has made public apologies.

He is also challenging the church community to repent of sins within its own household (i.e. high divorce rate).

At the same time, he believes the GLBT issue is the greatest challenge to religious freedoms and family foundations in this generation and is something Christians cannot ignore.

“We must pray for awakening in the church. America’s messed up because the church is messed up, “he said. “This has happened on our watch.

“We must take a stand for righteousness in our society. We’re called to ... expose darkness and to be a moral conscience and moral preservative. If we’re not shining the light, if we’re not making a difference ... how’s the world going to have a moral conscience and know the difference between right and wrong.”

Brown has created his own publishing firm called Equal Time Books to get his book out on shelves. With the release of his book next year, he’ll also be launching a speaking tour called Campaign for Religious Tolerance and Intellectual Diversity.

==============================

>>Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights? (Christian Post, 091012)

President Obama’s speech this past weekend made it “abundantly clear” that America is looking at “a new era for civil rights for LGBT people,” said one gay rights advocate.

The address on Saturday at an event hosted by the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization “drew a clear line in the sand for the world to see: this administration believes in and will work with the LGBT community and our allies to achieve full equality under the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans,” said Mitchell Gold, founder of nonreligious organization Faith in America.

“President Obama’s presence and words represented his recognition that LGBT people are a normal part of our diverse society.”

It was an evening of standing ovations and loud applause as thousands of gay rights supporters heard Obama say he is on their side. He called LGBT people his friends and assured them that despite some of the pressing issues, including the economy, on his desk he remains “unwavering” in his commitment to them.

“We cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality,” Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign’s 13th Annual National Dinner. “This fight continues now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight.”

Many are hailing Obama as the first U.S. president to express such strong commitment to the LGBT people.

HRC president Joe Solmonese stated, “This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

During his speech Saturday, Obama said his administration is “moving ahead” on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. He promised to sign into law an inclusive hate crimes bill, which would expand federal protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people; push the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; and repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The issue of marriage drew out the most emotion and applause from the crowd. Obama noted that when they look back over the years of his administration, they will “see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

Obama also made it no secret that he wants to go beyond policy changes and change hearts.

“There are still fellow citizens...good and decent people who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes who fail to see your families like their families,” he said. “Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides?”

While it was no surprise that Obama would address HRC members, conservatives were shocked to hear Obama promise what they consider “radical cultural changes.”

Prominent evangelical and Southern Baptist theologian R. Albert Mohler Jr. said Obama’s words “represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated.”

“It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this – to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage,” the seminary president commented.

Following Obama’s remarks, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, similarly said it was clear from the speech that Obama’s goal is not simply equal legal rights but rather “to overturn millennia of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.”

He further called the president out for neglecting to mention that “all of this will be forced on the American people who in the last election gave the President a mandate to fix the economy – not enact radical social policy changes such as allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.”

“President Obama tried to hide his pro-homosexual agenda during the presidential campaign. With the election behind him and a liberal Congress beside him, he is now positioned to move forward an agenda with the ultimate goal of redefining marriage at the expense of religious liberty,” he said.

In a statement Sunday, Perkins’ organization vowed to work to defeat Obama administration’s legislative strategy and to continue to promote policies that strengthen traditional marriage and religious liberty for generations to come.

Last week, the Pew Research Center revealed in a study that the majority of Americans (53%) oppose gay marriage while 39% favor it. The statistics have remained almost unchanged when compared to 2003. Moreover, 49% consider homosexual behavior morally wrong. At the same time, 64% believe gays and lesbians face more discrimination than any other group.

The study, however, demonstrated that attitudes may be changing as younger generations show more support than older Americans for LGBT people. More than half of 18- to 29-year-olds (58%) support gay marriage, compared to 38% of 30- to 49-year-olds and 35% of Americans aged 50-64. Additionally, the younger generation is less likely to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong compared to older adults.

Results for the survey were based on telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide sample of 4,013 adults, 18 years of age or older.

==============================

>>Survey: Americans Divided on Homosexuality as Sin (Christian Post, 080606)

[KH: observe the increased influence of the gay lobby and the unbelief in the Bible]

Americans are nearly evenly divided on whether they believe homosexual behavior is a sin, a new survey showed.

While 48% of Americans agree it is a sin, 45% said they don’t believe homosexuality is sinful, according to a LifeWay Research study, released Wednesday.

Although those who are religiously affiliated were more likely to call homosexual behavior sinful, the director of the research group cautions that there are still many believers who don’t view the behavior as sin.

The study showed that 61% of Protestants believe homosexuality is sinful compared to 31% who don’t. Among born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist Americans, 79% say it is sinful while 17% do not believe it is.

“17% in that latter category may seem low compared to the others, but considering these people consider themselves born-again, evangelical, or fundamentalist, it reminds us of the need for clear biblical teaching on the issue in our community,” said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, in the report.

“We did not develop our views of sexuality because we flipped a coin or took a poll,” he noted. “We believe the teaching of Scripture is clear that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is God’s best for people, culture and society.”

Stetzer also called it surprising to find that the majority of Catholics (55%) do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Only 39% of Catholics called it a sin.

Catholics were also most likely to say same-sex attraction is inevitable and determined at birth. 30% of Catholics said that that is what contributes most to homosexuality compared to 20% of Protestants, 12% of born agains, and 24% of Americans overall.

The born-again, evangelical, fundamentalist group (48%) is most likely to believe homosexuality is a choice while 42% of Protestants, 41% of Catholics and 39% of Americans agree, saying “choice” is what contributes most to same-sex attraction.

As debate continues over homosexuality and many churches struggle to address the issue, the LifeWay survey found that what a church teaches about homosexuality can greatly impact a person’s decision on whether to visit or join the church.

According to survey results, 32% of Americans said that if the church they were considering visiting or joining taught that homosexual behavior was sinful, it would negatively impact their decision. Meanwhile, 29% of Americans said that it would positively impact their decision.

“It’s clear we have a challenging but essential task,” Stetzer commented. “We need to strive to show the love of Christ, while upholding the standard of Scripture, to those who struggle with same-sex attraction.”

Many churches have begun to shift from preaching condemnation to showing love to homosexuals while still not compromising their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

In recent years, the Southern Baptist Convention - the largest Protestant denomination in the country - created a task force that would inform, educate and encourage Southern Baptists to be proactive in reaching out to those struggling with same-sex attractions. Bob Stith, who heads the task force, said many, including himself, have harbored a negative and judgmental attitude toward homosexuals and he now wants to encourage fellow Baptists to give a biblical yet compassionate response to homosexuality.

Still, the large Protestant group still has a ways to go when reaching homosexuals.

Tim Wilkins, a Southern Baptist and former homosexual, claims the denomination has not steered much effort toward the Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force.

“If Southern Baptists are going to invest time and money in reaching homosexuals with the Gospel, let’s at least steer Southern Baptists to the appropriate resources,” Wilkins said Thursday, noting that the task force has received little attention.

Among other findings by LifeWay Research, 66% of Americans, Protestants and born agains are personally acquainted with someone who has same-sex attraction. And among those who personally know a homosexual, 44% call homosexual behavior sinful and 49% say it is not a sin.

The survey was conducted on April 10-12, 2008, on a sample size of 1,201 American adults.

==============================

>>Christian Ministry Fined $23,000 in Gay Discrimination Case (Christian Post, 080429)

[KH: persecution is coming]

One of Canada’s largest Christian ministries dedicated to caring for the disabled was fined $23,000 recently by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for allegedly discriminating against a former homosexual employee.

Connie Heintz claimed discrimination against Christian Horizons after she said she was “subjected to a poisoned work environment” and pressured into quitting her job after she entered a homosexual relationship – which was in violation of her work contract back in 2000.

In line with its Christian foundation and principles, the ministry requires that all its employees sign “morality statements” vowing to abstain from immoral behavior, including pornography, pre-marital, extra-marital, and homosexual activity as a condition of employment.

In a recently made public ruling, Michael Gottheil, the single adjudicator representing the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, ruled against Christian Horizons, ordering the organization to pay Heintz $23,000 in fines plus two years wages and benefits.

Gottheil also ordered that the organization abandon its Christian principles barring homosexual behavior and issued mandates that it begin requiring all employees to attend a homosexual oriented “human rights training program.”

In a statement, Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, wrote approvingly of the decision by the tribunal.

“This decision is important because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected,” she said.

The Family Research Council (FRC), however, criticized the recent ruling as yet another attack in the worldwide effort to stamp out Christianity.

“It sounds unfair, yet this is the same rationale that’s fueling the U.S. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) debate. ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill’s limited religious exemption,” the FRC said in a statement.

John Jalsevac, of LifeSiteNews.com, also wrote incredulously of the ruling in a column.

“Connie Heintz wasn’t even fired. She resigned. And, what is more, Heintz herself testified that her former boss at CH actually tried to help her find another job by providing her with listings of vacancies with other charities – hardly the actions of someone who is ‘homophobic,’” he wrote.

“In the world of the Commissions, dogmatic Christians are by definition the bigots,” he added.

Founded in 1965 by a group of Christian parents seeking to care for their disabled children, Christian Horizons is one of the largest organizations in Canada dedicated to caring for the disabled, receiving about $75 million annually through the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.

==============================

>>Controversial Study: Is Change Possible for Gays? (Christian Post, 070911)

Results of a controversial study addressing two of the most debated questions on “ex-gays” will be announced this week in Nashville.

First: “Is change of sexual orientation possible?” And second: “Is the attempt to change harmful?”

Researchers Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University, both of whom are evangelical Christians, conducted “A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” asking the two questions which have been long debated by mental health professionals and Christian counselors.

“We are evangelical Christians committed to the truth-seeking activity of science,” Jones and Yarhouse said in a joint statement, addressing skeptics of Christian researchers on a matter of science. “In conducting and reporting this study, we took seriously the words of one of our heroes, C. S. Lewis, who said that science produced by Christian persons would have to be ‘perfectly honest. Science twisted in the interests of apologetics would be sin and folly.’”

Many professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association, are critical of what some call “reparative” or conversion therapies. The American Psychological Association is currently revising its 10-year-old policy on counseling homosexuals after years of pressure from pro-gay groups that say such therapy is harmful. Evangelicals meanwhile are calling psychologists to respect religious commitments and allow those who are seeking change out of same-sex desires to be offered the help.

“For many years, mental-health professionals have taken the view that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any attempt to change sexual orientation is unwise,” said prominent psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, according to the Los Angeles Times. “But for healthcare professionals to tell someone they don’t have the right to make an effort to bring their actions into harmony with their values is hubris.”

There are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of “reparative” treatments, according to the American Psychiatric Association. However, there are numerous reports of individuals who have claimed to change, those who claim that attempts to change were harmful to them, and others who claimed to have changed and then later recanted those claims.

While Spitzer has noted cases where people have had bad experiences with “reorientation” approaches, he acknowledged that in other cases, individuals have “felt they were helped by having therapy available that took their religious values seriously.”

The American public remains divided on the issue but is showing growing tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle. A recent CNN poll revealed that for the first time in its polling, the majority of Americans (56%) said they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed.

Results of the milestone research by Stanton and Yarhouse will not be released until Thursday at the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) World Conference and will be published this month by InterVarsity Press, the publishing company linked to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

Knowing the results of the study will generate controversy, Jones and Yarhouse have thoroughly described the rationale for their procedures, according to a released statement.

George A. Rekers, professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, states that the study “meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design.”

Endorsing the upcoming book, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a noted expert in sexuality counseling, stated, “While the authors fully acknowledge that change in sexual attractions did not occur for some individuals, they offer cogent and compelling reasons to believe that participation in religious ministry resulted in durable changes for others. The Jones and Yarhouse study will set the standard for all future work in this field and demands a serious reading from social scientists.”

Publisher Bob Fryling commented, “In a highly politicized environment, this book is another ‘inconvenient truth’ of scientific research data countering prejudice and ignorance.”

“Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” will be available to the public in October.

==============================

>>How ‘gay rights’ is being sold to America (WorldNetDaily, 051018)

By David Kupelian

Editor’s note: Following is the highly acclaimed – and to many, shocking – first chapter of WND Managing Editor David Kupelian’s blockbuster book, “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.” In it, Kupelian rips the veil off the previously hidden marketing strategies and powerful propaganda techniques used with such stunning success to “sell” Americans on homosexuality and the radical “gay rights” agenda over the last few years – a marketing juggernaut that continues to accelerate daily.

“I did not choose to be homosexual. I would change my sexual orientation if that were within my power.”

So confessed Robert Bauman, the powerful conservative congressman from Maryland. Americans were stunned in 1980 when headlines revealed Bauman had been caught red-handed having a sexual rendezvous with a young male prostitute. In his book “The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative,” Bauman revealed the conditions that shaped his own tortured double life as a pro-family Republican congressman and closet homosexual.

At the tender age of five, Bauman had been sexually seduced by a twelve-year-old neighbor. Reflecting on that pivotal experience, as well as subsequent similar episodes, Bauman described the powerful feelings he found welling up within him at a young age:

This was not a matter of chance attraction to a forbidden object. This was a frightening force from deep within my being, an involuntary reaction to the sight, smell, and feel of other boys. I neither understood nor accepted it. And I came to hate myself because of the presence within me of this horrible weakness, this uncleanness of spirit over which I seemed to have no control. …

I was sure my predicament was a unique punishment designed only for me. Unable to understand it myself, I could never even attempt an explanation to someone else. I countered my dilemma with a plan that constituted the essence of simplicity. I made up my mind that I was not “queer.” I heard all those denunciations of homos by my military school peers and firmly resolved I could never be considered one of such a despicable breed.

Bauman was elected in 1973 as representative of the First Congressional District of Maryland, became chairman of the American Conservative Union in 1979, and, many thought, was on his way to becoming Speaker of the House. But he was leading a double life as a married man with four children while at the same time engaging in anonymous homosexual one-night stands. He described the wrenching emotional aftermath he experienced after every episode: “Each time I would feel great guilt and head for Saturday confession at St. Peter’s or St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill so I could make amends with God and be in the state of grace for Sunday Communion. I would always vow to myself and God I would never do it again.”

Submerging himself “in the excitement of politics where compliments, victories and deference helped reassure me I was a good person,” Bauman looked every bit the quintessential conservative, family-values congressman. “If I could save the world,” he later mused, “I might avoid having to save myself.” Looking back on his secret double life, Bauman engaged in some painful self-examination:

How could any normal and moral human being do what I did? How could anyone, however callous, repeatedly be unfaithful to one’s spouse (lying, evading responsibility, breaking solemn vows)? I have described how it could be done. Why I did it is the serious question. And I have no answer, even to this day. I do not know. In many ways I was driven by a force over which I seemed to have little control.

Of course, my choice was conscious and deliberate. It could have been altered. But some compulsion drove me, blotting out all I had learned, diminishing in importance all that was most dear and important. I seemed willing to risk my marriage, my wife and children, even life itself.

It’s hard not to have compassion on a fellow human being desperately struggling to overcome a powerful compulsion he “neither understood nor accepted.” What happened to Bauman was a tragedy. He needed help – not rejection and condemnation for being a “queer,” nor acceptance and praise for being an “oppressed minority” – but real help in understanding and overcoming his sexual problem.

In today’s polarized climate, however, it seems most of us either condemn homosexuals as evil corrupters of society or we fawn over them as noble victims and cultural heroes. We either accuse them of “choosing” to be “wicked sexual deviants,” or we claim – utterly without evidence – that “gayness” is an inborn, genetic trait.

Reality, however, lies somewhere else. Deep down, people of conscience know homosexuality is neither an innocent, inborn “minority” characteristic like skin color, nor a conscious choice to become evil and to corrupt others. But without understanding what we’re really dealing with, we’re not only powerless to help others but easily confused and corrupted ourselves.

Bauman, under the sway of an overwhelming and self-destructive compulsion, even admits in retrospect that perhaps he wanted to be caught so he could get help:

I can see numerous instances when my conduct, which I thought carefully discreet, was really designed to reveal to someone, anyone, what was happening to me. Perhaps my unconscious conclusion was that someone else must deal with the chaos of my life because I was rapidly reaching the point at which I could not do it myself.

Finally, in 1980, at the age of forty-three, Bauman got his wish and was found out. After the dramatic public exposure of his solicitation of a teenage male hustler, the congressman saw his political career crash. He lost not only his reelection bid but also his family, his historic home, and many of his powerful friends as well.

In truth, Robert Bauman’s sad story is in some ways not too different from that of many others in America before today’s era of “gay pride,” out-of-the-closet politicians and celebrities, “lesbian and gay studies” in most colleges, “Gay Day” at Disneyland, and powerful homosexual lobbying and journalistic and legal groups throughout the land.

Back then, most people like Bauman remained “in the closet” with regard to their homosexuality. And in their secret world they suffered conflict, fear of exposure, and sometimes worse.

Today, thanks to America’s politically correct “gay-friendly” culture, millions of human beings in the grip of this same unnatural sexual compulsion find it much easier to accept – even to wear as a badge of honor.

But they still don’t understand it. In fact, they have less desire than ever to understand it – just as the larger society has also lost interest in understanding homosexuality. But sometimes not knowing what you’re dealing with can be dangerous. So let’s take off the rainbow-colored glasses and objectively explore this phenomenon we call “gay rights.”

It grew out of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960s. To be precise, the June 11, 1969, “Stonewall riot” – when a group of homosexuals at New York City’s Stonewall Inn resisted police commands to disperse – is widely regarded as the birth of the “gay liberation” movement.

This emerging political force made considerable strides during the ‘70s, most notably in persuading – many say intimidating – the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 into removing homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. But “gay rights” was young, inexperienced, underfunded, and understaffed as political movements go, and the issue received little support from politicians or the nation in general.

“Equality for gays” was not yet a phrase that reverberated in the hearts and minds of Americans. Then came AIDS.

The problem of the plague

Surely, many activists thought, this would be their movement’s death knell. For while they were trying to convince the mainstream that homosexuals represented a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle, along comes a modern plague – horrible, incurable, fatal, and spread primarily by promiscuous homosexual men.

AIDS – originally named GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) until activist homosexuals pressured the medical establishment to switch to the generic acronym AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) – was the ultimate public relations nightmare. It gave society a brand-new reason to fear and shun homosexuals – namely, concern over becoming infected with a nightmarish new disease.

And AIDS did something else. In order for the medical establishment and news media to communicate to the public how the disease was being transmitted, it became necessary to focus publicly on the one thing homosexuals most wanted to downplay – the sometimes-bizarre sexual acts in which they engage and their often astronomically high numbers of sexual partners. (A widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43% of homosexuals had more than five hundred sex partners during their lifetime.)

In addition, the “silver bullet” medical cure Americans had virtually come to expect, having grown up in the age of miracle drugs like the polio vaccine and penicillin, never materialized. Rather, AIDS experts and public health authorities issued dire warnings about a disease reminiscent of the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages:

By the early years of the next century, we could have lost between 50 and 100 million people worldwide. There’s no question about that. –Surgeon General C. Everett Koop

Ninety percent of the people infected [with HIV] don’t even know it. – Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus

In many areas, the number of persons affected with the AIDS virus is at least 100 times greater than reported case of AIDS. – Dr. James Curran, director of AIDS and HIV immunology and prevention activities at the Centers for Disease Control

Meanwhile, throughout the ‘80s and beyond, as AIDS infection and death rates skyrocketed with each passing year, high-profile figures were dying of the disease, including actor Rock Hudson in 1985, ABC News anchor Max Robinson in 1988, and ballet superstar Rudolf Nureyev in 1993.

During this time the public experienced two distinct and widespread reactions to the unfolding AIDS epidemic. One was the natural sympathy evoked by witnessing the terrible suffering and death of AIDS victims.

But the other, if less politically correct, was fear and loathing of homosexuals. After all, there was no way back in those early days of the disease to rule out AIDS transmission via “casual contact” – that is, by means other than sex and intravenous drug use. As prominent Harvard AIDS researcher Dr. William Haseltine warned at the time: “Anyone who tells you categorically that AIDS is not contracted by saliva is not telling you the truth. AIDS may, in fact, be transmissible by tears, saliva, bodily fluids and mosquito bites.”

Fears that AIDS would “break out” into the general population were further fanned by horror stories such as that of Kimberly Bergalis, a Florida girl who contracted AIDS (along with several other patients) from her homosexual dentist, David Acer.

As a matter of fact, many Americans not part of the two main “at-risk groups” (male homosexuals and IV drug abusers) were dying, mostly from HIV-tainted blood transfusions. One of them, Ryan White, an eighteen-year-old Indiana boy with hemophilia who became infected with HIV through a blood transfusion, died of AIDS in 1990 and became the poster boy for rallying Americans to support AIDS research. Two years later tennis great Arthur Ashe, also infected by an HIV-tainted transfusion, succumbed to the disease.

As a public relations matter, AIDS was daunting. This modern plague, if not handled brilliantly in the court of public opinion, could result in homosexuals being widely shunned. On the other hand, perhaps the sympathy factor could be harnessed and multiplied to advance the activists’ cause. The movement definitely needed help.

The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.

One infamous incident was the assault on New York’s famed St. Patrick’s Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O’Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of “pro-choice” and “gay rights” activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.

“You bigot, O’Connor, you’re killing us!” screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop “Murderer!”

Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a “nightmare.”

“The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air,” recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.

Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of ACT-UP, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: “Keep your church out of my crotch.” “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” “Eternal life to Cardinal John O’Connor NOW!” “Curb your dogma.”

Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.

This new direction would somehow have to convert the fearsome AIDS epidemic from a negative into a positive. What was needed was a comprehensive, long-term public relations campaign that had to be brilliantly conceived and skillfully executed.

War conference

In February 1988, some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future. Shortly thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.

Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s.”

“As cynical as it may seem,” they explained at the outset, “AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care. At the same time,” they warned, “it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. … How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?”

The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen’s master plan? “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”

Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell “gay rights” to straight America, “After the Ball” became the public-relations “bible” of the movement.

Kirk and Madsen’s “war goal,” explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In his comprehensive study, “Selling Homosexuality to America,” Rondeau writes:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.” As Kirk and Madsen put it, “To one extent or another, the separability – and manipulability – of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.”

Separability? Manipulability? Allow me to translate this psychological marketing jargon: We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations.

Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement “gay rights.” This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity – gay, which, after all, once meant “happy”; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over “rights” implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.

So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)

Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement’s cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don’t. Just don’t talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.

“When you’re very different, and people hate you for it,” they explain, “this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.”

In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other “peculiar” members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.

Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen’s techniques of “desensitization,” “jamming,” and “conversion” this way:

Desensitization is described as inundating the public in a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” They add, “[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. … If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”

This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in “Seeing Through the Media” where it “is not raw overt coercion; it is one group’s covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group.”

“Structuring the consciousness” of others? If that phraseology is uncomfortably reminiscent of various mind control and brainwashing tales you might have heard over the years, don’t be surprised. Manipulating the emotions and thereby restructuring the thoughts and beliefs of large numbers of people is what modern marketing is all about.

“Jamming,” explains Rondeau, “is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion.” Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program’s advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.

But perhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a “climate of anti-gay hate” in which such a brutal act could happen.

NBC’s Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: “The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic. … Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective.”

And in a now-infamous interview, Today’s Katie Couric asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer: “Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, ‘If I meet someone who’s homosexual, I’m going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.’ Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?”

Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen’s playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.

As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn’t a factor in Shepard’s murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.

So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about “conversion”? Here, Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:

We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean “subverting” the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.

Transforming another person’s hatred into love (“warm regard”) is the object of classic brainwashing. As Kirk and Madsen explain:

In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label “gay,” either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype. … Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.

We’re talking about some serious messing around with Americans’ minds here. Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they’re deceiving the public, or are they convinced they’re just telling the truth?

“It makes no difference that the ads are lies,” write Kirk and Madsen, “not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.”

Homosexualizing history

Another important technique promoted by “After the Ball,” and employed repeatedly to great effect in recent years, is to claim that famous historical figures – “from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman” – were homosexual or bisexual.

Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as “suspected ‘inverts’”), that doesn’t stop them from advocating the tactic.

A recent example of this was the highly publicized, though utterly unsubstantiated, speculation that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual. Even more outrageous was the suggestion by openly “gay” New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson – a comment he quickly retracted after a firestorm of protest – that Jesus Christ was a homosexual!

As Kirk and Madsen explain:

Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement.

The flip side of this “celebrity endorsement” tactic consists of associating all detractors of the radical homosexual agenda with negative images of universally despised tyrants and lowlifes. “After the Ball” lists some of the negative images with which opponents should be associated – including “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated,” “hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate,” “menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have bashed,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

Indeed, says Rondeau, “perhaps the most menacing focus of the campaign is the special treatment reserved for the religious dissenters. The strategy is to ‘jam homohatred by linking it to Nazi horror.’”

Kirk and Madsen explain the leverage gained by this nasty technique:

Most contemporary hate groups on the Religious Right will bitterly resent the implied connection between homohatred and Nazi fascism. But since they can’t defend the latter, they’ll end up having to distance themselves by insisting that they would never go to such extremes. Such declarations of civility toward gays, of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights.

Homosexual activists love to compare their opponents with Adolf Hitler and Nazis, apparently undaunted by the fact that, according to William L. Shirer’s twelve-hundred-page “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” widely regarded as the definitive book on Nazi Germany, “many of the early Nazis” were homosexuals.

But this is not about truth. It’s about manipulation. In a sense, modern psychology-based marketers understand people better than people understand themselves. They use emotional threads to tie their “product” (in this case, homosexuality) to preexisting positive attributes in the consumers’ mind. And in a cultural-political campaign like this, they also successfully tie all who oppose their agenda to preexisting negatives, such as Nazis. The net effect of this conditioning can be so powerful over time that ultimately one’s prior beliefs – based on experience, religious training, conscience, and common sense – are overwhelmed and replaced as a result of successive waves of emotion-driven reprogramming.

Still, one wonders how the press could allow itself to be used in such a blatantly propagandistic way and in pursuit of such a subversive agenda. And make no mistake, the “gay rights” agenda, which includes indoctrinating kindergartners with pro-homosexual propaganda and legalizing same-sex marriage, is extraordinarily subversive to America’s foundational values and institutions.

For the answer to that question you have to realize what’s happened to the news media in recent years.

As you no doubt already know, the establishment press is oriented far to the left of the American mainstream, as study after study for the past three decades has documented beyond rational dispute. But did you know that, in addition, a major homosexual presence has emerged in the “mainstream” media, especially since the dawn of the 1990s?

Indeed, part of the mobilization that occurred in the wake of the 1988 War Conference was the recognition that the news media represented the prime tool for changing the hearts and minds of Americans.

And if getting your message before the media was the name of the game, how much better would it be to actually be the media? Thus 1990 saw the launch of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which has since grown into a formidable organization.

To celebrate its tenth anniversary, homosexual journalists from many major news organizations gathered in San Francisco for NLGJA’s gala conference held September 7-10, 2000. The discussion on center stage was surreal. It focused on the question of whether or not, when reporting on stories related to homosexuality, mainstream journalists have a responsibility to include any viewpoints that contradict those of homosexuals. You heard me right.

MSNBC producer Ramon Escobar framed the issue this way: “This whole issue of ‘balance’ that we as journalists are supposed to achieve. … When we cover the black community, I’ve never seen a newsroom where you’re covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan’s point of view: ‘Well, I’ve got to go do my Klan interview.’ How do you be fair?”

NLGJA member Jeffrey Kofman, at the time a CBS correspondent who later migrated to NBC, restated the question: “The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don’t do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?”

Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director of WNBC in New York, added: “I agree with him. I don’t see why we would seek out … the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view.”

“All of us,” Kofman rejoined, “have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes perspectives on gay issues that include people who just simply are intolerant and perhaps not qualified as well.”

Are you getting the picture? Whereas fifty years ago a news story portraying homosexuality as normal and respectable was unheard of, now we’re facing exactly the opposite spectacle. Up on that glitzy convention stage were representatives of top broadcast news networks debating whether or not professional journalists should give voice to the Christian or traditional viewpoint on homosexuality. Or, they suggested, Wouldn’t it be better just to censor such “hateful” and “bigoted” viewpoints as being the moral equivalent of a “pro-racism” or “pro-bigotry” viewpoint, and thus beyond the margins of civilized debate?

By the way, lest you think this was just an unrepresentative group of radical journalists blowing off steam in their off-hours, here’s who sponsored this particular homosexual journalists conference: Hearst Newspapers; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; CBS News; Gannett Foundation; CNN; Bloomberg News; NBC News; the Dallas Morning News; Fox News Channel; the Los Angeles Times; the New York Daily News; the San Francisco Chronicle; Time, Inc.; the Wall Street Journal; the Washington Post; and the San Jose Mercury News.

No wonder the “mainstream press,” overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the “gay rights” agenda, seems to be on the same page as homosexual activists engaged in desensitizing, jamming, and converting Americans to their world view. As a matter of fact, as we saw in the Matthew Shepard case, it’s hard to tell them apart.

Thus a lot of the credit for the “gay-ing of America” can be laid at the door of the news media who, intentionally or not, have worked in tandem with the movement’s public relations machinery for years now.

We forgot one thing

Today, the homosexual activist movement is a juggernaut, racking up success after success. Even the occasional losses, such as voter rejection of same-sex marriage in the 2004 election, are simply the expected “one step back” in the time-honored “two steps forward one step back” mode of most long-term political wars. (After all, by audaciously conducting thousands of illegal same-sex marriage ceremonies, homosexuals all but guaranteed legal and social acceptance of their fall-back position – homosexual civil unions with the full legal force of marriage, something most Americans regarded as radical and unacceptable just a few years ago.)

As just one of a multitude of success indicators, consider that the popular teen magazine Seventeen conducted a reader poll in 1991, shortly after activist homosexuals abandoned the streets in favor of the television studio. At the time, only 17% of the magazine’s adolescent readers accepted homosexuality as appropriate. In 1999, after eight years of intense “gay rights” marketing, a whopping 54%, more than three times as many teens, accepted homosexuality as appropriate. This stunning turnaround is reflected in virtually every area of society.

Whether in culture, politics, law, business, the news media, entertainment, education, or even the church, homosexual strides have been nothing short of astonishing. Once condemned as “immoral deviants,” homosexuals and lesbians today are honored, idealized, defended as victims, and celebrated as role models. Thanks to “hate-crimes” legislation, they are now afforded extra protections as a special class of people – protections not granted to all members of society. (If you were assaulted, the perpetrator would get one sentence, but if you were assaulted because of your homosexuality, the perpetrator would receive a more severe sentence under hate-crimes sentencing guidelines.)

Meanwhile, in what was once a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, Christians and other proponents of traditional biblical principles are routinely cast as bigots and “homophobes,” thanks to constant jamming.

Direct quotes from the Bible regarding homosexuality are routinely condemned as “hate speech,” and – as we have seen – pro-homosexual journalists piously agonize over whether or not they should dignify the traditional, biblical viewpoint by even acknowledging it.

Multitudes of activists – with almost limitless time and energy to devote to advancing their agenda, largely unencumbered by any need to change diapers, pay for dental braces, or attend their children’s soccer games, as do most heterosexual married people – have succeeded in their goal of transforming society. As public relations campaigns go, it’s been an unqualified success.

However, in the “gay rights” movement’s relentless struggle to legitimize homosexuality, and in the greater society’s veneration of them as heroes of the great civil rights crusade of the new millennium, we’ve forgotten one thing. In the endlessly clever media campaign that’s bamboozled everyone, “restructured their consciousness,” turned their hate into love and their rejection into acceptance, something crucial has been lost.

We’ve forgotten about reality. We’ve been living in a Madison Avenue fantasy world of marketing images and carefully crafted rhetoric in the foreground, with court battles, fascistlike intimidation, and relentless waves of persuasion in the background.

But what about the truth we’ve left behind? What about the reality of homosexuality, of what causes it, and of what it means physically and spiritually for those so oriented? Do we even care any more?

Let’s rewind and go back to former Congressman Robert Bauman, who in poignantly describing his internal struggles against his homosexual compulsions confided that he had been sexually seduced when he was five years old by an older boy.

Did that experience have anything to do with Bauman’s future homosexuality?

There was a time when psychiatry, psychology, religion, and common sense all said “yes.” In fact, sexually abused young males are “up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused,” concludes the peer-reviewed 1998 study, “Sexual Abuse of Boys,” by William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D.

On that topic, a reader recently wrote to me: “We are a family of eight siblings and the oldest is gay, and has lived with the same partner for 41 years. At various times, my siblings and I have tried to discover why he is gay and none of the rest of us are. We finally found out through an older cousin that my brother was repeatedly sexually molested when he was six years old by a 19-year-old man.”

Even Kirk and Madsen, who advise activists to claim they were born homosexual, know better. “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay,” they write, “even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.”

If “environmental factors” are involved – and everyone knows they are, whether or not they publicly admit it – why then advise homosexuals to claim they were “born gay”?

“To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen,” Kirk and Madsen explain, “is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.”

Unfortunately, with all the brainy marketing behind the campaign to mainstream homosexuality, what’s been swept under the rug is the recognition – once commonplace in America – that flawed early relationships or sexual victimization can put a child on the road to homosexuality.

Children are exquisitely impressionable, so much so that sexual seduction or assault is a major trauma that can, and often does, reprogram the victim’s identity – his view of who and what he is. While the Holmes and Slap study confirms this, the point is self-evident: our prisons are full of child molesters who were molested as children and batterers who were battered as children.

What about the twelve-year-old who molested Bauman? What caused him to sexually seduce a five-year-old boy? No doubt he felt a strong compulsion to do to a new kid what had been done to him. But why?

An innocent young child has a “bright light” quality that feels mysteriously threatening to those in the grip of corruption. In fact, many see this dynamic at the core of a great deal of child abuse.

To the person who’s already been “converted” and is acting out the homosexual “lifestyle,” it’s deeply satisfying – far beyond mere sexual pleasure – to “initiate” an innocent person. Doing so serves to anesthetize his own conscience and assuage his inner conflict by destroying the innocence of another person, since that innocence tends to make him aware of his own corruption.

There was a time when most Americans knew that homosexuals were not “born that way” but rather had their normal gender-identity development disturbed and redirected through early childhood experiences.

There was a time when we recognized on some level that unhealthy relationships with mothers and fathers could cause girls and boys to grow up with gender confusion – just like emotionally devastating traumatic experiences of molestation – if not dealt with properly.

But that was a time before much of America itself was seduced into believing there was no God, or if there was a God, He is inconsequential to the affairs of the world. It was a time when Judeo-Christian morality inspired the culture and laws of the land.

Today we’ve basically abandoned “old-fashioned” notions of right and wrong in favor of “consensuality,” which means two people can do whatever they want, no matter how abominable, as long as they “don’t hurt anybody else.” The problem with that – aside from the fact that it denies the existence of God and His laws – is that in such a deluded state you have no basis for determining if you’re hurting another person or not. A pedophile justifies sex with children precisely because he doesn’t believe he’s hurting the child; rather he believes he’s loving him!

You might wonder: Where and when will this “gay rights” public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.

In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia. “Why?” you might ask. “I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms.” No, they’ve had that for years.

Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor we’ve forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western civilization has long understood it.

Homosexual activists fancy their cause as identical to that of blacks and the ‘60s civil rights movement. But being black is not unnatural and self-destructive. Being of African origin obviously doesn’t involve fleeing one’s own conscience and the author of that conscience – God.

But it is precisely because of this difference that the “gay civil rights” movement is not about changing the laws so homosexuals can have equal opportunity for advancement or access as it was for blacks during the ‘60s. Homosexuals already live in freedom and can reside, work, or play virtually anywhere they want. In fact, as a group, homosexuals enjoy a higher income level than the general American population.

It’s not about rights. It’s about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their “lifestyle” without having to be disturbed by reality.

Remember, all of us – homosexuals included – have a conscience (that other-dimensional standard that God has tucked away inside each of us) that causes us inner conflict when we’re doing the wrong thing.

But if we tumble into the grip of dark forces we don’t understand and then start to defend our obsessions and compulsions, we inevitably come to regard our conscience as an enemy. And although we may be somewhat successful in drowning out that inner warning bell, what happens when this same rejected conscience factor appears in another person and gets too close to us for comfort? We feel threatened.

Therefore, we feel compelled to silence the “voice of conscience” – not just the one inside of us, but the one in other people, which tends to revive our own conscience with which we’re at war. This means we can’t tolerate dissent. We simply can’t stand it. It makes us want to scream.

To the homosexual living in denial, then, even a loving offer of help from, say, a Christian ex-gay ministry or “reparative therapy” counselor (to help overcome homosexual addiction) feels like the most vile, abusive hatred. In fact, it’s real love – which we misinterpret as hatred and “bigotry” simply because it causes us to confront a truth that is not welcome in us.

Love and redemption

When all is said and done, the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality over the last few decades has been a great tragedy. But of all the societal confusion, chaos, and corruption it has ushered in, the most tragic dimension of all is what it has done to people struggling with homosexual and “transgender” attractions and compulsions.

Remember, our conflicts contain the seeds of redemption – that is, as long as we know we have a problem, there’s hope for a change. But if we deny there’s a problem, we are literally robbed of the chance to find healing. That’s exactly what America has done in buying into the “gay rights movement.” We have betrayed our homosexual brothers and sisters.

Glorifying dysfunctionality and corruption, we have relieved homosexuals of the inner conflict they once felt over their condition – something they desperately need, indeed all of us need, if we’re ever going to overcome our problems and find wholeness.

A generation ago, we understood there is such a thing as sin, and that sin is a serious matter and to be avoided. Now there is no societal consciousness of sin – only limitless “freedom,” “choice,” and “consensual relationships.” Beguiled by our scientific and technological advances into believing we are enlightened, in reality as we move further and further away from our Judeo-Christian spiritual roots, we actually understand less and less about ourselves. Most of all, we’ve forgotten as a society what love is because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer.

We defend our own corruption at great peril. And if defending that corruption becomes a national movement, as it has with our cultural and legal adoption of the “gay rights agenda,” we’re all in serious trouble.

In truth, most homosexuals experience guilt and conflict when they first discover homosexual urges. Thus there is a strong temptation – especially in today’s pro-”gay” culture – for them to “resolve” the conflict by giving in to the compulsion and affirming, “It’s okay to be gay.”

But if they do, there is just no way out for them. For this reason, the most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient but firm opposition. In other words, we need to side with the afflicted person’s conscience. In America, we’ve done the opposite.

“Hating the sin but not the sinner,” the classic Christian expression for loving your struggling neighbor by nonjudgmentally disagreeing with his errant behavior, actually has great power – more than we realize. By resisting the temptation to hate, yet still standing firm against what’s wrong, God’s love is able to come through that obedient “neutral zone.”

We started this journey into the world of “gay rights” with the poignant words of former congressman Robert Bauman, who said: “I did not choose to be homosexual. I would change my sexual orientation if that were within my power.” Sadly, we’ve failed Bauman and millions suffering with similar sexual problems by glorifying and pandering to their dysfunction and pretending it’s normal.

In the end, we have to ask ourselves which is worse – the previous era in America, when homosexuals were reviled and driven underground? Or today’s America, when the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that those in the grip of powerful self-destructive compulsions are fawned over and lionized as heroes?

Either way, because the rest of us have failed to find real love, they remain victims.

==============================

>>Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote Homosexuality to Kids (Christian Coalition, 051010)

“Coming out” age has dropped to 10 for boys, 12 for girls, academic says.

A TIME magazine cover story and a recent pro-homosexual school event should leave no doubt that homosexual activists are recruiting kids into homosexual sex and a “gay” identity, using “tolerance” as a ruse.

The TIME October 10 piece, “The Battle Over Gay Teens,” which includes not a single reference to the extremely dangerous medical consequences of homosexual behavior, especially for boys, includes these details:

• A cocktail party in Manhattan with billionaire liquor magnate Edgar Bronfman, Sr. and Clinton political strategist David Mixner was held in May to raise money for the Point Foundation, a scholarship program to turn “gay” kids into homosexual activists.

• From 100 gay/straight alliance (GSA) clubs in schools in 1997, the number has grown to “at least 3,000…nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one, according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).”

• The average age of males “coming out” as homosexual has “dropped to 10 for gays and 12 for lesbians,” according to the chair of Cornell University’s human-development program.

• “Gay kids can now watch fictional and real teens who are out on shows like Desperate Housewives, the dating show Next on MTV and Degrassi (a high school drama on the N network whose wild popularity among adolescents is assured by the fact that few adults watch). Publishers like Arthur A. Levine Books (of Harry Potter fame) and the children’s division of Simon & Schuster have released something like a dozen novels about gay adolescents in the past two years….Gay kids can now subscribe to the 10-month-old glossy YGA Magazine (YGA stands for ‘young, gay America’) and meet thousands of other little gays via young gay america. com (sic) or outproud.org.”

• “‘We’re gonna win,’ says [GLSEN founder Kevin] Jennings, speaking expansively of the gay movement, ‘because of what’s happening in high schools right now.’ … Jennings recalls that when he first started raising money more than a decade ago, ‘the attitude was either “Isn’t it cute that you’re working with kids?” or “Why are you working with kids? What are you, f——— crazy?”‘“

Editor’s note: In other settings Jennings has used the “f-word” to dismiss faith-based opponents, and has said he envisions a day when the schools openly embrace homosexuality. At a GLSEN conference, a teacher said she thought it was important to acquaint pupils with homosexuality beginning in kindergarten because “that’s when the saturation process begins.”

• At a youth retreat, the Point Foundation gave out gift bags to students containing, among other things, “a DVD of the film Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in which a teenage boy is masturbated by an adult” and “the Aug. 16 issue of the gay magazine The Advocate, whose cover featured a shirtless man and blared, SUMMER SEX ISSUE.”

• “Because he routinely sees young gays on MTV or even at school, a 14-year-old may now feel comfortable telling friends that he likes other boys, but that doesn’t mean he is ready to enfold himself in a gay identity.”

The article, to its credit, includes passages about the growing ex-”gay” movement, particularly for youths, and quotes Exodus International Youth Director Scott Davis about his group’s ministry, and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) Executive Director Regina Griggs about the discrimination faced by groups that help people overcome homosexual desires.

But the overall impact of the article helps validate the idea of “gay kids,” and will undoubtedly induce some to act out their sexual curiosity since so many others appear to be doing so. The constant focus on homosexuality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, much as TIME’s frequent articles during the 1960s and 1970s about the “growing phenomenon” of illicit drug use helped spur some kids to try marijuana and LSD.

A Week-Long Effort in the Schools

GLSEN, meanwhile, has been extremely active in the schools. Their most recent effort, “National Ally Week,” was held September 19-24.

According to GLSEN’s Web site, more than 300 gay/straight alliance groups registered to pass out buttons, organize gender education activities, and promote the homosexual lifestyle. Ally Week encourages the recruitment of “straight” students as allies in the fight against bullying of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) students. The “straight” allies are encouraged to speak out in defense of homosexuality.

GLSEN passed out “I am an ALLY” buttons through the GSAs, and the Web site encouraged students to arrange more specific activities to promote acceptance of “gay” students. The listed events included:

• “Organizing LGBT pizza parties, and after-school activities like LGBT Jeopardy or LGBT bingo.

• Informative tabling in school cafeterias.

• Student and/or teacher training workshops.

• Asking allies to attend regular GSA meetings.

• Constructing pro-LGBT bulletin boards.

• Bringing a local LGBT speaker to the school.”

Last April, GLSEN sponsored the annual “Day of Silence,” in which kids are supposed to remain silent all day in support of their “gay” classmates. April 26, 2006, is the next “Day of Silence.”

This past January, GLSEN headed the coalition sponsoring “No-Name Calling Week,” another platform for discouraging resistance to the promotion of homosexuality to school kids, with the next edition slated in January 2006. In effect, schoolchildren across the nation are being subjected to homosexual propaganda in schools via an event every few months.

GLSEN encourages teachers to organize and participate in GSA events. The group provides a web link that supplies educators with pro-LGBT resources. These include “gender liberation” coloring books; “gay” cartoon posters; and several posters challenging traditional views of gender. Teachers can download signs with inverted, rainbow-colored triangles proclaiming “Safe Zone” to put on their classroom door. They can also print off discussion kits on how to organize gender education sessions and start conversations about homosexuality with the children.

One poster, titled, “Things you can do to eradicate gender or multiply it exponentially,” features cross-dressing, and has these suggestions:

• “Think twice before you ask people if their child is a boy or a girl.

• Spend a day in drag.

• Refer to everyone by the incorrect pronoun.

• Challenge binary gender paradigms over Thanksgiving dinner.

• Hang out with children and teach them how to cross dress Barbie and G.I. Joe.

• Refuse to check off your sex when filling out forms.”

Clearly, the homosexual movement’s effort to recruit children has never been stronger than it is now.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute (CFI), an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. Benjamin Frichtl is a CFI intern and a student at Patrick Henry College.

==============================

>>Canada Timeline (CBC, 040100)

Canadian Broadcast Company News Online

1965

Everett Klippert acknowledges to police that he is gay, has had sex with men over a 24-year period, and is unlikely to change. In 1967, Klippert is sent to prison indefinitely as a “dangerous sex offender,” a sentence which was backed up by the Supreme Court of Canada that same year.

December 22, 1967

Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposes amendments to the Criminal Code which, among other things, would relax the laws against homosexuality. Discussing the amendments Trudeau says,

“It’s certainly the most extensive revision of the Criminal Code since the 1950s and, in terms of the subject matter it deals with, I feel that it has knocked down a lot of totems and over-ridden a lot of taboos and I feel that in that sense it is new. It’s bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter.”

1969

Trudeau’s amendments pass into the Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada.

July 20, 1971

Everett Klippert is released.

December 16, 1977

Quebec includes sexual orientation in its Human Rights Code, making it the first province in Canada to pass a gay civil rights law. The law makes it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing, public accommodation and employment. By 2001, all provinces and territories take this step except Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and the Northwest Territories.

Jan. 5, 1978

The Pink Triangle Press (now publisher of Xtra magazine) is charged with “possession of obscene material for the purpose of distribution” and “the use of mails for the purpose of transmitting anything that is obscene, indecent or scurrilous” for publishing an article titled “Men Loving Boys Loving Men” in the Dec. 1977/Jan. 1978 issue of The Body Politic.

After almost six years in the courts, including two trials, the case is finally resolved when on Oct. 15, 1983 the deadline passes for the Crown to appeal the second court acquittal. (In the first trial, The Pink Triangle Press had also won an acquittal but upon appeal the Crown won a retrial.)

The case results in an important precedent. On June 15, 1982, Judge Thomas Mercer, the judge for the second trial, rules that the article “does, in fact, advocate pedophilia,” but says, “It is perfectly legal to advocate what in itself would be unacceptable to most Canadians.”

1978

Canada gets a new Immigration Act. Under the act, homosexuals are removed from the list of inadmissible classes.

1979

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommends in its Annual Report that “sexual orientation” be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

May 2, 1980

Bill C-242, an act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gets its first reading in the House of Commons by MP Pat Carney. The bill, which would have inserted “sexual orientation” into the Canadian Human Rights Act, doesn’t pass.

MP Svend Robinson introduces similar bills in 1983, 1985 1986, 1989, and 1991. In 1991, Robinson tries to get the definition of “spouse” in the Income Tax Act and Canada Pension Plan Act to include “or of the same sex.” In 1992 he tries to get the “opposite sex” definition of “spouse” removed from Bill C-55 which would add the definition to survivor benefits provisions of federal pension legislation. All the proposed bills are defeated.

Feb. 5, 1981

More than 300 men are arrested following police raids at four gay bath houses in Toronto, the largest mass arrest since the War Measures Act was invoked during the October Crisis. The next night, about 3,000 people march in downtown Toronto to protest the arrests. This is considered to be Canada’s ‘Stonewall.’ (See world timeline for the 1969 “Stonewall Riots” in the U.S.)

October 1985

The Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights releases a report titled “Equality for All.” The committee writes that it is shocked by the high level of discriminatory treatment of homosexuals in Canada. The report discusses the harassment, violence, physical abuse, psychological oppression and hate propaganda that homosexuals live with. The committee recommends that the Canadian Human Rights Act be changed to make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

In March 1986, the government responds to the report in a paper titled “Toward Equality” in which it writes “the government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.”

1988

Svend Robinson, of the New Democratic Party, goes public about being gay, becoming the first Member of Parliament to do so. Robinson was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979. In 2000, the B.C. riding of Burnaby-Douglas (though its borders have changed) elected Robinson for the eighth time.

1991

Delwin Vriend, a lab instructor at King’s University College in Edmonton, Alberta, is fired from his job because he is gay. The Alberta Human Rights Commission refuses to investigate the case because the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Delwin Vriend

Vriend takes the government of Alberta to court and, in 1994, the court rules that sexual orientation must be added to the act. The government wins on appeal in 1996 and the decision is overturned. In November 1997, the case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada and on April 2, 1998 the high court unanimously rules that the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta’s Individual Rights Protection Act is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court says that the act would be interpreted to include homosexuals even if the province doesn’t change it. The Alberta government does not use the notwithstanding clause despite pressure from conservative and religious groups.

August 1992

In Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal rules that the failure to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is discriminatory. Federal Justice Minister Kim Campbell responds to the decision by announcing the government would take the necessary steps to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

November 1992

The federal court lifts the country’s ban on homosexuals in the military, allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces.

Dec. 9, 1992

As promised, Justice Minister Kim Campbell introduces Bill C-108 which would add “sexual orientation” to the Canadian Human Rights Act. But the act, which would also restrict the definition of “marital status” to opposite-sex couples, doesn’t pass first reading.

On June 3, 1993, the Senate passes Bill S-15, another attempt at adding “sexual orientation” to the Canadian Human Rights Act, but the bill doesn’t make it to the House of Commons because Parliament is dissolved for the 1993 federal election.

Feb. 23, 1993

In the Mossop case, the Supreme Court of Canada rules that the denial of bereavement leave to a gay partner is not discrimination based on family status defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The case isn’t a complete loss to homosexuals though. Two of the judges find the term “family status” was broad enough to include same-sex couples living together in a long-term relationship. The Supreme Court also notes that if Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been argued, the ruling might have been different.

Jim Egan

May 1995

The Supreme Court rules on the case involving Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit, two gay men who sued Ottawa for the right to claim a spousal pension under the Old Age Security Act. The Court rules against Egan and Nesbit. However, all nine judges agree that sexual orientation is a protected ground and that protection extends to partnerships of lesbians and gay men.

May 1995

An Ontario Court judge finds that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringes Section 15 of the Charter by not allowing same-sex couples to bring a joint application for adoption. He rules that four lesbians have the right to adopt their partners’ children. Ontario becomes the first province to make it legal for same-sex couples to adopt.

British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia follow suit, also allowing adoption by same-sex couples. Other provinces are looking into the issue.

1996

The federal government passes Bill C-33 which adds “sexual orientation” to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

May 1999

The Supreme Court of Canada rules same-sex couples should have the same benefits and obligations as opposite-sex common-law couples and equal access to benefits from social programs to which they contribute.

The ruling centred on the “M v. H” case which involved two Toronto women who had lived together for more than a decade. When the couple broke up in 1992, “M” sued “H” for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act. The problem was that the act defined “spouse” as either a married couple or “a man and woman” who are unmarried and have lived together for no less than three years.

The judge rules that the definition violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declares that the words “a man and woman” should be replaced with “two persons.” “H” appeals the decision. The Court of Appeal upholds the decision but gives Ontario one year to amend its Family Law Act.

Although neither “M” nor “H” chooses to take the case any further, Ontario’s attorney general is granted leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal which brought the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court rules that the Ontario Family Law Act’s definition of “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex is unconstitutional as was any provincial law that denies equal benefits to same-sex couples. Ontario is given six months to amend the act.

June 8, 1999

Although many laws will have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in May, the federal government votes 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of “marriage” as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Minister Anne McLellan says the definition of marriage is already clear in law and the federal government has “no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same-sex marriage.”

Oct. 25, 1999

Attorney General Jim Flaherty introduces Bill 5 in the Ontario Legislature, an act to amend certain statutes because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the M. v. H. case. Instead of changing Ontario’s definition of spouse, which the Supreme Court essentially struck down, the government creates a new same-sex category, changing the province’s Family Law Act to read “spouse or same-sex partner” wherever it had read only “spouse” before. Bill 5 also amends more than 60 other provincial laws, making the rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples mirror those of common-law couples.

Feb. 11, 2000

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s Liberals introduce Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in response to the Supreme Court’s May 1999 ruling. The act would give same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a year the same benefits and obligations as common-law couples.

In March, Justice Minister Anne McLellan announces the bill will include a definition of marriage as “the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

On April 11, 2000, Parliament passes Bill C-23, with a vote of 174 to 72. The legislation gives same-sex couples the same social and tax benefits as heterosexuals in common-law relationships.

In total, the bill affects 68 federal statutes relating to a wide range of issues such as pension benefits, old age security, income tax deductions, bankruptcy protection and the Criminal Code. The definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” are left untouched but the definition of “common-law relationship” is expanded to include same-sex couples.

March 16, 2000

Alberta passes Bill 202 which says that the province will use the notwithstanding clause if a court redefines marriage to include anything other than a man and a woman.

July 21, 2000

British Columbia’s Attorney General Andrew Petter announces he will ask the courts for guidance on whether Canada’s ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional, making his province the first to do so. Toronto was the first Canadian city to ask for clarification on the issue when it did so in May 2000.

Dec. 10, 2000

Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto reads the first “banns” – an old Christian tradition of publishing or giving public notice of people’s intent to marry – for two same-sex couples. Hawkes says that if the banns are read on three Sundays before the wedding, he can legally marry the couples.

The reading of banns is meant to be an opportunity for anyone who might oppose a wedding to come forward with objections before the ceremony. No one comes forward on the first Sunday but the next week two people stand up to object, including Rev. Ken Campbell who calls the procedure “lawless and Godless.” Hawkes dismisses the objections and reads the banns for the third time the following Sunday.

Consumer Minister Bob Runciman says Ontario will not recognize same-sex marriages. He says no matter what Hawkes’ church does, the federal law is clear. “It won’t qualify to be registered because of the federal legislation which clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.”

The two same-sex couples are married on Jan. 14, 2001. The following day, Runciman reiterates the government’s position, saying the marriages will not be legally recognized.

May 10, 2002

Marc Hall

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert McKinnon rules that a gay student has the right to take his boyfriend to the prom.

Earlier, the Durham Catholic District School Board said student Marc Hall couldn’t bring his 21-year-old boyfriend to the dance at Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic high school in Oshawa. Officials acknowledge that Hall has the right to be gay, but said permitting the date would send a message that the Church supports his “homosexual lifestyle.”

Hall went to the prom.

July 12, 2002

For the first time a Canadian court rules in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages under the law. The Ontario Superior Court rules that prohibiting gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gives Ontario two years to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.

As a result of the Ontario ruling, the Alberta government passes a bill banning same-sex marriages and defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. The province says it will use the notwithstanding clause to avoid recognizing same-sex marriages if Ottawa amends the Marriage Act.

Also, a ruling against gay marriages is expected to be heard in B.C. by the province’s Court of Appeal in early 2003, and a judge in Montreal is to rule on a similar case.

July 16, 2002

Ontario decides not to appeal the court ruling, saying only the federal government can decide who can marry.

July 29, 2002

On July 29, the federal government announces it will seek leave to appeal the Ontario court ruling “to seek further clarity on these issues.” Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says in a news release, “At present, there is no consensus, either from the courts or among Canadians, on whether or how the laws require change.”

Aug. 1, 2002

Toronto City Council passes a resolution calling the common-law definition restricting marriage to opposite sex couples discriminatory.

Nov. 10, 2002

An Ekos poll commissioned by CBC finds that 45 per cent of Canadians would vote Yes in a referendum to change the definition of marriage from a union of a man and a woman to one that could include a same-sex couple.

Feb. 13, 2003

New Democrat MP Svend Robinson unveils a private member’s bill that would allow same-sex marriages. The federal government has already changed several laws to give same-sex couples the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual common-law couples.

Michael Stark and Michael Leshner

June 10, 2003

The Ontario Court of Appeal upholds a lower court ruling to legally allow same-sex marriages. “The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couple’s equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under (the charter),” read the decision. The judgment follows the Ontario Divisional Court ruling on July 12, 2002.

Hours after the ruling, Michael Leshner and Michael Stark are married in a ceremony in Toronto. Both men played a key role in the court case.

June 11, 2003

Ontario attorney general Norm Sterling announces that the province will obey the law and register same-sex marriages. Nearly two dozen homosexual couples applied for marriage licences in Ontario on June 10.

June 17, 2003

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announces legislation to make same-sex marriages legal, while at the same time permitting churches and other religious groups to “sanctify marriage as they see it.” It means Ottawa will not appeal two provincial court rulings allowing same-sex unions. “There is an evolution in society,” Chrétien said.

July 8, 2003

British Columbia becomes the second province to legalize same-sex marriages. The British Columbia Court of Appeal lifts its ban on same-sex marriages, giving couples in the province the right to marry immediately. The decision alters a ruling that would have made same-sex marriages legal, but not until July 2004. The court had already agreed that the definition of marriage should be the union of “two persons” rather than of “one man and one woman.” Ontario was the first province to recognize same-sex marriages as legal.

July 17, 2003

Ottawa reveals the exact wording of historic legislation that would allow gay couples to marry. The Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for review. According to the draft bill, “marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. The Supreme Court is being asked: whether or not Parliament has the exclusive legal authority to define marriage; if the proposed act is compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether or not the Constitution protects religious leaders who refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages.

If the country’s top justices decide that the draft legislation is constitutional, it will be put to a free vote in the House of Commons - meaning members of Parliament would not have to vote according to party lines.

Aug. 13, 2003

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien vows not to let religious objections alter his stand on same-sex marriage. He says members of Parliament will be allowed to vote freely on the bill when it’s introduced in the House of Commons after his retirement in 2004. A significant number of Liberal MPs say they do not support same-sex unions and will vote against the legislation.

Aug. 14, 2003

After extensive and emotional debate, the United Church of Canada votes overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex marriages. The majority of delegates at the church’s general council meeting in Wolfville, N.S., vote to ask Ottawa to recognize same-sex marriage in the same way as heterosexual ones.

Aug. 18, 2003

The Archbishop of St. John’s defends his censure of a local parish priest, saying Father Paul Lundrigan’s comments were unacceptable within the Catholic Church. In a sermon one week earlier, Lundrigan challenged the Catholic Church’s campaign against legalizing same-sex marriage. Lundrigan called the church hypocritical, criticizing it for fighting same-sex marriages while it remained silent about sexual abuse by clergy members.

Sept. 9, 2003

A gay and lesbian group goes to trial against the federal government in an attempt to force Ottawa to extend survivor benefits to excluded gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian partners - pursuing Canadian Pension Plan benefits from their deceased partners - say the federal government is discriminating against them and have filed a $400-million class-action suit.

September 16, 2003 [Kwing Hung: two consecutive days of Canadian shame]

The Canadian Alliance moved a motion to affirm traditional marriage. It was narrowly defeated by the Liberal government.

September 17, 2003

Bill C-250 (against hate crime targetting sexual orientation) drafted by a homosexual NDP MP passed the House of Commons with the help of the Liberal government.

Nov. 27, 2003

Alliance Leader Stephen Harper Thursday fires MP Larry Spencer as family issues critic after Spencer said homosexuality should be outlawed. Spencer told the Vancouver Sun that homosexuality is part of a “well orchestrated” conspiracy that should be outlawed, a Canadian Alliance MP says.

Dec. 19, 2003

An Ontario court rules that Ottawa has discriminated against same-sex couples by denying benefits to those whose partners died before 1998. The court rules that benefits will be retroactive to April 17, 1985, when equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.

==============================

>>World Timeline (CBC, 040100)

August 6, 1885 – The United Kingdom

The British Parliament votes to make homosexual acts a criminal offense.

1930s – Europe

Adolf Hitler takes power and launches a campaign against Jews and other groups. Thousands of homosexuals are sent to concentration camps. Gay men are identified with pink triangles and lesbians are identified with black triangles.

1961 – The United States

Illinois repeals its sodomy laws making it the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexuality between consenting adults in private. The law takes effect in 1962. Connecticut follows in 1969 with the law taking effect in 1971. In the 1970s a rush of other states decriminalize homosexuality including Colorado, Oregon, Ohio, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Washington, New Mexico, West Virginia, South Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, Arizona, and New Jersey.

July 27, 1967 – The United Kingdom

Britain decriminalizes homosexuality between consenting adults in private, except for those in the military and police.

June 27, 1969 – The United States

At about midnight, New York City police raid the Stonewall Inn, a private gay club on St. Christopher St. in Greenwich Village. Raids on gay and lesbian bars were common but this time people fight back. The events of June 17, 1969 and the violent protests that occurred during the nights that followed are known as The Stonewall Riots, which is seen as the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the United States.

February 25, 1982 – The United States

Wisconsin becomes the first state in the U.S. to pass a gay civil rights law. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota and Rhode Island follow, with Massachusetts passing a law forbidding the placement of children for adoption or foster care with gay people.

July 27, 1982 – The United States

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention replaces the acronym GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) with AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

December 1, 1988 – Switzerland

The first World AIDS Day is held by the World Health Organization.

October 1, 1989 – Denmark

Denmark becomes the first country to legally recognize same-sex partnerships, essentially sanctioning gay marriages. The Danish Registered Partnership Act states “Two persons of the same sex may have their partnership registered” and “the registration of a partnership shall have the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage.”

By 2001, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands and France recognize registered partnerships and Italy, Spain and Israel are considering adopting similar legislation.

July 1, 2000 – The United States

Vermont’s civil union law comes into effect making it the first state in the U.S. to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits and responsibilities similar to those of heterosexual couples, including medical decision-making, tax breaks and inheritance. However, the unions won’t be recognized in other states.

Hawaii allows adults who can’t legally marry to register as domestic partners.

April 1, 2001 – The Netherlands

The Netherlands jumps to the forefront when its lower house of parliament enacts the world’s most comprehensive legal recognition of gay rights. The Dutch law allows same-sex couples to marry and gives them the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to adopting. The only restrictions to the new law are that same-sex couples can only adopt Dutch children, and foreign same-sex couples can’t come to the Netherlands to marry unless one of them lives there.

The law tops Denmark’s law, which allows gays and lesbians to adopt their partners’ children but not children outside the marriage.

Pope John Paul II criticizes the new law saying no adult relationship other than that of a man and a woman should be recognized as marriage.

June 7, 2003 – The United Kingdom

An openly gay Anglican priest announces he will not accept an appointment as bishop of Reading after bitter arguments within the Church of England. Canon Jeffrey John acknowledges that he’s in a long-term relationship with a man, but says he’s been celibate since the 1990s. Traditionalist groups within the Church insist the Bible forbids homosexuality.

July 31, 2003 – The Vatican

The Vatican issues a 12-page set of guidelines, approved by Pope John Paul, warning Catholic politicians that it is immoral to support same-sex unions. “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family,” it says. “Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”

August 5, 2003 – The United States

Episcopalian Church leaders in the United States vote to accept the election of the American Anglican church’s first openly gay bishop. The vote was 62-to-45 to confirm Rev. Gene Robinson as the new bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson, 56, is a divorced father of two. He has been living with his partner for 13 years. Conservative church members warn that Robinson’s installation could trigger a split in the church.

Nov. 3, 2003 – The United States

Rev. Gene Robinson becomes the first openly gay Anglican bishop. Before the consecration, two Episcopal clerics read letters of protest denouncing Robinson’s appointment as Bishop of New Hampshire.

==============================

**Culture Wars Online: Gay Activists Stamping Out Every Discordant Note (Christian Post, 111003)

By Chuck Colson

Imagine that your laptop finally gives up the ghost. You have several options: You can drive to the store and buy a new one, or you can shop online.

If you choose the latter, you have another option: You can buy it from an online retailer, or you can connect to a retailer via a portal. Why? Because some portals, like CGBG, split its share of the profits with a charity of your choice.

It’s as close as shopping gets to “win-win” in our consumerist culture.

That is, of course, until someone objects to the charities who are receiving a share of the profits. And you won’t be surprised at who is making the objections.

Among the charities CGBG shares its profits with are the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. In July, a petition asking Microsoft to stop doing business with CGBG hit the Web. The organizer, “Stuart Wilber, a 73-year-old gay man in Seattle,” in the words of the New York Times, says that he was “astonished” that people could buy Microsoft products through CGBG.

Do I have to tell you why he was “astonished?” After all, many gay activists and organizations consider Focus on the Family and FRC to be anti-gay hate groups just because they are opposed to so-called gay “marriage” and consider the biblical teachings that homosexual sex sinful.

It didn’t matter that Focus and FRC were only two of thousands of CGBG’s potential recipients. Nor did it matter what good the other groups did. Focus and FRC spoke a discouraging word about homosexuality, so CGBG was beyond the pale.

Microsoft gave in, as did Macy’s. Others, like Delta, Target, and Wal-Mart, withdrew from any association with CGBG and then thought better of it.

Why? Because for major retailers there is no profit, literally, in alienating millions of potential Christian customers, especially when the “association” alleged by gay activists is so tenuous.

As a Delta spokesman put it, “We thought we were just flying airplanes.”

But to many in the gay-rights movement, retailers and airlines are mere props in a campaign of intimidation. From their perspective, the amount that Focus and FRC may raise through their participation in CGBG (and they don’t raise much) is beside the point.

It’s not enough that gay men and lesbians are free to live, work, and, in six states plus the District of Columbia, marry where and whom they choose.

It doesn’t matter that, within living memory of virtually everyone over the age of eighteen, the opinions being expressed by Focus, FRC and the Manhattan Declaration were literally taken for granted.

It doesn’t matter that, unlike the real “hate groups” to whom FRC is slanderously compared, no one involved with CGBG is threatening, much less doing, violence or even urging discrimination.

It doesn’t matter because, apparently, homosexual activists will not feel “free,” “safe,” “accepted” or “equal” unless every discordant note, every discouraging word about their lifestyle, is banned from the public square.

It’s good that Christians are speaking out. And some businesses have changed their minds. We must never be intimidated into the spiral of silence, which you’ll be hearing me talk about often in the weeks ahead.

==============================

**Obama Signs Proclamation Recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month (Christian Post, 110601)

On Tuesday, President Obama declared June as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) month. Obama has issued similar proclamations in prior years by issuing the proclamation each year he has been in office.

Obama wasn’t the first president to issue a proclamation recognizing the LGBT community. Former President Bill Clinton issued the first one in June of 1999.

The proclamation reads in part, “The story of America’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union. It is a story about the struggle to realize the great American promise that all people can live with dignity and fairness under the law.”

According to a recent study released in April of this year by Dr. Gary Gates and The Williams Institute, an arm of the UCLA School of Law, “An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults as transgender.”

The report went on to conclude that approximately 9 million Americans identify themselves as LGBT, “a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey,” according to the study. Many religious and family groups have challenged high estimates of the gay population, especially as portrayed in the media, saying such numbers are inflated and inaccurate.

In his proclamation, the president highlighted the 30th anniversary of HIV/AIDS epidemic by challenging the LGBT community to recommit to raising awareness about the disease.

Obama also mentioned his repeal of the “don ask, don’t tell” policy by saying, “With this repeal, gay and lesbian Americans will be able to serve openly in our Armed Forces for he first time in our Nation’s history. Our national security will be strengthened and the heroic contributions these Americans make to our military, and have made throughout our history, will be fully recognized.”

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the family expressed the group’s frustration with the president’s actions, saying, “To the detriment of the family, President Obama continues to affirm the homosexual lifestyle by issuing this proclamation each year.”

Horne went on to say, “It’s clear the president’s goal of wanting to affirm homosexuality in our culture is a top priority for the administration. While we’re not surprised by his actions, we simply see it as another reminder of his commitment to redefine marriage outside of one man and one woman.”

According to recent Gallup polls, more than half (56%) of Americans say gay or lesbian relations is morally acceptable and 40% believe being gay is “something a person is born with.” Support for homosexuality has also hit a record high this year with 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal.

==============================

**Obama Calls on UN to Support Gay Rights (Christian Post, 110311)

The Obama administration on Tuesday called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world.

The declaration, supported by 84 other countries, marks the first time the United States has pushed for U.N. action on gay rights.

“Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love. The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence,” said Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in a statement.

The move by Obama on Tuesday was seen as a clear departure from George W. Bush’s administration, which never pressed for gay and lesbian rights. Unlike his predecessor, Obama has aggressively advocated gay rights during his presidency.

The president in February instructed the Justice Department not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and has encouraged Congress to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Last week, Obama announced in a joint statement with the Brazilian president the creation of a special investigator position to monitor respect for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender individuals in the Western Hemisphere.

The representative of Colombia on Tuesday delivered the full text of the declaration entitled, “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” before the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The document calls on governments to “take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Signers also affirmed a 2008 joint statement by a group of states representing all five U.N. regions that called for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In the statement to the U.N., they also commend attention paid to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity by international human rights mechanisms and within the context of the Universal Periodic Review.

Acknowledging that “these may be sensitive issues for many,” the document encouraged the search for “common ground” and asked the Council to “be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination” in dealing with these sensitive issues.

Meanwhile, the Vatican contended before the Human Rights Council Tuesday that people who speak against same-sex relationships based on religious or moral beliefs are being attacked and vilified.

“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex,” Roman Catholic Archbishop Silvano Tomasi told the HRC session, according to Reuters.

“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatized, and worse - they are vilified, and prosecuted.

“These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances,” Tomasi said.

==============================

**Second ‘Homosexuality is a Sin’ Preacher Awarded Damages for Wrongful Arrest (Christian Post, 101220)

LONDON – Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine is to receive more than $10,000 in damages after police in Cumbria, England, admitted wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and a breach of his human rights.

Mcalpine, 42, was arrested in April by Cumbrian police in his home town of Workington after he mentioned that homosexuality was among the sins listed in the Bible. His comments were not made in his main public sermon but in response to a question about homosexuality posed to him by a passerby.

He was arrested by PC Craig Hynes for a “racially aggravated” offense under Section 5 of the Public Order Act and, after being detained at the station for more than seven hours, was charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting” words “to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” The charges were later dropped.

The arrest sparked fears for freedom of speech among Christians and was even criticized by prominent gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

According to the Christian Institute, which funded Mcalpine’s legal defense, Cumbrian police have accepted that they acted unlawfully.

Mcalpine said he was pleased the case had been settled without going to court.

Responding to the settlement, he said, “I forgive the police for how they treated me and I hope that this doesn’t happen to anyone else. Despite my experience I still respect the police. I will pray for them because they have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job.”

Mike Judge, spokesman for the Christian Institute, said Christians were being treated unfairly.

“Mr. Mcalpine was arrested and held in a cell for expressing his Christian views. This is Cumbria, not North Korea,” he said. “Sadly, it’s not an isolated case. We have defended a number of Christians wrongfully arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

“There is a problem with the law and it needs to be fixed.”

The settlement comes just weeks after Birmingham County Court awarded street preacher Anthony Rollins more than $6,000 in damages after the judge upheld his claims of wrongful arrest.

Rollins was arrested and charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act after he described homosexual conduct as morally wrong while preaching in Birmingham city center in June 2008. The charges were later dropped.

The street preacher decided to file a lawsuit against West Midlands Police after his complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission was rejected.

His claims of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, and the infringement of his human rights were upheld by Birmingham County Court on December 8.

The Christian Institute is appealing to the government to amend Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which makes it a criminal offense to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words or behavior in a way that could alarm or distress another person. It wants the government to repeal the word “insulting.”

==============================

**UK Street Preacher Wins Wrongful Arrest Case (Christian Post, 101213)

LONDON – A street preacher has been awarded more than $6,000 in damages after a judge ruled it was wrong for police to arrest and handcuff him for speaking out against homosexuality.

Anthony Rollins, who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, was preaching in Birmingham city center in June 2008 when a member of the public, John Edwards, took offense at comments he made describing homosexual conduct as morally wrong.

According to the Christian Institute, which backed Rollins’ case, police arrived on the scene after receiving a call from Edwards and PC Adrian Bill proceeded to handcuff Rollins without any further inquiry.

Birmingham County Court ruled on Wednesday that PC Bill had committed assault and battery against Rollins by handcuffing him unnecessarily.

Judge Lance Ashworth QC said in his ruling on Wednesday that the arrest demonstrated a “lack of thoughtfulness.”

PC Bill, the judge ruled, had made the arrest “as a matter of routine without any thought being given to Rollins’ Convention Rights”, which pertain to free speech and religious liberty.

After his arrest, Rollins was taken by PC Bill to the station where he was held for three hours but never questioned for his account of events.

He was charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act but the charges were dropped before the case came to trial.

Rollins decided to sue West Midlands Police after a complaint he made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about his treatment was rejected.

His claims of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, and the infringement of his human rights were upheld by the court on Wednesday.

Testifying in court, Rollins said he had felt “shocked and very humiliated” when the police marched him away in handcuffs.

He said that when he had tried to speak to PC Bill after his arrest he was told to “shut it.”

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: “Street preachers may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it is part of our Christian heritage. Most people just walk on by and ignore it. The police have no business arresting Christians for quoting the Bible.

“Whether you agree with Rollins’ beliefs or not, surely we all value free speech. Christians are tired of being put on trial for their beliefs. There is clearly a problem with the Public Order Act and it needs fixing.”

Section 5 of the Public Order Act makes it an offense to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words or behavior in a way that could alarm or distress another person.

The law has led to the arrest of several Christians over comments they made expressing their religious beliefs.

Last year, Christian hotel owners Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were brought before the courts after they “insulted” a Muslim guest during a conversation in which they expressed their concerns about the status of Islamic women. They were eventually found not guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offense.

Earlier in the year, Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine was arrested after telling a community police officer that he believed homosexuality to be a sin. The charges were later dropped.

The Christian Institute is calling upon the Government to repeal the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act when the Freedom Bill passes through Parliament in the coming months.

Writing on the ConservativeHome website this week, Judge said removing “insulting” from the law would not interfere with the police’s ability to deal with genuine public disorder.

“Free speech is a bedrock principle of any true democracy. That freedom is worthless unless it encompasses the dissenting opinion, the awkward belief, the uncomfortable truth,” he said.

“This freedom doesn’t just protect the speaker. It ensures that you, I and everyone has the freedom to hear, the freedom to listen, the freedom to weigh up competing ideas for ourselves.

“If anyone feels insulted and distressed by that, sorry but that’s the price of living in a free society.”

==============================

**Outed Pastor Says No to Homosexuality, Follows Jesus (Christian Post, 100804)

After being “outed” by a GLBT magazine and being placed on leave, the Rev. Tom Brock returned to Hope Lutheran Church on Sunday.

He didn’t preach to the Minneapolis congregation of some 450 people. But he admitted to his flock for the first time that he struggles with same-sex attraction.

It’s a struggle he’s had since college but the Lutheran pastor has never given in to the temptation. He has been attending a Catholic accountability group called Courage and has always believed and continues to believe that homosexual behavior is a sin.

It’s been a difficult past five weeks for him, he said, since Minnesota’s Lavender magazine exposed Brock’s struggles to the public. In a questionable move, Lavender reporter John Townsend attended the Courage support group meetings undercover and recounted Brock’s confidential stories in the June edition of the magazine.

The GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) publication implied that Brock had acted out on his attraction to men. But the longtime Lutheran pastor said the magazine got it “totally wrong.”

“I’m a 57-year-old virgin,” he asserted.

Brock may have initially had some anger toward the Minneapolis-based magazine but he told The Christian Post Tuesday that by the grace of God, he was able to forgive them rather quickly.

He added, “I do pray for their salvation because their point of view is that you can behave like this and there’s no problem with it and biblically that’s not true.”

His same-sex attractions weren’t quite a secret. He not only had his support group but he also talked to some close friends about his struggles.

“I’ve had personal support for many years,” he said. “I just never got up in the pulpit and told everybody ‘look, this is my struggle.’”

Nature vs. nurture

Trying to recall how long he’s had same-sex attractions, Brock said, “I knew for sure I had a problem in college. Even looking earlier, I can see signs.”

The 57-year-old pastor remembered attending a conference – possibly a Love Won Out conference which equips Christians with how to respond with truth and grace to people struggling with homosexuality – and hearing a psychiatrist talk about the hundreds of people he had counseled.

“He said he has never met one man in all of his clients who when he was a little boy had a close relationship with his father,” Brock recounted.

“My dad was kind of distant,” he said.

Brock doesn’t believe that people are born a homosexual. If anything, he believes it’s more nurture than nature.

“I don’t see anything biblically that would justify the belief that God makes you a homosexual,” he explained. “Biblically, we all believe in original sin, that we’re all born sinners. I don’t believe there’s a gay gene or that we’re born gay.

“My belief is early in life, there’s a breakdown between the child and the same-sex parent” (like a son not getting a masculine identity from his father).

But even if a “gay gene” were to be proven – which Brock highly doubts will happen – the Minneapolis pastor said it still doesn’t change anything.

“The fact that you’re born with a sinful inclination doesn’t give you the right to practice it,” he stressed.

Interestingly, the conflict between his inclination toward men and what he believes Scripture states clearly never sent him running from God. He never questioned the Bible’s stance that homosexual behavior is a sin and at the same time was never shaken in his faith.

“I knew I was a sinner and that I needed a savior so it actually drove me to Christ, not from Him,” he said. “In a way, it strengthened my faith.”

Still following Jesus

Since the exposure, the Hope congregation has been very supportive of Brock. After weeks of looking into the matter, a task force at the church found the pastor credible. Brock was previously the senior pastor for 21 years but is now just a pastor.

“I can’t tell you how wonderful they’ve been,” Brock said, adding that it’s a conservative Bible-believing church.

Hope Lutheran is a member of the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations. The congregation left the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America nine years ago over its increasing liberal direction on homosexuality and over abortions that are covered in the ELCA healthcare plan for staff.

“Last year is when they (ELCA) decided to allow practicing homosexual pastors and that’s causing a lot of churches to leave but we left nine years ago over that direction that it was going but even more so maybe is the fact that the ELCA pays for abortions with offering dollars and that just so grieved us.”

Last August, the ELCA’s chief legislative body voted to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships” to serve as clergy. In the AFLC, practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained or serve as a pastor.

“They would never believe like many do in the ELCA that as long as you really love each other you can have a gay sexual relationship. That’s just not them,” Brock said of the conservative denomination.

Though his struggles have been made public and he still currently “[has] temptations,” Brock said he plans to continue to preach the same message that if you don’t repent of sin and come to Christ, you’re not going to heaven.

But he has one new message he can share: “I have this struggle. You can have this struggle, say no to it and still follow Jesus.”

He’s not planning to go back immediately into the Hope Lutheran pulpit. He said he’s going to take some time to heal and also work on plans for the church’s TV ministry expansion.

“The plan is I’ll be back hopefully fairly soon. Just, we got to work all that out,” he said.

And when he returns, his sermons will eventually be beaming to 20 cities across the country, in addition to the Twin Cities.

As for going back to his Catholic support group, Brock isn’t sure whether to return. He may start attending a different group, he said.

In the meantime, he said, “I’ll still be accountable to people.”

==============================

**Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality (Foxnews, 100728)

A federal judge ruled schools can expel students, like Julea Ward, who believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University was dismissed.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Eastern Michigan University hailed the decision.

“We are pleased that the court has upheld our position in this matter,” EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a written statement. “Julea Ward was not discriminated against because of her religion. To the contrary, Eastern Michigan is deeply committed to the education of our students and welcomes individuals from diverse backgrounds into our community.”

In his 48-page opinion, Judge Steeh said the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics.

“Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,” he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

The case is similar to a lawsuit the ADF filed against Augusta State University in Georgia. Counseling student Jennifer Keeton was allegedly told to stop sharing her Christian beliefs in order to graduate.

Keeton’s lawsuit alleged that she was told to undergo a reeducation program and attend “diversity sensitivity training.”

University officials declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit but released a statement to FOX News that said Augusta State does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal beliefs.

Tedesco said both cases should be a warning to Christians attending public colleges and universities.

“Public universities are imposing the ideological stances of private groups on their students,” he said. “If you don’t comply, you will be kicked out. It’s scary stuff and it’s not a difficult thing to see what’s coming down the pike.”

The Alliance Defense Fund told FOX News it will appeal the ruling.

==============================

**Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit (Foxnews, 100701)

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners’ health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefits for all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don’t have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google’s new policy, the company isn’t offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

Daryl Herrschaft, director of the Workplace Project at Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, says Google’s policy is a step in the right direction.

“They’re picking up the slack where the federal government hasn’t recognized the reality of diversity in the workforce today,” Herschaft told FoxNews.com. “This is eliminating existing discrimination that ... gays and lesbians face in the workplace as result of federal law that doesn’t acknowledge their families.”

But Focus on the Family, a Christian organization aimed at providing practical help for marriage and parenting, says this far from levels the playing field.

“If Google wants to be truly fair to its employees, it should consider extra compensation to married heterosexuals who are bitten every April 15 by the marriage-penalty tax,” spokesman Gary Schneeberger told FoxNews.com. “How is offering more money to only one group to offset a perceived inequity not a form of discrimination against those groups not fortunate enough to receive such bonuses?”

Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl says even if the idea seems good in practice, it could become a legal issue because its deciding which domestic partners get these benefits based solely on sexual orientation.

“There’s a potential for a reverse discrimination suit because of the equal pay for equal work statute which says that if I’m doing the same job as the person next to me that my marital status or sexual orientation shouldn’t be taken into consideration. It’s my work performance that should be taken into consideration,” Wiehl told FoxNews.com.

As for the disparity in the federal tax structure, Wiehl says, legally, it has nothing to do with the employer: You get paid a salary, and it’s up to you to pay your taxes, not your employer.

Google’s not the first company to implement such a policy

The Kimpton hotel and restaurant chain is one example of another company that “grosses up imputed taxes” on domestic partner benefits. But unlike Google, Kimpton’s policies do not single out same-sex couples.

“It didn’t even come as a thought to us to not open it up to everyone. When we designed all of our policies we try to see to it that they’re inclusive to everybody so that we cover all of our employees,” Alan Baer, senior vice president of people and information for the Kimpton Hotel Group told FoxNews.com. “So if heterosexual couples choose to be in domestic partnership, why would we discriminate against them?”

But Google doesn’t seem concerned, calling its policy

“another reason to celebrate.”

In addition to the added compensation, the company says as it will also be providing the equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act for all same-sex domestic partners and is working with its insurance carriers to eliminate the one-year waiting period to qualifying for infertility benefits.

“Google supports its LGBT employees in many ways: raising its voice in matters of policy, taking a moment to remember the plight of transgender people around the world and going the extra mile to ensure that its employees are treated fairly,” the company said in the blog.

The company says its new health benefits compensation will be retroactive to January 1, 2010.

Google denied requests to comment any further on the policy.

==============================

**Conservative Pediatricians Caution Schools on Gay-Affirming Policies (Christian Post, 100412)

A group of pediatricians that broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is cautioning educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) is especially reminding school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.

“Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence,” writes ACPEDS President Dr. Tom Benton in a letter to school superintendents outlining his group’s concerns. “Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.”

For this reason, ACPEDS says schools should NOT seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion.

Such premature labeling, the group adds, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

“[I]t is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to ‘come out as gay’ and be ‘affirmed,’ there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation),” Benton says.

“Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue,” he adds.

To make his point, Benton notes one study that was published in the official journal of the AAP in 1992 that found as many as 26% of 12-year-olds having reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation. Notably, only 2-3% of adults today identify themselves as homosexual.

“Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25,” Benton writes.

Over 85% of students with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation, according to ACPEDS.

Furthermore, Benton notes the absence of scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.”

“Homosexuality is not a genetically-determined, unchangeable trait,” the ACPEDS asserts.

Instead, Benton says the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion.

“Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is ‘… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations,’” Benton notes, citing one of the world’s leading geneticists. “He (Collins) also states [that] ‘…the prominent role[s] of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.’”

In light of these and other facts, the ACPEDS is reminding schools that its legitimate role is to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation, they add.

To assist educators in establishing the optimal school environment, ACPEDS has created a website, www.FactsAboutYouth.com, that provides information about healthy approaches to students experiencing sexual orientation and gender identity confusion.

ACPEDS was officially formed in 2002 in response to what they say was a “disturbing” shift in focus within the AAP from the needs of children to political correctness and the wants of adults.

For ACPEDS, the breaking point came when the AAP rejected a resolution calling for it to “suspend any support for homosexual or same sex (co-parent) adoption until longitudinal, well designed, case controlled studies of statistically adequate sample size exist which can confirm that such arrangements are truly in the best interests of the children involved.”

Presently, the mission of ACPEDS is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being.

==============================

**UN GA Votes to Eliminate Controversial Reference to “Sexual Orientation” (C-FAM, 091218)

In a close vote today, the UN General Assembly (GA) voted to delete a controversial reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (ICESCR) General Comment 20 today.

General Comment 20 on non-discrimination has been at the center of debate this GA session because it claims that two new anti-discrimination categories exist - one based on “sexual orientation” and the other on “gender identity.” Neither of these two items which have ever been included as part of the established list of non-discrimination categories.

A subsidiary body of the General Assembly, the Third Committee, had narrowly voted to keep the controversial reference several weeks ago. Today’s vote reversed the decision and the reference to General Comment 20 was deleted from the resolution entitled “International Covenants on Human Rights.”

==============================

**Uganda Debates Proposal That Would Sentence Gays to Death (Foxnews, 091208)

KAMPALA, Uganda — Proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to homosexuals.

Gay rights activists say the bill, which has prompted growing international opposition, promotes hatred and could set back efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. They believe the bill is part of a continentwide backlash because Africa’s gay community is becoming more vocal.

“It’s a question of visibility,” said David Cato, who became an activist after he was beaten up four times, arrested twice, fired from his teaching job and outed in the press because he is gay. “When we come out and ask for our rights, they pass laws against us.”

The legislation has drawn global attention from activists across the spectrum of views on gay issues. The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. “Serial offenders” also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.

Anyone who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality” faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with “religious, political, economic or social authority” who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.

The bill is still being debated and could undergo changes before a vote, which hasn’t yet been set. But gay-rights activists abroad are focusing on the legislation. A protest against the bill is planned for Thursday in London; protests were held last month in New York and Washington.

David Bahati, the legislator sponsoring the bill, said he was encouraging “constructive criticism” to improve the law but insisted strict measures were necessary to stop homosexuals from “recruiting” schoolchildren.

“The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America,” said high school teacher David Kisambira. “A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities.”

Uganda’s ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, said the death sentence clause would probably be reviewed but maintained the law was necessary to counter foreign influence. He said homosexuality “is not natural in Uganda,” a view echoed by some Ugandans.

“I feel that the bill is good and necessary, but I don’t think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling,” said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.

Uganda is not the only country considering anti-gay laws. Nigeria, where homosexuality is already punishable by imprisonment or death, is considering strengthening penalties for activities deemed to promote it. Burundi just banned same-sex relationships and Rwanda is considering it.

Homophobia is rife even in more tolerant African countries.

In Kenya, homosexuality is illegal but the government has acknowledged its existence by launching sexual orientation survey to improve health care. Nevertheless, the recent marriage of two Kenyan men in London caused outrage. The men’s families in Kenya were harassed by reporters and villagers.

In South Africa, the only African nation to recognize gay marriage, gangs carry out so-called “corrective” rapes on lesbians. A 19-year-old lesbian athlete was gang-raped, tortured and murdered in 2008.

Debate over the Ugandan bill follows a conference in Kampala earlier this year attended by American activists who consider same-gender relationships sinful, and believe gays and lesbians can become heterosexual through prayer and counseling. Author Don Schmierer and “sexual reorientation coach” Caleb Lee Brundidge took part; they did not respond to interview requests.

A third American who took part in the conference in Uganda, Scott Lively, said the bill has gone too far.

“I agree with the general goal but this law is far too harsh,” said Lively, a California-based preacher and author of “The Pink Swastika” and other books that advise parents how to “recruit-proof” their children from gays.

“Society should actively discourage all sex outside of marriage and that includes homosexuality ... The family is under threat,” he said. Gay people “should not be parading around the streets,” he added.

Frank Mugisha, a gay Ugandan human rights activist, said the bill was so poorly worded that someone could be imprisoned for giving a hug.

“This bill is promoting hatred,” he said. “We’re turning Uganda into a police state. It will drive people to suicide.”

Buturo played down the influence of foreign evangelicals, saying the proposed legislation was an expression of popular outrage against “repugnant” practices. But activists like Cato argue anti-gay attitudes are a foreign import.

“In the beginning, when the missionaries brought religion, they said they were bringing love,” he said. “Instead they brought hate, through homophobia.”

Susan Timberlake, a senior adviser on human rights and law from UNAIDS, said such laws could hinder the fight against HIV/AIDS by driving people further underground. And activists also worry that the legislation could be used to blackmail or silence government critics.

Cato said he thinks the Ugandan bill will pass, perhaps in an altered form.

“It’s such a setback. But I hope we can overcome it,” he said. “I cannot believe this is happening in the 21st century.”

==============================

**U.S. Supports U.N. Declaration on Homosexuality (Christian Post, 090320)

The Obama administration announced this week its endorsement of the U.N. declaration decriminalizing homosexuality, a move former President George W. Bush had rejected.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Wednesday that the United States supports the U.N.’s statements on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” Wood told reporters.

“As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora,” he said.

The United States will join 66 other countries, including all the members of the European Union, in backing the U.N. statement. Other countries who have signed the document include Japan, Australia, Mexico, and dozens of other countries.

Previously, Bush had refused to sign the declaration explaining that he feared it would infringe upon the rights of states. Some states, for instance, allow landlords and certain employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation, according to The Associated Press.

However, Wood assured that the document would not impose any legal changes in the United States.

But World Congress of Families is concerned that the measure will pressure member states to recognize gay marriage and other special rights.

“Violence and harassment in all forms should be condemned, but this special rights measure is not needed by the United Nations,” said Larry Jacobs, managing director of World Congress of Families, in a statement Friday.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) has already been signed by the nations of the world and is supposed to be used by the UN to protect the rights of all persons from conception to natural death. Will this special rights measure be used to push for homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military?” Jacobs inquired. “Will it be interpreted as a mandate for gay adoption?”

Jacobs noted that the Vatican is also concerned about how the statements would be interpreted.

Under Bush, the United States was the only western country to not sign the declaration in December when it was presented at the U.N. General Assembly.

Among the U.N.’s 192 member countries, 70 of them outlaw homosexuality. Over 50 countries, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, oppose the declaration.

==============================

**Hundreds in Uganda Denounce Homosexuality in Wide Protest (Christian Post, 091104)

Hundreds of people in Uganda joined rallies on Tuesday to denounce homosexuality, a practice they fear is growing in the largely conservative African state.

“Homosexuality breaks the laws of God, the laws of nature and the laws of Uganda,” said Pastor Martin Ssempa, spokesman for the Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality, which organized the anti-gay rally in Uganda’s capital, according to The Associated Press.

Homosexuality carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in Uganda, like in most African states.

Protestors from various religious groups, including Christians, Muslims and Bahai, held signs that read “Homosexuality is crime. That’s the law. Keep it.” and “God loves homos, he hates homosexuality.” They were in Kampala trying to urge the government to uphold the country’s ban against what conservatives have called a “repugnant practice” ahead of November’s Commonwealth Summit.

Ssempa, a Pentecostal pastor, believes homosexuals are using the summit to intimidate Uganda into changing the country’s laws, he told BBC’s Focus on Africa. Homosexuals from the Sexual Minorities Uganda group launched a media campaign last week to demand respect and their rights.

In protest, ethics and integrity minister Nsaba Buturo said the government would not change its law.

“They should not be allowed to pursue an agenda of indoctrinating our children to homosexuality,” said Buturo, according to Uganda’s The New Vision.

Uganda’s government rejected the homosexuals’ call for recognition and equal rights.

Ssempa and his coalition urged the government not to bow to external pressure to relax its laws.

“Government should learn from the Church of Uganda, which has withstood international pressure and had to do without donor funds in order to uphold morality,” said a statement by the Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality.

The gay community is estimated by activists to number 500,000 in Uganda, according to BBC.

“We want everyone to know that we are disappointed. Homosexuality is a terrible thing. It’s illegal under our laws,” Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary of the Anglican Church of Uganda told Ecumenical News International from Kampala. “They (the government) must make a clear policy over the issue, as they have done with HIV and AIDS.”

Mwesigye spoke at a churches’ rally held on Tuesday to mobilize action against homosexuality.

“God’s design and intention is for humanity to express itself only in male and female relationship and for procreation. We condemn homosexuality,” he said at last week’s press conference.

==============================

**Christians Urged to Speak Out Against Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill (Christian Post, 091103)

Thousands of Americans are expressing outrage over a new bill in Uganda that would heavily penalize those involved in homosexuality.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is currently being debated, imposes punishment not only on gays and lesbians who engage in homosexual behavior, but also those who support gay organizations or who know about a homosexual and fail to report it to authorities.

“American Christians have some culpability for this situation by going to Uganda and failing to speak against this error,” said Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. “American Christians need to step up and speak now.”

Throckmorton recently started a Facebook page to spread awareness about the bill and urge the public to voice their opposition. The page already has more than 2,500 members from around the globe, many of them speechless over the new bill.

“This is just quite simply wrong on all levels,” Deb Parsons wrote on the social networking page.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda and can be punished with life imprisonment. But the anti-homosexuality legislation, proposed by ruling party MP David Bahati, was designed to “fill the gaps” in the provisions of existing laws and “strengthen the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family.”

A coalition of human rights and Civil Society groups blasted the measure for attacking human rights protections and placing “everybody” at risk – including parents, teachers, landlords, doctors, media and religious leaders who provide counseling to someone struggling with their sexuality, work with those infected with HIV/AIDS, or do not report an offense within 24 hours of knowledge.

“[I]t cannot be implemented without making every citizen spy on his or her neighbors,” the coalition said in a statement last month. “The last time this was done was in the Amin era, where everyone very quickly became an ‘enemy of the state’. It amounts to a direct invasion of our homes, and will promote blackmail, false accusations and outright intimidation of certain members of the population.”

In addition to penalizing the “promotion of homosexuality” and “failure to disclose the offense,” the bill also states that a Ugandan citizen or permanent resident who engages in homosexual activity outside the country can still be punished. Another provision nullifies international treaties, protocols, and declarations that are “contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this act.”

Punishments range from a fine and a three-year imprisonment to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Joann Lockard, the public affairs officer for the U.S. embassy in Kampala, said the bill, if adopted, would “constitute a significant step backwards for the protection of human rights in Uganda,” as reported by Agence France-Presse.

Ugandan Ethics Minister James Nsaba Buturo rejected such arguments, stating, “They have no mandate whatsoever to come and say: ‘Your values are wrong, mine are right,’” according to AFP.

Reports have indicated that religious leaders in Uganda, including the Rev. Aaron Mwesigye of the Church of Uganda, want the death penalty provision removed but support life imprisonment. In the United States, some Christians have expressed opposition to the measure in its entirety in informal discussions but formal statements have yet to be made.

“I am not sure it is on the radar of many groups here,” Throckmorton wrote on the Facebook page. “We are out in front as far as I can tell.”

Throckmorton has urged Christ followers in Uganda to “put down the stones,” as he cited the New Testament account of the woman caught in the act of adultery.

“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” Jesus told those who were about to stone the woman. Everyone left without tossing one stone.

“Jesus intervened on behalf of the woman, was He wrong?” Throckmorton noted in an op-ed in Uganda’s The Independent. “Clearly, He did not believe adultery was proper. But He signaled a new way of dealing with sin, one which emphasizes mercy and freedom, rather than coercion and death.

“Brothers and sisters, jailing or killing gays or those suspected of being gay or those who know gays cannot create a righteous people, and in fact may further a self-righteous people. One may disapprove of homosexuality, and still treat homosexuals as you would want to be treated. Who among us could stand if our private sins were judged in such a manner as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009?”

==============================

**Toronto to host 2014 World Pride event (Paris, International Herald, 091016)

An international celebration of gay rights will be held in Toronto in 2014.

The city has been chosen to host World Pride, a statement on the website of the Pride Toronto organization announced Sunday.

World Pride, which includes a parade, festivals and cultural activities, promotes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues on the international stage.

The first such event was held in Rome in 2000, said the Toronto statement.

The most recent World Pride was set to take place in Jerusalem in August 2006, but was cancelled due to a violent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the website said.

The next event is set for just prior to the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012.

“A festival of this nature will bring Pride contingents from the world over, building international awareness of our culture and identities,” Pride Toronto spokeswoman Crystal Moore said in a statement.

“World Pride 2014 will transform our local pride and community spirit, while generating a positive impact on our economy, our tourism and commercial industry, and our physical and social community.”

==============================

**Post Sugarcoats Thuggery Against Philadelphia’s Boy Scouts (townhall.com, 071120)

By Robert Knight

The Washington Post this week stepped delicately around the thuggish tactics employed by Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz, who has engineered a coup against the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

In the November 19 article, “Philadelphia Gives Boy Scouts Ultimatum,” Post staff writer Dafna Linzer noted that Diaz had given the Boy Scouts until December 3 to agree to pay $200,000 or lose the headquarters the Scouts have had in a city park for nearly 100 years.

The local Scouts, who serve 64,000 mostly minority boys in Philadelphia and in two adjoining counties, had an agreement to lease the building for a dollar a year. Urged on by Diaz, the City Council on May 31 invoked a “sexual orientation” law and reneged on the agreement.

Here’s how the Post summarized the city’s crackdown: “The confrontation between the city and the nation’s third largest Scouts chapter has been building for four years, with each side blaming the other for backing out of previous agreements and for escalating tensions.”

So who’s the bully? Egged on by local homosexual activists, city officials are clearly the aggressors, not the Scouts. But the Post’s description is a classic example of moral equivalence, in which aggressor and victim are co-belligerents.

The Post also noted that the city “has invited the Boy Scouts to remain in the nearly 100-year-old building as paying tenants.”

“Invited?” That’s a little like saying a mugger “has invited” his victim to remain unharmed as long as he forks over his wallet.

Here are a few things the Post story left out:

· The architect of the harassment against the Scouts, City Solicitor Diaz, is openly homosexual, as has been reported in the Philadelphia press.

· The Scouts built the building with their own money, and then gave it to the city in 1928.

· The Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement the City Council broke.

· The Scouts bar openly homosexual Scoutmasters and members for moral reasons and for the sake of protecting young boys from possible harm, not because they are motivated by bigotry or prejudice. The Post article read as if the Scouts have no rational reason for wanting to determine whether prospective leaders or members are attracted sexually to males.

· The national Boy Scouts of America organization gets no ink to defend itself. Cradle of Liberty spokesman Jeff Jubelirer told the Post that the local chapter was trying its best in 2003 to cave in, with a statement saying that “prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council.”

Quoth Jubelirer: “We were trying to be amendable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it. We can’t have a policy where we put in specific words that National won’t allow or we’ll loose [sic] our charter. We can’t afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts.”

It might be nice to know what the mean, bigoted old National headquarters thinks of this.

· No one was quoted who has any problem with the city “fathers” threatening to kick out the city’s premiere youth organization.

· Philadelphia suffers from the leading murder and violent crime rate among top 10 cities in the United States. Most of it is being committed by fatherless young men.

The chief bully, Diaz, got the last quote: “If I do not receive an executed lease, signed by the Boy Scouts, to remain as tenants paying a fair market rent, we will begin looking for alternative tenants that can take over the property June 1, 2008.”

How about a Gay Pride Center? No problem there with a lack of money or connections. And it would make a fine kick-off to Gay Pride Month, which the city celebrates annually in June with taxpayer-sponsored activities. Diaz could be the first guest speaker.

As for the ongoing slaughter in the streets, Philadelphia had 406 homicides in 2006, courtesy of fatherless barbarians who could have benefited from character building offered by the Boy Scouts.

“It’s a disturbing statistic, we’re very concerned about it, and we’re going to do everything we can to reduce it,” Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Over at City Hall, the City Council and the mayor are doing their part by blessing the city solicitor’s ambitious social agenda. If the Scouts are forced out of town, it might not make Philadelphia a more livable place.

But let’s look at the bright side. Taxable champagne sales will soar in some circles.

Maybe the city can put the money toward building a more efficient morgue.

==============================

**Report: Fewer LGBT Characters on Network TV (Christian Post, 070925)

Gay and lesbian characters on primetime television are on the decline, according to the latest report by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

In the 2007-2008 television season, there will be seven regular LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) characters appearing on broadcast series. That’s 1.1% of all series regular characters in the TV season, down from 1.3% in 2006 and 1.4% in 2005, GLAAD’s study found.

Six of the seven LGBT characters are on ABC while none are appearing on CBS, FOX or The CW this season. NBC’s “The Office” is featuring the seventh.

The ABC shows with regular LGBT representations include “Brothers & Sisters,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Ugly Betty,” and the new midseason series “Cashmere Mafia.”

“While we acknowledge there have been improvements made in how we are seen on the broadcast networks, most notably on ABC, our declining representation clearly indicates a failure to inclusively reflect the audience watching television,” said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano in a statement.

There will be an additional 13 semi-regular recurring characters appearing on network TV this season, up from last year’s five.

The increase “suggests that producers and writers are showing a guarded interest in being inclusive without making the characters lead or supporting,” said GLAAD in a release.

Meanwhile, gay and lesbian characters are becoming more prominent on cable shows. This season, a total of 40 series regulars in 21 shows are scheduled to air on mainstream cable networks, which is 15 more characters than last year.

Giuliano said “diversity” on TV is “good for business.” “One need only look at the growing viewership of cable networks to see how inclusive programming can attract a wider audience,” he said in a statement.

Christians have expressed concern over the rise in homosexual content on network TV and mainstream media trying to normalize the LGBT lifestyle. According to an earlier GLAAD report, 15% of ABC’s primetime programming hours were inclusive of LGBT representations in the past year and youth-oriented The CW was not far behind with 12% of its programming hours being LGBT inclusive. In comparison, FOX – the most watched network among young adult viewers – has kept gay and lesbian representation over the past year at a minimum and shows no increase in LGBT content this upcoming TV season.

The latest findings are part of GLAAD’s 12th annual “Where We Are on TV” report which also looked at the representation of minorities, men and women on the broadcast networks. The CW, although without any LGBT characters, ranked first in overall diversity with ethnic minorities making up 32% of its series characters.

==============================

**Clergy for Gay Rights (Christian Post, 070627)

John Lomperis

As Congress considers legislation to enshrine “sexual orientation” in law, homosexual rights leaders are touting their support from an unlikely quarter: religious leaders.

Shortly before bills targeting employment discrimination “on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity” and “hate crimes” against homosexuals, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) held a rally of religious leaders outside the U.S. Capitol in support of the legislation.

The HRC, America’s largest homosexual rights group, established its “religion and faith program” two years ago to publicize its support from religiously affiliated allies and to promote homosexual causes within major religious bodies. In his 2005 Annual Report, HRC President Joe Solomonese called this new project “the cornerstone of our efforts to change hearts and minds.” At the recent rally, HRC promoted its new “Out in Scripture” resource, giving guidance from radical theologians on how to preach gay-friendly sermons.

Meanwhile, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which calls itself “the nation’s oldest gay and lesbian civil rights organization,” boasts of having worked for years to “amplify[y] the voice of faith leaders” who are gay-friendly. Last year, it took control of the “Institute for Welcoming Resources,” a coalition of unofficial caucuses within eight major Protestant denominations opposed to their church’s historic teachings on marriage and sex.

So what’s with all the gay rights leaders caring about God?

With so much of the popular culture having already succumbed to the demands of homosexual groups, America’s faith communities are the primary remaining obstacle to the gay agenda.

Gay activists have long targeted America’s mainline churches. Progress has varied, with the 2 million-member Episcopal Church and the 1 million-member United Church of Christ largely having succumbed. The 8 million-member United Methodist is slowly trending in a more traditionalist direction.

Wavering somewhere in between are the 5 million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the 3 million-member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Last year, the Gill Foundation, which calls itself “the nation’s largest private foundation focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights,” convened a coalition of major “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) organizations to plot pro-gay strategy within various North American denominations as part of its new “Movement Advancement Project.”

In the meantime, the Washington rally demonstrated that religious gay rights activism has yet to become a mature political movement. With hundreds of thousands of clergy in this country, HRC was able to gather only a couple hundred to stand behind their “Faith Leaders Support GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender] Equality” signs. The clergy activists’ need for a more accurate (or perhaps honest) grasp of basic political realities was evident when Reformed Rabbi Denise Eger of West Hollywood, California asserted that the “hate crimes” law was “not a penalty enhancement statute.”

That interpretation would likely come as a surprise to the bill’s lead Senate sponsor, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts).

When introducing the bill, Kennedy made clear its intent for harsher penalties in crimes determined to involve federally classified categories of hate.

The rally speakers also have yet to master the art of persuasively addressing those not already committed to their political perspective. This was painfully obvious when Peggy Campolo, wife of evangelical left activist Tony Campolo, announced that “[t]hat there is a verse in the Old Testament … that speaks directly” to the U.S. Congress’s consideration of the two specific bills in question, and then quoted Micah 6:8 (“God has showed thee, oh man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”).

That this Scripture passage’s vague language could just as easily support any other political agenda, liberal or conservative, appeared to be lost on Campolo’s cheering listeners. The response of Miguel De La Torre, an ethics professor at the radical Iliff School of Theology in Denver, to concerns that these bills would be stepping stones for more problematic measures and questions of “where will it all end” was just to unreassuringly declare: “It ends, in the words of the prophet Amos, when justice rolls down like water, and righteousness like a never ending stream.”

For decades, the Left has countered politically engaged religious conservatives with demands that religious values have no place in the public square. But now the Left is faced with the uncomfortable challenge of justifying such shallow Bible-thumping by its political allies to its secularist base. And the Left has to also explain to why religious arguments from conservatives deserve a priori exclusion from national politics but not the at least equally sectarian perspective of religious liberals.

Such foibles aside, gay advocacy within America’s churches will not be going away any time soon, thanks partly to funding from the secular homosexual activist community.

________________________________________________

John Lomperis is a Research Associate at the The Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington.

==============================

**Black Lesbian Activist Turned Evangelist (Christian Post, 070401)

A prominent black homosexual activist has come out of the closet, except this time as an ex-lesbian.

Charlene E. Cothran, 48, runs a quarterly magazine named after her homosexual friend, Venus, who was shot dead by her ex-lover. For 13 years, the periodical has targeted black gays and lesbians and grew to a circulation of over 38,000 across the nation.

For 29 years, she has encouraged the homosexual community to stand up for themselves and moved to the forefront in gay pride movements and lobbying efforts for “equal treatment” of homosexual persons.

But today, she has a different message for her audience and supporters.

“...I must come out of the closet again,” stated Cothran. “I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us.”

The shocking announcement was made on the cover story of her latest Venus issue in February entitled “Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life If You Want Out.”

“I don’t expect that this message will be widely received, quite the contrary,” she said in her article. “But, I do know that there is someone, possibly reading this very article, who is tired and unhappy living this way.”

Having grown up in a Christian home, Cothran was one of those “tired” persons. She felt disconnected from God living as a lesbian and knowing what Scripture says. So she avoided church altogether.

“When you know the truth, you don’t want to see it,” she told The Christian Post. “I didn’t go to church, I didn’t read the Bible.”

Cothran would only go to service for Easter or other major religious holidays.

At that time, “gay” churches were springing up. She attended a few services but she never stayed. Although a warm and inviting experience, Cothran felt it was like “‘playing’ church.”

“Truth is, I could not bring myself to join a ‘gay’ church,” she said in a blog. “I just could not get it passed any of my senses that God and gay were just fine together. I just never believed it.”

Cothran’s transformation came in June 2006. The Lord gave her what she called “an ultimatum” - to make a choice today who she will serve.

Venus magazine reaches the same audience today - gay and lesbians who are predominantly African American - but Cothran is writing more as an evangelist now. The last two issues ran without the support of all her regular corporate ads that were geared toward gay lifestyle. She has also lost some of her dedicated subscribers, some of whom felt disappointment and sadness while others felt betrayed, considering the role model Cothran was to the gay community.

Still, she hasn’t lost all of them. One reason, she says, is because she still has credibility with them and another, because they are just curious about how such a prominent homosexual activist changed.

“When you’re holding this magazine up, you’re holding up a mirror,” Cothran explained about the new issues of Venus. “A lot of times, you don’t like what you see,” she said, alluding to homosexual persons who were largely raised in a Christian home.

In the African American community, homosexuality is a taboo, says Cothran, and blacks are much more homophobic than any other ethnic group, she believes.

Her piece of advice is to treat everyone with love. Her advice to the black churches - don’t leave out truth.

“We have to mix truth and grace,” she said. “Everyone should be invited to come into the temple of God just as they are ... but you can’t say ‘under grace, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay.’”

“That’s only grace without any truth,” she continued.

“The Lord instructed us to sin no more.”

Churches should say, “We want to help you walk out [of homosexuality] with you” and not “continue to come and be gay,” Cothran noted.

“But not enough people are saying ‘come.’”

Cothran has a flood of new support now in addition to her past supporters, including parents, other ex-homosexuals and churches.

She has no ad clients for her next magazine issue and some of her past friends won’t take her call anymore. But she’s happy.

“I’m celibate,” she now calls herself. “And I’m very satisfied with just me and God.”

On the web: www.venusmagazine.org

==============================

**Survey: One-Third Homosexual Foster-Parents Sexually Abuse Children (Christian Post, 060814)

Evangelicals have repeatedly pointed out that gay marriage “damages” children while fighting to protect marriage. A family think-tank brought attention to new evidence that revealed the risks of permitting homosexual foster-parents.

A tally from Illinois and Minnesota (2003-2005) showed that a third of foster-parent molestations of foster-children were homosexual. Both states permit homosexual foster-parents.

According to the tally of 40 foster-parents, 12 foster mothers sexually abused their charges and 28 foster-fathers sexually abused their charges. Overall, 65% of foster-parent perpetrators engaged in heterosexuality and 35% in homosexuality with their charges.

Family Research Institute pointed out that homosexuals comprise between 2 to 4% of adults, as studies reported, “thus the figures above indicate a disproportionate amount of homosexual molestation.”

“These 40 foster-parent molesters, given the limited official information about molestations of foster children, comprise one of the largest samples in the literature on this issue,” said Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, in a released statement. “And the evidence keeps on accumulating, indicating that those who engage in homosexuality are much more apt to sexually abuse their foster-children. Children are our most important possession; they must be protected form predators. One way to do that is to bar homosexuals from fostering or adopting children.”

Meanwhile, gay advocates stated in an article on the Well-being of Children of Homosexuals: “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.”

Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, had emphasized before the New York high court ruled against gay marriage, that thousands of studies say that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Plus, children are born through the union of a man and a woman.

The study from data was provided by the IL Dept Children & Family Services and MN Dept of Human Services.

==============================

Parties and protests greet Ellen’s coming out (970416)

April 30 is L-Day across North America, and Ottawa is no exception

Depending on your politics, U.S. sitcom star Ellen DeGeneres is a role model, an abomination, the butt of jokes or a great excuse to party.

At Franky’s on Frank, a gay bar in downtown Ottawa, champagne cocktails will be poured, starting at 6 p.m., April 30. At 8 p.m., the music will be turned down and all eyes will be glued to a giant television screen to watch Ms. DeGeneres do her stuff.

Across North America, April 30 is L-Day, the day Ms. DeGeneres, in the role of Ellen Morgan on the ABC comedy Ellen, acknowledges what every TV-watching gay person figured out years ago: Ellen is a lesbian.

There will be parties and protests across the continent.

In an Outaouais home north of Hull, a graphic artist, who is not about to declare her homosexuality on television, is throwing a party for 30 to 40 of her closest lesbian friends on April 30.

“Nan,” as she asks to be identified, is not marking any rite of passage for lesbians, nor celebrating the new acceptance of lesbians on mainstream TV.

Instead, she is protesting the fact that some big companies like Chrysler pulled their commercials from Ellen to avoid being associated with North America’s newest and most famous lesbian.

Nan and her guests plan to send a joint letter of complaint to Chrysler, adding: “Some of us even drive Chryslers.”

Ms. DeGeneres’s coming out has pushed North America into one of the more controversial homosexual sagas since a gang of drag queens fought back against New York City police in 1969 in the Stonewall Riot and launched the gay liberation movement.

Some homosexual rights lobby groups, like the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, have entered the fray with everything from angry political statements to free “Ellen Coming Out Day” party kits.

Human Rights Campaign has so far received more than 2,000 requests for its special party kits (available by calling 202-628-4160). They include posters, party invitations, party planning tips, an Ellen trivia game and a video with a gay-positive message.

In Toronto, lesbian comic Maggie Cassella is practising her routines for a gay and lesbian comedy festival in that city next week. Ellen, it seems, will come in for both praise and damnation from Cassella and other comedians.

Ms. Cassella wants to treat the Ellen story with compassion in her stand-up routines. But she’s also skeptical.

“Why did it take her 19 years to come out of the closet?” she asks. “Couldn’t she find a therapist?”

Ms. Cassella also plans to poke fun at some of the gay activists playing politics with the Ellen controversy. The J.C. Penney department store chain, like Chrysler, has pulled commercials from Ellen. Some gay groups are asking people to cut up their Penney credit cards and to boycott the chain known for its conservative, middle American fashions.

“Really,” wonders Ms. Cassella, “what gay person would have a J.C. Penney card?”

Many members of the gay and lesbian community are uncertain just how to react to the Ellen phenomenon, wondering if the coming out has more to do with boosting the ratings of a mediocre TV show (in the ratings sweeps week no less), or with the liberation of Ms. DeGeneres or of prime-time TV.

And the huge fuss created by large advertisers boycotting the show demonstrates that society may not have advanced or become as liberated as many homosexuals hope.

Ms. DeGeneres has already made the cover of Time magazine by stepping out of the closet. She will step out again for TV viewers in an interview April 25 on 20/20.

Ms. DeGeneres’s coming out ordinarily would probably have been but a footnote in the annals of the entertainment industry and of gay pride. Look at Canadian singer k.d. lang. People made more of a fuss about her vegetarianism than her sex life. And no one batted an eye when Canadian actor Scott Thompson, of Kids in the Hall fame, came screaming out of the closet with a feather boa in one hand and a martini glass in the other.

This announcement has become a mega-event not because Ellen DeGeneres is exposing her sexual orientation. It’s because Ellen Morgan, the TV character, is also coming out.

Jerry Falwell of the U.S. Moral Majority has branded Ms. DeGeneres “Ellen DeGenerate” for exposing prime-time audiences to lesbianism.

Mr. Falwell and others likely wouldn’t have bothered commenting if only Ellen DeGeneres had talked about herself. That is because Ms. DeGeneres can be dismissed as just another eccentric Hollywood actor with no connection to the real world. But Ellen Morgan is the wholesome girl next door, the seemingly normal woman who enters peoples’ living rooms each week.

Now, Ellen Morgan has become a lesbian. Her life will never be the same. The show will never be the same. And, it seems, Mr. Falwell and his allies fear North America’s living rooms will never be the same.

======================================

Vatican: homosexuals can achieve holiness by abstaining (970423)

VATICAN CITY (Reuter) —Homosexuals can achieve holiness in the Roman Catholic Church but only if they follow the Church’s rules of abstaining from sexual activity, the Vatican newspaper said Wednesday.

In an article concluding a 14-part series of reflections on homosexuality and Christianity, the semi-official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano also said some priests needed to overcome their “fears and repulsion” of homosexuals.

“God loves all of us as we are, with our limits, our peculiarities, which can become paths to holiness,” said the article, written by Jean-Louris Brugues, a member of the International Theological Commission.

The article, however, repeated the Church position that homosexuality or homosexual tendencies were not wrong or sinful but that homosexual acts were. It referred to homosexual acts as “genital practices.”

It also restated themes from a major 1986 Vatican document that deplored violence against homosexuals. It said Catholics, including priests, should not show “contempt” for homosexuals but treat them with the same charity as they would other Christians.

======================================

American Airlines ‘Pro-Gay’, Say Conservative Christians (970428)

NEW YORK —In the first salvo of a campaign that may eventually target numerous U.S. corporations, a coalition of conservative Christian groups has accused American Airlines of promoting homosexuality and warned that the airline faces economic sanctions from conservative Christians.

In an open letter to American, the coalition —which comprises some of the most influential bodies in the conservative Christian movement —accuses the airline of offering gays and lesbians “special privileges,” both in the workplace and in the marketplace. The airline denies the allegation.

At issue are company policies forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, targeting the homosexual market, allowing the formation of gay and lesbian employee groups, and sponsoring gay organizations and events.

The airline argues that what the coalition calls “special privileges” is really a policy of equal protection in the workplace and evenhandedness in the marketplace.

“We take real umbrage at this ‘special privileges’ claim,” American Airlines spokeswoman Andrea Rader said. “No one here is getting special rights.”

The coalition’s letter contends that homosexuality “is immoral, unhealthy and destructive to individuals, families and societies.” Although it falls short of explicitly calling for a boycott of the airline, the letter warns that “millions of American’s customers who are pro-family ... vote with their pocketbooks.”

Rader responds that American is engaged in a balancing act: While the company allows a homosexual employee group, it also allows, among others, a Christian employee group; while the company forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it also forbids discrimination on the basis of race and religion; while the company provides special discounts to the homosexual community, it makes similar offers to other identifiable communities, among them Christians; and while the company sponsors homosexual groups and events, it makes comparable provisions for other organizations and their programs.

“It’s a policy of neutrality, not an endorsement of homosexuality,” Rader said.

John Aman, a spokesman for the Fort Lauderdale-based Coral Ridge Ministries whose president, D. James Kennedy, is one of the letter’s signatories, disagreed.

“What they call ‘neutrality’ is a moral indifference to a behavior that until 30 years ago was illegal in every state in the union,” he said. “Would they adopt this approach to, for example, a group of white racists? They’re allowing their company logo to appear on material promoting homosexual events —if that’s not an endorsement, I don’t know how else to characterize it.”

The coalition is reported to have tentative plans to pursue similar strategies against other corporations with policies comparable to American, among them American Express and IBM. Earlier this year, Coral Ridge Ministries contacted the Disney Corporation to demand that it stop providing benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual employees. It also called on the company to produce more “family-friendly entertainment.”

Signatories to the original letter include Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., Beverly La Haye of the Concerned Women for America in Washington, D.C., and Donald Wildmon of American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Subsequent editions were signed by, among others, James Dobson of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO.

With the exception of Aman, none of the groups responded to calls from FOX News.

In a related press release, the coalition claims American has sponsored “homosexual ‘circuit’ parties at which illicit drug-use and promiscuous sex occur,” accusations based on a Family Research Council representative’s alleged eyewitness account of an April 13, 1996 event in the nation’s capital.

Rader responded angrily that the event in question was a benefit for the Whitman Walker Clinic, which provides food to people with AIDS: “I can tell you without equivocation that none of our people at the fund raiser —gay or straight —saw any of the activities alleged.”

Undaunted, the coalition is threatening to ratchet up its attack on American with a full-page ad in USA Today, the content of which, Aman said, would not differ significantly from the letter. The ad has not yet run, he said, because the coalition and the newspaper have been unable to “reach agreement” —on what, Aman would not say.

USA Today’s director of media relations, Steve Anderson, was similarly reticent: “I’m not going to get into a pissing match with them through you,” he said. “We don’t talk about any ads that may or may not appear in the paper. It may be that we asked them to change some things or reword some things because we’re a family newspaper, but I don’t know, I can’t speak directly to it.”

The letter repeats the much-disputed notion that unlike, say, race or gender, homosexuality is a reversible behavioral choice. It accuses the airline of reinforcing rather than “healing” this choice, and that while people are entitled to protection from discrimination based on innate characteristics, they are not entitled to similar protection for their choices.

“You need to support positive policies that promote healthy families,” the letter states, “not policies that promote even more sexual ambiguity and less commitment to traditional family life.”

======================================

Clinton backs measure outlawing job bias against homosexuals (970424)

WASHINGTON (AP) —President Clinton renewed his support Thursday for a bill that would outlaw employment discrimination against homosexuals, saying such bias must be eliminated “in our country and in our hearts.”

During a closed half-hour White House meeting with the bill’s sponsors, gay and civil rights advocates, Clinton said he intends to lobby hard for passage of the bill, which would bar firing or discriminating against an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.

“Individuals should not be denied a job on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work,” Clinton said in a statement. “This is wrong.”

Conservative groups say they will fight the legislation, arguing that it unfairly forces employers to have inappropriate, on-the-job discussions about sexuality and gives homosexuals an advantage in hiring.

“What this would do is to force sexual politics into every workplace in America,” said Kristi Hamrick, spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, a private family issues think tank. “It’s just a very dangerous step to take, and a very unnecessary one.”

The legislation bars employers from using a worker’s sexual orientation as a factor in decisions on hiring or firing, promotion or compensation. The Senate rejected the bill in September on a 50-49 vote. The House never voted on it, and its sponsors plan to reintroduce it soon.

The bill exempts small businesses, the military, religious organizations and schools or educational institutions run by religious groups. Clinton said the exemptions improve the bill’s chances of passage, because it “respects the deeply held religious beliefs of many Americans.”

“I support it and I urge all Americans to do so,” Clinton said. “It is about our ongoing fight against bigotry and intolerance, in our country and in our hearts.”

Currently, gay workers in 41 states could be fired or denied jobs or a promotion because of their sexuality, and most cannot seek relief in state or federal courts. Nine states have laws or other rules that extend to homosexuals job protections similar to those offered on the basis of age, race, religion or gender.

Three of the bill’s sponsors, Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said they are optimistic that Clinton, whose lobbying brought the bill close to Senate passage in the last Congress, would be able to help push it through this year.

“I am confident this bill will become law,” said Frank, who is gay. However, he added, “I wouldn’t want to bet the farm that it happens this year.”

A June 1996 poll by The Associated Press indicated that 85% of Americans favor equal rights for homosexuals in job opportunities, while 10% are oppose. The poll involved 1,019 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3%age points.

A poll released Thursday by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay political organization, suggested that 68% of voters support the jobs legislation. The survey of 1,000 adults, conducted April 8-10, had a margin of error of 3.1%age points.

======================================

Just A Few Reasons To Boycott Disney (970600)

After much hype Disney owned ABC Television has Ellen Morgan, lead character of the TV show Ellen, “come out” as a homosexual. This marks the first time that the lead character of a television show is openly gay or lesbian. Shortly after the annoucement, Ellen DeGeneres the actress who plays Ellen Morgan, reveals to Time magazine and on ABC’s Primetime Live that she too is a lesbian.

Disney subsidiary Hollywood Records is distributing records by the group Danzig whose music is “laced with Satanic themes.” Los Angeles Times, 10/18/96

Company executives, including Chairman Michael Eisner, work with Hollywood Supports, a homosexual advocacy group whose focus is to promote the gay agenda in the workplace. Hollywood Supports online

Disney has extended company health benefits to live-in partners of homosexual employees. (The policy does not cover unmarried heterosexual couples who live together.) The Orlando Sentinel, 10/7/95; USA Today, 10/19/95; Daily Variety, 10/9/95

Eisner and The Walt Disney Company are both donors to People For the American Way (PAW), a group whose stated goal is to “monitor and counter the divisive agenda of the Religious Right.” PAW Annual Report

In June, 1996, the company hosted the 6th annual “Gay and Lesbian Day at Walt Disney World.” In a cartoon, homosexual organizers portrayed Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck as homosexual lovers; and Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck as lesbians. Disney has not publicly objected. An Orlando Weekly writer says, “Take away the gay workers and Disney World becomes the planet’s largest self-service theme park.”

Disney helped underwrite the 1993 Hollywood benefit for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The Press Enterprise, 12/28/93

Disney advertised in Out, a homosexual magazine. Out, 2/94

Tom Shumacher, Disney VP of feature animation, is an open homosexual who takes his “husband” to executive retreats. In an interview with the homosexual publication The Advocate, Shumacher said: “There are a lot of gay people (at Disney) at every level. It is a very supportive environment.” Human Events, 8/12/94; The Advocate 6/25/94

Disney hired avowed lesbian Lauren Lloyd to develop female and lesbian movies. Out, 11/94

The May, 1995, issue of Buzz magazine reported that a homosexual rights activist said that she was once told by Disney Chairman Michael Eisner that “as many as 40% of the company’s 63,000 employees might be gay.” The cover story, entitled “Disney Comes Out of the Closet,” also reported that Disney has the “largest lesbian and gay employees organization in the entertainment industry” and that the perception of Disney as having many homosexual employees is “well founded.” In addition to Schumacher, Buzz names prominent openly homosexual Disney executives: production vice president Lauren Lloyd of Disney’s Hollywood Pictures; studio producer Laurence Mark; supervising animator Andreas Deja, the man responsible for the character of Gaston in Beauty and the Beast; senior vice president at Disney’s interactive division Steven Fields; Rick Leed, who heads the production company that produces the television sitcom Home Improvement. Disney training coordinator Jimi Ziehr said that at Disney’s Epcot Center in Orlando, Florida, “gays outnumber the straights at Futureland operations, and there’s nothing in the closet at Guest Relations.” Buzz, 5/95

Hyperion Press, a Disney-owned subsidiary, published Lettin’ It All Hang Out, the autobiography of RuPaul, a well-known “drag queen” (transvestite) entertainer.

Hyperion Press published Growing Up Gay. Written by three homosexual comedians, the book is aimed at “gay youngsters who were bred by heterosexuals.”

Hyperion is planning to publish Daniel Harris’ book about “gay culture.” Harper’s magazine, 12/95

Actors Ernie Sabella and Nathan Lane said that the characters they played (Timon, the meerkat, and Pumbaa, the wart hog) in The Lion King are “the first homosexual Disney characters ever to come to the screen.” NY Times, 6/12/94

Disney signed Martin Scorsese, the director of The Last Temptation of Christ, Casino, Taxi Driver and many other hard-edged films to a 4-year-contract. Daily Variety, 1/30/96

Disney hired Victor Salva, a convicted child molester, to direct its movie Powder. When Salva’s victim, Nathan Winters (now 20), publicized the hiring, some of the police officers who investigated the 1987 molestation were incredulous that Salva was working again as a movie director. “It just blows me away,” said Officer Gary Primavera. “He has serious signs of being a pedophile.” Responding to Winter’s demand that Disney fire Salva, Disney’s John Dreyer said, “What’s the point other than you want to make headlines?” Washington Times, 10/25/95

Disney hired Kevin Smith to produce two movies: Dogma, which asserted that Christian beliefs are little more than mythology, and Chasing Amy about a man’s pursuit of a lesbian. Daily Variety, 11/3/95

Mark Gill, the president of Disney-owned Miramax admitted that his company thrives on racy, often violent promotion for its movies. Daily Variety 9/13/95

In the 1994 Disney movie The Santa Clause, the number of an actual phone sex line appears in a scene. The movie is aimed at children and families. Associated Press, 5/1/96

Priest (Miramax) is a pro-homosexual movie which depicts five Catholic priests as dysfunctionals and blames their problems on Church teachings. One priest is a homosexual; a second an adulterer; a third an alcoholic; a fourth demented; and the fifth just plain mean and vicious. The film is blatantly anti-Christian. The Advocate, 4/4/95, 4/18/95; Family Issues Alert, 3/30/95

Pulp Fiction (Miramax) is a seedy, hyper-violent movie that was first rated NC-17 (formerly “X”). Further editing gave it an R rating. Entertainment Weekly, 6/10/94; Daily Variety, 6/15/94

Color of Night (Hollywood Pictures) featured full frontal nudity. Entertainment Weekly, 6/10/94; Daily Variety, 6/15/94

The Advocate (Miramax) is filled with nudity. The movie was rated NC-17 (formerly “X”), but on appeal (and after cutting out a 12-second sex scene) it was given an R. Daily Variety, 8/17/94

Clerks (Miramax), a black and white film about New Jersey convenience store clerks, was originally rated NC-17 because graphic and sexually explicit language is woven throughout the film. On appeal, it was given an R rating. Daily Variety, 10/12/94

Kids (Miramax) was described by Daily Variety magazine as “one of the most controversial American movies ever made.” According to Newsweek, “the film follows a number of barely pubescent looking boys and girls around New York City as they smoke pot, bait gays, beat a black man and engage in graphic sex.” Under pressure Miramax formed an independent company to market and distribute the pornographic movie. Daily Variety, 1/27/95; Newsweek, 2/20/95; Wall Street Journal, 3/30/95; AP, 6/29/95

Chicks in White Satin (Hollywood Pictures) is a film about a lesbian couple who decide on a semitraditional “commitment celebration.” Glamour, 8/9/94

======================================

Disney execs in collusion with homosexual rights activists (American Family Association Journal, 970600)

Homosexuality. Violence. Anti-Christian themes. Incest. Graphic sex. Hard drug use. Profanity and obscenity. All these now share a strange legacy with Pinnochio, Snow White, Peter Pan and the Little Mermaid as hallmarks of the Walt Disney Company. This radical departure from traditional Disney values is nowhere more evident than in the company’s headlong rush to promote homosexuality as normal and to profit enormously from that promotion.

Disney and the homosexual agenda

When Disney extended company benefits to the same-sex partners of its homosexual employees, it was following a blueprint developed by Hollywood Supports, a powerful workplace advocacy group that wants to influence cultural attitudes concerning homosexuality. Hollywood Supports was founded in 1991 by two Hollywood moguls: Barry Diller, chairman of the Home Shopping Network, and Sid Sheinberg of MCA/Universal. The group managed to influence every major U.S. film studio to offer domestic partner benefits to its employees. The group’s written benefit policy has served as a model adopted by other businesses, municipalities and universities. By offering same-sex benefits, companies take the position that homosexual unions are morally equivalent to traditional marriage. The Hollywood Supports/Disney link is clear. Michael Eisner, current Disney chairman, and Joe Roth, chairman of Walt Disney Motion Pictures, serve on the Hollywood Supports Board of Trustees. Former Disney President Michael Ovitz is also a board member. Hollywood Supports works behind the scenes to shape homosexual-friendly workplace policies. That covert strategy was used to strike a deal with Eisner on the benefits issue. Diller said: “I remember discussing domestic partnership with Disney at a meeting where Michael Eisner said, ‘We can’t be out in front of an issue like this, but when it’s over 50% [referring to the percentage of companies that offer such policies], that would be the right frame for the Walt Disney Co. because of the connotation that Disney is in the majority.’ I said that was fair and reasonable. And when we passed that mark, there was his company saying yes.” Entertainment billionaire David Geffen confirms the Disney chairman’s sympathy for the gay rights movement, describing Eisner as “very homo-friendly….”

Mickey’s sympathetic ears

Perhaps another reason gay activists have found the Magic Kingdom eager to embrace their cause is the significant number of homosexuals in Disney management. One ex-Disney executive admitted in 1995 that five top creative executives, not to mention a host of underlings, are open homosexuals. These include Donald Deline, president of production, Tom Schumacher, vice president of feature animation, and then vice-president of production Lauren Lloyd. It also appears that a large number of Disney employees throughout the company are homosexual. Elizabeth Birch, homosexual activist and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the Aspen Human Rights Summit II in Colorado that she “said to Michael Eisner, ‘30% of your employees are gay,’ and he said, ‘You’re wrong, Elizabeth. It’s 40%.’” John Dreyer of Disney’s Corporate Communications office has officially denied the veracity of Birch’s quote, but Robert L. Williams, president of Disney’s homosexual employee group, agreed with the estimate.

Disney uses ABC to promote agenda

In the last year the homosexual revolution at Disney has become more public. ABC – purchased by Disney in 1996 – leads the television networks in the number of prime-time gay characters. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a homosexual media watchdog group, stated in March, 1997, that of the 28 homosexual, bisexual and transgender regular characters on prime-time television – 13 were on ABC. NBC came in a distant second place with six. Likely the growing number of homosexuals on ABC programming is no coincidence. ABC insiders told the Wall Street Journal that since the buy-out, Disney’s handling of ABC is nothing less than “micromanagement” of the network. Eisner has assured company shareholders that Disney would “make substantial contributions to the success” of ABC. And according to Daily Variety, Eisner’s contributions would include his personal development of a successful prime-time line-up for ABC. Eisner’s plan for the network apparently includes a growing homosexual presence, a point made clear when he attempted to pressure the producer of a top prime-time show to add a gay couple as regulars. The producer and series star refused.

However, Eisner found a cohort in Ellen DeGeneres, star of the popular sitcom Ellen. Early in the 1996 fall TV season DeGeneres began to tease the audience that her character on the show might declare herself a lesbian, thus becoming the first TV series to have a homosexual lead character. The storyline, including the final script in which Ellen openly declares her homosexuality, was approved by Eisner.

Ellen producers admitted they wanted the show to encourage young people who were confused about their sexual orientation to have the courage to come out just as Ellen did. Executive Producer Dava Savel said, “If this episode helps some child in the Midwest with their sexual identification, we’ve done our job.”

Another part of Savel’s “job” was reaching middle America with the message that homosexuality is OK. For that task she chose Oprah Winfrey to play Ellen’s therapist. “I suggested Oprah.…” Savel said. “She’s so well liked by the American people, it was perfect to have someone like her who connects with middle America, where if Oprah said it was OK, then it was OK.”

The choice of using comedy to introduce prime-time’s first homosexual lead also suggests a calculated move on Disney’s part. Actor Michael Boatman, who plays homosexual activist Carter Heywood on Spin City, another Disney/ABC sitcom that stars Michael J. Fox, said comedies are perfect vehicles for controversial subjects like homosexuality. Boatman told TV Guide, “The best way to slide these controversial issues under America’s doorstep, into their living rooms, is to have them start laughing first. Suddenly they find themselves, if not accepting new ideas, certainly more willing to discuss them.”

Dollars and depravity

In normalizing the homosexual lifestyle, Disney has discovered a successful mix of mission and money. Homosexuals form a wealthy and identity-conscious consumer group – and Disney knows it. Offering movies, books and TV shows with gay themes guarantees the company a loyal homosexual following. For example, one study showed that gays and lesbians are avid film fans –more than three times as likely as the general population to see two movies a month.

Disney also exploits their gay connection by welcoming “Gay and Lesbian Day at the Magical Kingdom (that Walt Built).” Organizers of the annual celebration at Disney World in Orlando, Florida, estimate that the economic impact to the city is $20 million, much of that going into Disney’s bank account.

Hyperion Press is another Disney subsidiary which pushes homosexuality. It has published the autobiography of well-known transvestite entertainer RuPaul, as well as the book Growing Up Gay, aimed at the so-called homosexual children of heterosexual parents.

The company is also in the process of producing a series targeting the homosexual “jet-set.” According to the homosexual magazine New York Native, gays generally travel more and take more vacations than any other demographic group, to the tune of $17 billion a year. And Hyperion aims to make gay travel even easier, creating a series entitled Out & About Gay Travel Guides.

The authors of the guides, David Alport and Billy Kolber-Stuart, already produce an Out & About newsletter, which alerts readers to the “sexual temperature” of certain gay destinations. According to USA Today, for example, the description of one Palm Springs gay resort reads: “Casual, clean and small, with as frisky a daytime atmosphere as one could find in a legitimate establishment…nudity is encouraged and practiced by the management. Sexual temperature: very high.” With the winds of change blowing across America’s moral landscape, Disney’s marketing strategy has little downside, because middle America– even many Christians – appear to be sleeping while the homosexual revolution overthrows Judeo-Christian culture.

So, Disney enjoys the best of both marketing worlds. On one hand, the company reaps a bonanza from homosexuals. At the same time, Disney keeps American families feeding at their trough with traditional entertainment products, such as animated films and theme parks.

If middle America continues to support Disney’s good products, the company will continue to use that money to subsidize the normalization of homosexuality. While a day at Disney World may not seem like a visit to Sodom and Gomorrah, it might just take us there.

======================================

Families shocked by homosexual celebration at Magic Kingdom (970600)

Includes eyewitness accounts from Disney World event

The first weekend in June is the unofficial beginning of summer vacation when kids bolt out of their school rooms, pile into the family minivan and head off for the annual respite from the day-to-day grind.

This year many pointed their compasses toward Disney World in Orlando, Florida, unaware of an impending cultural collision with a two-faced “family entertainment” company that welcomed hordes of homosexuals to celebrate their sexual perversions at “The Sixth Annual Gay and Lesbian Day at the Magical Kingdom that Walt Built.”

The 1996 “Gay Day at Disney” celebration provided few surprises for those who have watched the infamous gathering over the years. But for the unsuspecting families who happened into the lair of depravity, shock would be an understatement, according to Rusty Pugh, an AFA reporter who witnessed this year’s event. Pugh said he saw several families crestfallen as they entered the Magic Kingdom and found themselves surrounded by male and female homosexuals displaying their affections and stereotypical “gay” attitudes. “Families [were] forced to be subjected to this. They [didn’t] have any choice,” said Pugh in regard to the lack of prior warning families received.

Although Disney does not officially sponsor the celebration, the company seems to accommodate and even welcome it. An internal correspondence from Clyde Min at Disney says: “Each Resort has been asked to supply one Management Team Member to assist with the Gay Pride Day in the Magic Kingdom on June 1, 1996. I am looking for any volunteers who may be interested in helping with this event.” Two years ago Disney employees who claimed to be volunteers served as greeters wearing “Gay Day at Disney” T-shirts and handing out a pamphlet promoting the event and asking homosexual patrons to write a letter to Disney to encourage them to allow the event to continue. A report in a New York homosexual newspaper concerning the 1994 celebration said, “Even Disney has been exceptionally helpful this year.”

Since its beginning six years ago, the homosexual celebration has been organized by Doug Swallow, a homosexual activist in Orlando. In earlier years a group of homosexuals who call themselves “Digital Queers” was involved.

Another revealing first hand account of this year’s celebration came from “Disney Diary,” a column in the Orlando Weekly newspaper. In it writer Jeff Truesdell recounts the day and the invasion of red shirts —the traditional color of choice for the homosexuals during their day at Disney. The column implies that many Disney World workers are homosexual. Truesdell writes: “Take away the gay workers...and Disney World becomes the planet’s largest self-service theme park.” The newspaper also describes an occasion when a parking attendant, upon seeing the crimson-attired passengers in one vehicle, waved them through without collecting the $5 parking fee. Even the afternoon Disney parade down the theme park’s Main Street —a favorite family event —portrayed strong homosexual overtones, according to Truesdell. The performers in the parade, paid by the company that claims to have no connection to the homosexual celebration, were decked out in —you guessed it —red costumes.

Disney’s claim not to sanction the event could more easily be believed if the company were consistent in applying policies concerning groups that come en masse to their theme parks. Disney claims it can’t deny admission to someone only because he belongs to a group which might upset other patrons.

However, dozens of gang members visiting Disneyland in California were evicted recently after they entered the park wearing gang colors. Kenneth Green, Director of Corporate Communications, said the company was concerned the group might intimidate or invoke fear in the hearts of mainstream patrons.

Even families who knew about the homosexual event before making the trip to Orlando were met with problems. David Caton of AFA of Florida reports instances where families who tried to change their reservations were told they would not be given a refund on their deposits.

BOYCOTT CARDS AVAILABLE

AFA is making it easier for churches and individuals to participate in the Disney boycott by supplying a special two-part boycott card. The cards are available in lots of 100 for only $1.50.

One part of the tear-off card is to be mailed to Disney Chairman Michael Eisner. It contains a simple message expressing concern over the direction Disney is heading. The other part of the card provides a quick reference list of key businesses and holdings of the Walt Disney Company.

To place your order, send $1.50 per 100 cards to Disney Boycott Cards, American Family Association, P.O. Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803.

Insiders say Hunchback is “testing the limits”

A priority in Disney’s current philosophy of movie-making seems to be “pushing the envelope.” Roughly translated, that means including as much sexual content as possible and defending it with high sounding arguments about artistic integrity, but still having the public buy it in huge numbers.

Case in point —the new animated film The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Composer Alan Menken is part of the team that scored the movie and he describes one song in the movie, Hellfire, like this, “With Hellfire, we weren’t just expanding the envelope, we were taking it into another room. It really tests the limits of what we can get away with. In one song, we have Frollo sing the church liturgy, but also sing of twisted sexual fantasies: Hellfire, Hellfire, there’s a fire in my skin / This burning desire is turning me to sin.

The drifting of Disney from its family friendly heritage does not come without the knowledge of the people in charge. In fact, it seems to be encouraged from the pinnacle of Disney’s corporate ladder, Chairman Michael Eisner. Actor Tony Jay, who supplies the voice for the character Frollo talks about the way his character was scripted. “It’s quite graphic. I told Michael Eisner, I’m surprised how far they’re going with Frollo.’ He said to me, We can’t keep making Dumbo forever.’” Composer Menken also remembers a conversation with Eisner: “He said even if it goes to PG, he would not compromise the material.”

Esmeralda, the female lead in Hunchback, is described by USA Today as a voluptuous, raven-tressed Gypsy dancer who draws a reaction of “...pure unadulterated lust” from Frollo. Not surprising, considering Demi Moore (Striptease) is providing the voice for Esmeralda.

Perhaps one of the most telling indictments of the film comes from another of the actors involved in the project. Jason Alexander, who provides the sounds for a gargoyle character, has this to say about the film: “Disney would have us to believe this movie’s like the Ringling Brothers, for children of all ages. But I won’t be taking my four-year-old.”

It’s wholesome family entertainment, as Disney sees it. USA Today, 6/14/96, Entertainment Weeks, 6/21/96

Disney takes high profile on ABC

Disney’s control of the ABC Television network is an ominous prospect that bears watching. Will Disney use ABC to push its agenda like it uses Miramax and Hyperion Press (published two pro-homosexual books)? One thing is for certain, Disney will have a say in the content that airs on ABC.

Many shows on the network have managed to work references to vacationing at Disney world into the script. ABC even went as far as building an entire evening’s programming around the Disney vacation theme.

In June, ABC created a show called Disney’s Most Unlikely Heroes, which analyzed several of Disney’s characters and served as a promotional tool for the Hunchback of Notre Dame movie. It’s obvious Disney intends to cross promote between its various properties, and with control of ABC, ESPN, and a hand in Lifetime and A&E, Disney has unequaled access to deliver whatever message it wants to.

First quarter loss of $25 million may mean changes at Disney

Is Disney in trouble? Not yet, but the red ink is starting to trickle at the company. Struck by a $25 million loss in the first quarter of 1996, Disney is starting to downsize in its live action film division following financial reports that saw movie profits drop 35% in 1995.

Joe Roth, chairman of Disney Studios, says the company will cut its output of live action films in half over the next year and may drop releases further in subsequent years. Disney is also expected to shut the door on its Hollywood Pictures division and make some changes at the controversial Miramax Film unit.

======================================

Pro-Gay Actions at Disney (970623)

Southern Baptists say they won’t be visiting Disney theme parks this summer if the company doesn’t change some of its policies that they say promote homosexuality.

In an overwhelming show of hands at the church’s national convention in New Orleans, the Baptists also agreed to swear off Walt Disney Co. movies and products.

Here are some of the reasons:

In June, 1996, the company hosted the 6th annual “Gay and Lesbian Day at Walt Disney World.” In a cartoon, homosexual organizers portrayed Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck as homosexual lovers; and Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck as lesbians. Disney has not publicly objected. An Orlando Weekly writer says, “Take away the gay workers and Disney World becomes the planet’s largest self-service theme park.”

Disney has extended company health benefits to live-in partners of homosexual employees. (The policy does not cover unmarried heterosexual couples who live together.)

After much hype Disney owned ABC Television has Ellen Morgan, lead character of the TV show Ellen, “come out” as a homosexual. This marks the first time that the lead character of a television show is openly gay or lesbian. Shortly after the annoucement, Ellen DeGeneres the actress who plays Ellen Morgan, reveals to Time magazine and on ABC’s Primetime Live that she too is a lesbian. And Eisner was heavily involved in the decision of Disney/ABC to allow sitcom star Ellen DeGeneres to promote lesbianism on her show.

The May, 1995, issue of Buzz magazine reported that a homosexual rights activist said that she was once told by Disney Chairman Michael Eisner that “as many as 40% of the company’s 63,000 employees might be gay.” The cover story, entitled “Disney Comes Out of the Closet,” also reported that Disney has the “largest lesbian and gay employees organization in the entertainment industry” and that the perception of Disney as having many homosexual employees is “well founded.”

Disney Company executives, including Chairman Michael Eisner who sits on their board of trustees, work for Hollywood Supports, a homosexual advocacy group whose focus is to promote the gay agenda in the workplace.

======================================

Conservative Group Pressures Texas to Dump Disney Stock (970703)

AUSTIN, Texas — A conservative group is pressing Texas officials to dump $27 million in Walt Disney Co. stock held by a school trust fund because of “violent, obscene music” produced by a Disney subsidiary.

Citing a controversial new Texas law banning investments by state agencies in companies producing obscene or violent materials, the American Family Association of Texas Wednesday called on the state Board of Education to dump its Disney holdings.

“They must conform with state law and dump Disney,” said Wyatt Roberts, executive director of the group, which two years ago called for a boycott of Disney.

Disney last week pulled rap group Insane Clown Posse’s album “Great Malenko” from distribution because of “inappropriate” lyrics, and in a statement said it is “committed to maintaining standards compatible with Texas law in lyrics for records released by our labels ...

“In fact, we think it is odd that the AFA is taking this direction in light of our recent action,” Disney said.

Disney’s Los Angeles-based Hollywood Records produces gangsta rap and heavy metal records by artists including Humble Gods and Ny Loose. Hollywood Records also produces Danzig, a heavy metal rocker whose songs, according to Roberts, are laced with satanism and violence.

“Absent the legislation, we would still call the state on it, but we have the law on our side,” Roberts said. “Disney is the corporate equivalent of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yes, they do some good things, but they also do some bad.”

The law, passed in April, prohibits state agencies from investing in companies producing music advocating violence, obscenity or gang activity. Initially voted down, the proposal snuck through the legislature as a rider on a state budget bill and is expected to be challenged in court.

The call for divestiture of the Disney stock comes a month after the Southern Baptist convention meeting in Dallas voted to boycott the entertainment giant, accusing it of “promoting immoral ideologies such as homosexuality, infidelity and adultery.”

======================================

Canada is safe haven for sexual refugees (Ottawa Citizen, 970714)

Canada is a world leader in offering asylum to persecuted gays

When his family found out he was gay, they tied him to a hitching post and crushed a lit cigarette into his hand. His father also burned his son’s scalp in an attempt to cauterize the evil.

A few years later, the man’s boss found out about his sexual preference, and fired him. Then police raided the man’s home, found a few gay magazines, and threw him in jail. He was beaten and tortured.

Released from jail after two weeks, the man staggered on to a Moroccan beach, shaking and chain smoking, and “cried his eyes out.”

Moroccan beaches are known as a mecca for gay tourists. But for residents of the Muslim country, homosexuality is a family shame and potentially life-threatening.

The man finally fled to Canada after his family tried to force him into an arranged marriage. Four months ago, the 31-year-old Moroccan joined a small but growing number of gays and lesbians who have been granted asylum. Canada is a world leader in offering haven to sexual minorities who are in danger in their home countries.

The first reported case in Canada was in 1992, when a gay man from Argentina who had been beaten and raped by police was given refugee status. Since then, Canada probably has accepted more gay refugees than any other country.

It’s difficult to compare, because Canada, the U.S and many European countries don’t track the numbers. But at least 160 people have been granted refugee status in Canada based on their sexual orientation, interviews with immigration lawyers across the country indicate.

At least 60 homosexuals have won asylum in the U.S., according to the San Francisco-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Human-rights and refugee groups are aware of only a handful of gays winning asylum in other countries, primarily western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

“We’re pretty well in the forefront,” said Mike Bell, an immigration lawyer who splits his time between Ottawa and St. John’s, Nfld. He’s represented 40 gay men, all of whom won refugee status.

The stories they bring before Canada’s Refugee Board are a catalogue of abuse suffered by sexual minorities around the world. They’ve been jailed, beaten, tortured, raped, fired from their jobs, and thrown into mental institutions to be “cured.”

The Moroccan man, whose case is documented in a Canadian legal data base, now he lives in Vancouver. His emotional health is fragile, and he suffers from depression. He declined a request for an interview.

It’s been easier to argue gay claims in Canada since the Supreme Court in 1993 clarified that sexual orientation could be grounds for refugee status. But it’s only recently that many homosexuals realized they could seek asylum. “The word is getting out that there is a safe haven here,” said Mr. Bell.

Juan and his partner, for instance, had visited Canada from their home in Mexico several times, but it wasn’t until 1994 that a friend told them about the possibility of gaining refugee status.

Juan, 26, asked that his real name not be used because it might cause problems for his family back home.

It’s impossible to live as an openly gay man in Mexico, Juan said in a telephone interview from his home in Vancouver. There is widespread violence and discrimination against homosexuals in Mexico, much of it by the police, according to human rights groups.

“You have to watch what you say, how you talk, all the time,” said Juan. But hiding his sexuality became more difficult after he met his partner, “on the 19th of May, 1990, that’s our anniversary,” he said. When the two men moved in together, neighbours suspected. “Everyone was watching. Did we bring girls or not bring girls to the house? It was a lot of pressure. We were scared all the time.”

Anti-gay slurs were painted on their door, and once the pair had to bribe police to avoid trouble when officers found a gay magazine in the trunk of their car.

And before that, his partner was almost killed by a man who attacked him with an ice pick after a sexual encounter. “The most dangerous people in Mexico are gay people who don’t accept themselves,” said Juan. Police refused to investigate the attempted murder because the victim was gay, he said.

Juan and his partner won refugee status last year. Juan now works in an office on Davie Street, in the heart of Vancouver’s gay district. He says living in Canada is a “dream come true.

“There is a lot of freedom, you can use your mind on other things, you don’t have to worry so much.”

Like other refugee claimants, gays must prove they face “persecution” in their home country. It’s a vague term that is open to interpretation by the Refugee Board members who judge the claims. Usually, claimants must prove they face more than just harassment —for example, being beaten, imprisoned, raped, or having their lives threatened.

Claimants must also prove their state won’t protect them. After all, gay bashing happens in Canada as well, but police investigate and courts prosecute those responsible.

That’s not the case elsewhere. In about 50 countries, homosexual sex acts are against the law. In other countries, discrimination and violence against homosexuals is tolerated, or condoned by authorities.

Mario Gonsalves says he couldn’t turn to the police for help in his native Antigua.

Mr. Gonsalves said he told no one, not even his family, that he was gay, but it was difficult to hide because of his mannerisms and the way he carried himself. “I would walk down the street, keep looking over my shoulder, and pretend to be someone else.”

Once, a crowd of men followed him home, threw stones at his house and spray-painted “kill batty-man” (a derogatory term for gays) on his door.

A local police officer often called him “faggot” and threatened him. One night, that police officer trailed him down the street. The officer pushed Mr. Gonsalves into an alley, beat him with a baton, and raped him. “He told me if I told anybody he would kill me.”

Mr. Gonsalves came to Canada in the spring of 1995 to visit and ended up on the street, where a counsellor for the homeless suggested he apply for refugee status.

His claim was accepted, but his life in Toronto has been difficult. Shortly after he arrived in Canada, friends back home told him the police officer who raped him had died of AIDS. Mr. Gonsalves got tested. He was HIV-positive, and now has AIDS.

Mr. Gonsalves, 23, spends his days doing volunteer work and trying not to think about the future. “I miss home, actually,” he said. “But I can be myself here, I don’t have to hide any more. People accept me for who I am.”

Many of the refugees accepted by Canada are from Muslim countries and South American states like Venezuela, Chile, and Brazil, where societies are intolerant of homosexuals. But gays have won refugee status in Canada from at least 30 countries around the world, from eastern Europe to the Caribbean.

Canada’s Refugee Board doesn’t keep track of the acceptance rate, but lawyers who represent the claimants say most are successful.

However, a lot depends on the board members hearing the case, says Toronto lawyer El-Farouk Khaki. He’s represented about 60 gay and lesbian clients, and estimates 70 per cent were accepted.

“Some members of the board are open to understanding what gay-lesbian persecution is all about, and there are others who just don’t get it,” said Mr. Khaki.

Indeed, a review of 30 Refugee Board decisions shows wide variations, depending on which members decide the case. For example, one gay man from Mexico had difficulty holding a job and had been harassed by police. The refugee panel turned him down, saying the treatment he received didn’t amount to persecution, and that police harassment was a problem for everyone in Mexico, not just homosexuals.

But another panel granted refugee status to a gay man from Mexico who had been detained by police once but not physically harmed.

Board members also disagree on whether homosexuals should be expected to try to avoid persecution at home by hiding their sexuality. For example, one refugee panel rejected a man from Morocco who said he was unable to live openly as a homosexual. The panel said the man faced a “general social constraint” on his sexual life, not persecution.

Mr. Khaki says some panel members have asked his clients why they can’t simply be discreet about their sexuality. He argues that’s a different standard than applied to people fleeing persecution because of their politics or religion. Would a refugee panel ask a Jew facing persecution to be discreet by changing his name and denying his religion, he wonders?

Another complication is the difficulty in obtaining documentary evidence about the status of homosexuals in other countries. Established human rights groups have only recently begun collecting information on persecution suffered by gays. And because of the stigma and secrecy surrounding homosexuality, especially in conservative cultures, it’s often hard to collect evidence of abuse. People are reluctant to talk about it.

That’s not surprising given conditions in some countries. In Iran, for instance, the penalty for gay sexual activity is death. In Colombia, death squads target sexual minorities as part of their “social cleansing.”

In Russia and Ukraine, laws criminalizing homosexual sex have been lifted, and gays are no longer sent to the gulags. But entrenched hatred of homosexuals endures, and police do little to protect them from violence or extortion by criminals.

“These people are coming from cultures where you’d be as likely to fly to the moon as come out of the closet,” said Toronto lawyer Mary Tatham. Sometimes refugee claimants are even reluctant to tell their Canadian lawyers the real reason they are in danger back home.

Ms. Tatham said she was puzzled by a client from the Middle East who explained he had been threatened by paramilitary groups who believed he had access to sensitive information from a high-ranking politician. The story didn’t make sense. The man had a low-level job, and would be unlikely to have contact with such a high-level official.

Finally the man admitted that the high-ranking official was, in fact, his lover. “I knew he was gay,” said Ms. Tatham. “But he was so ashamed. He didn’t want to talk about it.” The man won refugee status in Canada.

======================================

B.C. leads way with gay-rights bill (970716)

With the expected passage of legislation this week, British Columbia will become the first province to ensure that homosexual couples have the same privileges and responsibilities for child support, access and custody as heterosexual couples. The Anglican church in the province supports the bill. Roman Catholic, Jewish, Sikh and other groups have issued statements denouncing it.

======================================

Conservatives Step Up Criticism of Disney (970723)

WASHINGTON — Conservative Christian groups and advocates of traditional family values stepped up their criticism of the Walt Disney Co. Wednesday after saying a Disney executive skipped a meeting with them.

But most from the more than half-dozen groups stopped short of saying they would join a boycott of the entertainment giant launched last month by Southern Baptists, who argue that Disney’s corporate policies are too tolerant of homosexuals.

“By declining to meet with leaders of several large Christian and pro-family groups, Walt Disney Co. Vice President John Cook has shown that the company still doesn’t understand the concerns of American families,” said Robert Knight of the Washington-based Family Research Council.

“Despite an enormous outpouring of support for the effort to persuade the Disney Co. to stop promoting homosexuality, anti-Christian movies and television shows, and patently offensive rap and rock music, they still don’t get it.”

The groups said they were asked by Disney to meet with company executives in Washington, but that Cook pulled out of the meeting and instead sent a subordinate.

Disney spokesman John Dreyer said Cook had to cancel because “something had come up” in Los Angeles. “It was something unavoidable and he offered to meet with them on Friday,” said Dreyer, adding that the groups declined.

The groups had hoped Disney would offer a proposal to meet their concerns. Dreyer said Disney wanted to have a dialogue.

“We want Walt Disney’s Disney back,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, referring to the founder of the company and creator of Mickey Mouse.

“We want a Disney that we can trust,” he added at a news conference.

Last month, 12,000 delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting voted for a non-binding boycott against Disney and its subsidiaries by their 15.7 million members. The boycott so far has had little impact on Disney.

The Baptists singled out Disney’s policy of extending health benefits to partners of homosexuals and allowing “gay days” organized by gay rights groups at its theme parks.

Concerned Women for America, a traditional family rights group with more than half a million members nationwide, told the news conference it would join the boycott.

======================================

AMA: Homosexuality No Reason for Therapy (970818)

CHICAGO (AP) — Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and doesn’t need treatment, and there’s no good evidence that so-called reparative therapy works anyway, the nation’s biggest group of psychologists says.

The American Psychological Association also urged mental health professionals to “take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness from homosexuality.”

The association’s policy-setting body made the statements in a resolution passed Thursday. The resolution affirms APA’s position that homosexuality isn’t a mental disorder and doesn’t need treatment, the association said.

The resolution says some believe the controversial practice of reparative or conversion therapy —— aimed at changing a person’s homosexuality —— is ineffective and harmful, while others say it’s effective and helpful. “Well-designed scientific studies to test either belief have not been done,” the resolution said, “therefore, claims of effectiveness need to be very carefully considered.”

Kim Mills, a representative of the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian and gay political group, said in a statement that the resolution “reaffirms the fact that since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, there is no reason that gay, lesbian or bisexual people should try to change their orientations.”

Robert H. Knight, director of cultural studies for the conservative Family Research Council, said there is evidence that therapy can change homosexuality.

People “have been successfully treated for decades,” he said in a statement, and “a growing population of ex-gays is becoming more visible in America today.”

Knight said the psychological association “is trying to snuff out genuine hope for those struggling with gender identity problems.”

======================================

IRS Grants Tax-Exempt Status to Gay Group (970826)

WASHINGTON — A gay rights group says the Internal Revenue Service has reversed its position and granted tax-exempt status to a support group for young gays.

The IRS last month admitted it was wrong to demand that the Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Support System (GLASS), of Greensboro, N.C., show it discouraged “homosexual attitudes and propensities” after the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York stepped in and wrote the IRS.

On Aug. 20, the IRS followed up and notified the group that it would receive tax-exempt status as an education and social welfare group, Lambda lawyer David Buckel said Monday.

“The bottom line is they granted the group tax-exempt status,” Buckel told Reuters.

“Evidently they happened to have a renegade agent” who was responsible for the controversial letter the IRS sent GLASS last autumn.

In its letter, the IRS asked the group to “detail the procedures and safeguards in place to assure that counselors and participants do not encourage or facilitate homosexual practices or encourage the development of homosexual attitudes and propensities by minor individuals attending your program.”

Lambda argued that the IRS had no business inquiring about homosexual attitudes since it never inquired about “heterosexual attitudes.”

Tax-exempt status would make a big difference to GLASS since it would allow donors to the group to claim tax deductions for their donations, a fact that would likely encourage greater donations, Buckel said.

He said the expected rise in funding would allow creation of more GLASS chapters around the country.

Lambda provides civil rights representation for gay and lesbian causes.

======================================

Gay Youths More Likely to Attempt Suicide (970902)

WASHINGTON — Young gay men are seven times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, researchers reported Thursday.

They said society’s attitude toward gay men was almost certainly to blame, because the effects were not seen in gay women.

Gary Remafedi and colleagues at the University of Minnesota used a study of 36,000 junior and senior high school students aged 13 to 18.

They homed in on 131 young men and 144 young women who identified themselves in a confidential survey as homosexual or bisexual, and compared them to “straight” peers.

Reporting in the American Journal of Public Health, they said 28% of the males said they had tried to kill themselves — seven times the rate among heterosexual males.

They did not see the effects in the young women.

“We saw the association for boys but not for girls,” Remafedi said in a telephone interview. “It appears the suicide attempts are not related to homosexuality but to other factors.”

Special risk factors were “coming out” — publicly defining oneself as homosexual — at an early age, having conflicts with families and peers over sexual orientation and having different manners of appearance, Remafedi said.

“There has been a controversy among experts over this,” he added. “This study, I think, goes along way towards providing evidence of a connection.”

Remafedi said the findings probably had importance across the world. “I think that it does translate to other countries, probably because homophobia is universal,” he said.

======================================

Mayor discriminated against gay activist, inquiry finds (971009)

LONDON, Ont. (CP) -A board of inquiry ruled Wednesday that London Mayor Dianne Haskett discriminated against a gay activist.

*Haskett has been ordered to pay $10,000 in damages for violating the Ontario Human Rights Code.

*Richard Hudler, former president of London’s Homophile Association of London Ontario, complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission after being denied a municipal proclamation for a gay pride weekend in London in 1995.

*Haskett was also ordered to declare a gay pride day or week in London this year if such as request is made.

*Haskett said she never intended to hurt the gay community.

*She’s also upset about the timing of this decision because she intends to launch her re-election campaign Thursday.

======================================

Pope decries abortion, gay marriage (CNN, 971003)

Day 2 of John Paul II’s trip to Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (CNN) - Pope John Paul II told a Brazilian audience Friday said the institution of the family is threatened by abortion and marital infidelity. The Roman Catholic leader also made a veiled attack on gay and lesbian marriages.

“Marital fidelity and respect for life in all phases of its existence are subverted by a culture that doesn’t admit the transcendent nature of man, created in the image and likeness of God,” he told delegates to a conference on family issues.

“Among the truths obscured in the hearts of men by growing secularism and rampant hedonism, those regarding the family have come under particular attack,” he said.

In his address the pope also said that sexual “diversity” should not be recognized when it comes to marriage, an apparent reference to gay and lesbian marriages, which the Catholic Church opposes.

Brazil in middle of abortion debate

The church also opposes abortion, and Brazil — the world’s largest Catholic country — is in the throes of a debate over whether abortion should be made more readily available.

Church officials have campaigned against a proposal that would make it easier for women to obtain an abortion in cases of rape or if their health is in danger. But Brazil’s first lady, Ruth Cardoso, was quoted by newspapers on Thursday as saying the pope should not seek to influence the debate.

The pope said women needed to enjoy equal dignity in a stable marriage that remained open to procreation.

“When the destructive forces of evil manage to separate marriage from its mission on behalf of life, they attack humanity itself, depriving it of the essential guarantees for its future,” the pope said.

‘He is still alive!’

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the pontiff, who has had a series of health problems in recent years, was holding up well on his journey, the 80th trip abroad during his papacy.

The pope himself humorously alluded to his recent frailty upon finishing his statement Friday. Acknowledging cheers of “Long live the pope,” from the audience, John Paul paused for a moment, looked up and quipped, “He is still alive!”

The pope then joined in with some boisterous cheering from delegates to the conference, repeating the unofficial slogan of his visit, “If God is Brazilian, then the pope is a Carioca (from Rio).”

On Friday, a German newspaper reported that a top German surgeon was holding talks with the Vatican about carrying out an operation to give the pope an artificial hip. He has limped since slipping in his bath in 1994 and breaking his leg.

Wolfram Thomas told the Flesburger Tageblatt that without the operation, the pope’s pain would increase and he might have to eventually use a wheelchair.

Pope meets with Brazil’s president

On Friday, the pope held talks in Rio with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Cardoso later said he and the pope had discussed Brazilian and world problems. He said the pope made an appeal for a more just society, adding that “the Brazilian government joins this appeal.”

Upon his arrival Thursday, the pope had spoken out about the gap between rich and poor in Latin America’s largest nation and the plight of the landless farmers and street children.

On his way to the meeting with the president at the Palacio Laranjeriras, a baroque palace in the city center, the pope ordered his motorcade to stop so he could meet residents of a nearby slum, or favela.

John Paul lowered the window of his gray Alfa Romeo and greeted a number of the people waiting.

The pope is due to preside at a rally of Catholic families from around the world in the Maracana soccer stadium on Saturday and hold an open-air mass for an expected 1.5 million people on Sunday, the last day of his visit.

Brazilian bishops hope his trip will help bolster the Catholic Church in Brazil, where evangelical churches have made strong inroads in recent years.

==============================

ABC’s own poll indicts Ellen’s lesbian kiss (971101)

TUPELO, MS -ABC News has quietly buried the results of its own Internet poll which showed that Americans don’t want their children watching same-sex kissing on television, according to American Family Association (AFA). The poll was in response to a lesbian kiss between actress Ellen DeGeneres and another woman on the Disney/ABC sitcom ELLEN.

Homosexual activists cheered the initial poll results, which were in their favor. However, after the final results were tallied, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) spokesperson Liz Tracey called the poll results “skewed” and “not necessarily valid.”

“Disney decided to allow Ellen’s out-of-the-closet experimentation with her homosexuality to play in primetime, and I think ABC News hoped this poll would vindicate that decision,” said Tim Wildmon, vice president of AFA. “Now that the poll proved America’s distaste for same-sex French-kissing, ABC wants to bury the results.”

The poll asked the question, “Would you allow your child to watch a lesbian kiss on television?” Initially GLAAD e-mailed its subscribers, encouraging them to vote, and early poll results reflected that push: almost 64% of respondents voted in favor of allowing children to watch a lesbian kiss; 36% against.

Thinking that the poll had ended, GLAAD declared a victory over AFA in a press release, calling the organization an “anti-gay hate group” and “a marginal radical religious group.” GLAAD Entertainment Media Director Chastity Bono claimed the results of the poll demonstrated “America’s willingness to see lesbian and gay characters represented with fairness and with the same standards as heterosexuals receive.”

AFA and other pro-family groups responded by alerting its own Internet subscribers to vote, and by the time the poll closed on October 20, the results had changed dramatically: only 46% favored the lesbian kiss; 54% were opposed.

The kiss had earned the October 8 ELLEN episode a parental advisory warning of “adult content.” DeGeneres said the advisory was discrimination against same-sex affection and threatened to quit. “This advisory is telling kids something’s wrong with being gay,” DeGeneres complained to The New York Times. The point to the show is to let kids know there’s nothing wrong with being gay, she said. “And now they’re saying children shouldn’t watch it,” she told TV Guide. ABC backed away from the confrontation and removed the parental advisory the following week.

======================================

Pope says church must speak out against pedophilia (971107)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — In a forceful call to his clergy, Pope John Paul II said today that the church must lead the way in protecting youngsters from adult sex predators.

“The Church must repeatedly recall the need to protect all people, especially the young, being weak and defenseless,” the pope told bishops from Belgium.

He said children were often the “targets of perverted adults.”

Belgium has been battered by a series of pedophile scandals, the worst being the bungled investigation into a child sex ring blamed for the deaths of at least four girls.

John Paul asked the bishops to give the families of child sex victims assurances that “the pope remembers them in his prayers.”

Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels had raised the issue with the pope, decrying that “our country has had a tormented year: the violence practiced on children has created a true trauma.”

======================================

Maine becomes first state to repeal gay rights law (Washington Times, 980216)

The people of Maine voted Feb. 10 to make their state the first in the nation to repeal a homosexual rights law. Organizers of the movement to repeal the law, enacted only last June, said they had detected declining support for granting what they call special privileges for homosexuals.

“Until now, it has been looking as if homosexual rights were sweeping the nation,” said Mike Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which helped gather the required signatures to get the referendum on the ballot.

“My sense is we are at a turning point, based on what happened in Washington state and here in Maine,” Mr. Heath said. He noted that Washington voters defeated that state’s proposed homosexual rights law 60% to 40%.

In the final tally, 52% of the voters chose to repeal the law and 48% voted to keep it. Voter turnout for the special election was 31%, well over the 20% that had been the most optimistic prediction.

Mr. Heath said the voters’ decision to repeal the law was all the more noteworthy because there was “a very intimidating atmosphere up here, with Gov. [Angus] King running hundreds of TV advertisements saying that if you cast a yes vote, you are a bigot.”

“A number of businessmen volunteered to me that they would like to help out more,” he said, “but fear reprisals from powerful interests in this state.”

Paul Volle, executive director of the Maine chapter of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, said his group’s poll of likely voters found 67% favored repeal. But a recent independent survey found almost 65% of registered voters opposed the referendum.

Homosexual rights advocates say the law is necessary to help them fight what they call a pattern of discrimination.

“You can be fired in 40 states simply for being gay,” said David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a national homosexual rights organization. “Our opponents say we want special rights, but all we’re seeking is equal rights.”

Mr. Smith said there “is anecdotal evidence that gays are being fired all over the country, but it is hard to quantify because there is no protection on the books.”

Outside organizations plowed money and effort into the campaign on both sides of the issue. Repeal supporters said they spent about $150,000 and the pro-homosexual-rights groups said they spent nearly $500,000.

The national Christian Coalition and Gary Bauer’s pro-family group American Renewal invested time and money in the repeal campaign.

Mr. Bauer’s lobbying organization invested $30,000 in advertising for the repeal campaign and sent five formerly homosexual men, all now married and with children of their own, to tell voters that homosexuality is not a genetic or immutable condition that requires civil rights protections.

Mr. Heath said a vote for repeal is not a vote for discrimination. “We don’t feel we are denying anybody access to credit or jobs,” he said. “Folks who are discreet about their sexual practices are not and never have been denied credit, public accommodations or employment in Maine, although there are isolated cases to the contrary.”

Homosexual-protection laws are on the books in Washington, D.C. and in 11 states: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Maine. Maine’s law has not been enforced because of the challenge mounted by the referendum supporters.

Eight other states are under executive order not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in state employment: Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Homosexuals also enjoy legal protection in Baltimore; Phoenix; Chicago; Boston; Cleveland; Portland, Ore.; Portland, Maine; Detro it; Atlanta; Bloomington, Ind.; and Miami Beach.

Jurisdictions that have overturned homosexual-protection laws include Tampa, Fla.; Cincinnati; Salt Lake City; Lewiston, Maine; Springfield, Mo.; and Ferndale, Mich.

In 1992, Oregon voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to label homosexuality as “abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse.” But in the same year, Colorado voters approved a law forbidding the courts, the state Legislature and local governments to approve homosexual rights measures. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Colorado law as unconstitutional.

======================================

New Jersey Gives Gays Right to Adopt (971217)

NEWARK, N.J. — Adam is like most 2-year-olds — quick, curious, scurrying here and there. Unlike most, his adoptive parents are both men — whose successful fight to keep their boy won the gay movement a step toward equality with heterosexuals, activists said after a landmark court settlement.

The struggle began soon after Jon Holden and Michael Galluccio began caring for Adam, then 3 months old. On Wednesday, they won a settlement that gives gay and unmarried couples in New Jersey the right to jointly adopt children, like married couples. It only affects children in state custody.

Adam Holden Galluccio, blond-haired with rosy cheeks, scurried before the news cameras.

“This is a victory about goodness and equality,” Holden said.

Conservatives, already fighting efforts to legalize same-sex marriages, were diametrically opposed.

The settlement is “a victory for homosexual activism and a defeat for children already bruised in life and in need of an intact, committed husband-and-wife family,” said Robert Knight, director of cultural studies for the Family Research Council in Washington.

“I think it’s a sad commentary,” said state Assemblywoman Marion Crecco, Republican sponsor of a bill banning same-sex marriage that has not yet made it to the Assembly floor.

“I think every child deserves to grow up with a mother and father. It’s a very natural thing,” she said.

The agreement by New Jersey authorities came in a class-action lawsuit brought in June by gay and lesbian families with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union. Holden and Galluccio won the right to adopt Adam on Oct. 22.

In about half the states, including New Jersey, each individual in a gay or unmarried relationship could adopt a child, but the “second-parent” adoption required an additional petition, taking more time and money.

Florida and New Hampshire bar adoptions by gay and lesbians. The rest allow individual adoption by gays and have not been tested for second-parent adoptions by a gay partner, said Michael Adams, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Under the settlement, New Jersey must scrap its policy barring joint adoption of its wards by gay or unmarried couples.

“The settlement guarantees that all couples seeking adoptions will be judged only by their ability to love and support a child,” said Lenora M. Lapidus, legal director of the state ACLU.

The state may deny consent only by applying the same standards it applies to married couples, including “considerations such as the stability of the prospective adoptive couple’s relationship,” the settlement said.

In addition, it allows any gay or unmarried couple who believe they are denied joint adoption based on marital status or sexual orientation to ask a state judge to enforce the decree and award them legal fees.

Activists said the settlement will put more foster children in permanent homes.

Wendi Patella, a spokeswoman for the state Division of Youth and Family Services, said the agency now has custody of about 100 children who are eligible for adoption. In 1996, 687 children in the agency’s care were adopted, she said.

The agency said there are currently 15 unmarried couples seeking to adopt children in state custody.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, estimated there are 8 million to 13 million children being raised by gay or lesbian parents in the United States.

================================

Bishop says the Bible is root of homophobia (980418)

THE leader of the Anglican Church in Scotland today accuses the churches of homophobia and links this to “ignorant” Bible texts.

The Right Rev Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh, will tell the conference of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in London: “Violent homophobia is still alive and kicking, and much of it is motivated by religious zeal.” He says: “The Bible, though it is one of our greatest treasures, is also our greatest danger.”

His comments will cause further anguish in a Church struggling to control the conflict over homosexuality. On Easter Day Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, pictured, was charged with “riotous or violent behaviour in a church” after disrupting the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon.

In his address, released yesterday to The Times, Bishop Holloway says that traditional religions are being abandoned as “primitive superstitions” because they cannot change. “This is why many feminists have abandoned Christianity,” he says. “They see it as incurably patriarchal and oppressive.”

He says the Bible can no longer be read as a fixed and unchanging law, and must be seen as “flawed and fallible”. Declaring that eventually the churches will accept homosexuality, he says: “We have recently abandoned the text’s tyranny over women, as we abandoned its justification of slavery, and soon we’ll abandon its ignorant misunderstanding of homosexuality.

“It must be acknowledged that there is a dynamic connection between the theological rejection of gay and lesbian people, based on the texts in question, and the persecution and abuse they have endured over the centuries, just as there is an obvious connection between anti‑Jewish rhetoric in the New Testament and the Holocaust.”

Bishop Holloway, 64, recently announced plans to leave the Church and stand for the Scottish parliament.

In a new book, Dr John Stott, Rector Emeritus of All Souls, Langham Place, Central London, says homosexual relationships are “incompatible with true love because they are incompatible with God’s law”.

======================================

Gay Teens Bear Psychological Burden of Intolerance (980528)

NEW YORK — Intolerance of homosexuality can have serious psychiatric effects for adolescents, both heterosexual and homosexual, according to psychiatrists.

Gay and lesbian teenagers have increased rates of assault, suicide, substance abuse, and homelessness. These can reflect homophobic attitudes expressed by others as well as internalized feelings of self-hatred, write Drs. James Lock and Brian N. Kleis.

Lock, of Stanford University School of Medicine, and Kleis, of Children’s Health Council, Palo Alto, California, discuss teens and homophobia in an article in the June issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Gay and lesbian youth experience frequent verbal and sometimes physical assault because of their sexual orientation: In one study, 80% reported verbal insults, 44% were threatened with violence, 31% were chased or followed, and 17% said they were physically assaulted.

The term “homophobia,” when used by psychiatrists, refers to irrationally negative attitudes toward homosexual people. Homophobia can be internalized in a gay person as part of an identity struggle caused by the emotional stress of self-acceptance and the social process of “coming out,” Lock and Kleis explain.

Young adolescents, especially boys, are concerned about the physical changes of puberty and may develop homophobia in association with anxiety about their masculinity. At this age, teenagers may need nothing more than information about sexual development, anatomy, and behavior.

If adolescents express homophobia with physical or verbal assaults, “it will be necessary to work with families, schools, and police to contain the behavior while its origins are explored in therapy,” Lock and Kleis write.

Adolescents who have already determined that they are gay or lesbian can become depressed or act out; they may be truant or run away from home, or they may project hostile feelings onto family members.

Older adolescents are more independent of their families and more interested in peer support groups. Those who are uncomfortable with openly gay peers may do better with individual therapy, as well as literature and films that “provide structure, privacy, and some psychological distance,” Lock and Kleis comment.

Gay teens with homophobic attitudes “need assistance managing the effects of persistent attacks by social institutions on their self-esteem and hopes for a successful career,” they write.

======================================

Cardinal condemns Bill for New York gay rights (980528)

AMERICA’S leading Roman Catholic cleric has criticised Rudolph Giuliani, New York’s Mayor, over an impending city law that would extend full legal rights to homosexual couples, putting them on a par with married couples.

Speaking from the pulpit at St Patrick’s Cathedral here, Cardinal John O’Connor, the Archbishop of New York, described the new law as “contrary to natural law and Western tradition”.

The archbishop’s ire was directed at the mayor’s Domestic Partnership Bill, now before the City Council, which would force municipal agencies to treat all unmarried couples -whether gay or heterosexual -as they would married couples, giving them the same rights in such areas as housing and death benefits.

Unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, would also be eligible for “family” health insurance. The Bill is expected to sail through, since it is backed not only by Mr Giuliani, but also by Peter Vallone, the Speaker, who is a powerful voice in the Catholic community.

But Cardinal O’Connor, who has a history of intervention in the city’s political debates, has said that the legislation could provoke “moral and cultural changes in our society neither anticipated nor traditionally desired from our earliest days as a people”.

In a homily packed with references to such authorities -both spiritual and temporal -as Pope John Paul II, Cicero and the United States Supreme Court, the archbishop said: “Marriage matters supremely to every person and every institution in our society. It is imperative, in my judgment, that no law be passed contrary to natural moral law and Western tradition by virtually legislating that marriage does not matter.”

The mayor is determined to stand by his Bill. Although a conservative, his politics are more pragmatic than doctrinaire: a tenacious fighter of crime and labour unrest, he is nonetheless sympathetic to various gay causes, in part in response to New York’s powerful gay rights lobby.

Last night Mr Giuliani said: “The cardinal is a religious leader. He has every right to preach and to argue for his moral point of view. My analysis of it is that this is a human rights issue. What it really is doing is preventing discrimination against people who have different sexual orientations.”

======================================

Clinton Bars Job Bias Against Gays (980529)

WASHINGTON (AP) —President Clinton signed an executive order Thursday to protect homosexual federal workers from job discrimination.

“Individuals should not be denied a job on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work,” Clinton said in a statement accompanying the order.

Gay and lesbian political activists heralded the move, which adds sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is illegal. The others are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicaps and age.

Previously, the Clinton administration had instituted the policy agency-by-agency. Thursday’s action ensures a uniform policy for civilian workers throughout the federal government.

“Since early in President Clinton’s first term, most Cabinet-level departments and agencies have added sexual orientation to their equal employment policies, but these policies were not uniformly administered,” said Kim I. Mills, education director for the Human Rights Campaign. “This executive order will remedy that situation.”

Clinton, in his statement, added a pitch to Congress to pass a long-pending bill to extend protection from job discrimination to all American workers in both the public and private sectors.

======================================

Safe haven for sexual refugees (970714)

Canada is a world leader in offering asylum to persecuted gays, writes Jacquie Miller.