Saturday, January 31, 2009

Judge Refuses Anonymity to Prop. 8 Donors

By Journalista Chronicle

…Of course he did…he’s probably bff’s with Jerry Brown or something. Although backers of the California same-sex marriage ban say it puts more donors at risk of harassment or reprisals, the Judge didn’t seem to be all that concerned with the safety of Prop 8 donors. Just to name a few of the reasons donors’ privacy should have been protected, besides death threats and regular harassment, donors have also received:

Harassing e-mails, phone calls and post cards received by contributors to the California marriage amendment include “Burn in hell” and “If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”

After a one-hour hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. denied the request to keep private all donors who donated between $99 and $999 in the last two weeks before the election, clearing the way for the names of some 1,600 people to be made public on Monday. That means that my husband and I will be on this list. Fine by me.

Read full article here.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Spanish Supreme Court Rules Against Parental Rights

Children Can be Compelled to Receive Homosexual Indoctrination against Parents’ Wishes: Spanish Supreme Court

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman,

After three days of debate, the Spanish Supreme Court has declared that parents do not have the right to opt out of a national civics program that includes indoctrination in homosexualist ideology and other offensive elements.

The program, "Education for Citizenship," teaches children to make a "critical evaluation of the social and sexual division of labor and racist, xenophobic, sexist, and homophobic social prejudices" and instructs teachers to "revise the student’s attitude towards homosexuality." It was formulated by Spain's Socialist Worker's Party, which has held power since 2004.

Following the implementation of the program, families sued to secure status as conscientious objectors in the State of Asturias, where the local Supreme Court ruled that they could not exempt their children from the course. They then appealed the case to the Spanish Supreme Court, which ruled against the families yesterday 23-7, in a plenary session.

Organizations representing dissenting families were defiant, arguing that the decision was unconstitutional, and had no authority over the autonomous provinces of Spain. They also announced plans to appeal the ruling to the nation's Constitutional Court, and beyond.


Responding to the call of Spain's Minister of Education for all provinces to comply with the decision, Blanco stated that "the Minister can't give orders to the Autonomous Communities" and added that she "can't change the Constitution nor human rights. That is higher than the hollow words of the Minister."

Spain's socialist political establishment, however, was jubilant.

"I celebrate that with this the debate is finished," said Spain's Justice Minister Fernandez Bernejo, who added that "this situation has been created by the bad decisions of some autonomous communities who haven't fulfilled their obligation to educate children well."


Read article here.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Change is not always a good thing

Thousands urge Obama to Uphold Traditional Marriage

By Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post

Thousands of traditional marriage supporters have contacted President Obama to voice opposition to his plan to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Almost immediately after the inaugural ceremony, the new administration updated the website with a full outline of Barack Obama's agenda, which included repealing DOMA.

Read full article here.

President Obama's agenda for the LGBT community:

  • Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
  • Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
  • Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
  • Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
  • Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
  • Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
  • Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
  • Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Make your voice heard in defense of marriage.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

MSM Fails to Cover Pro-Life March

Media Censors Huge Pro-Life Event (No Surprise Here!)

From William F. Jasper, The New American

Photo by Darwin Sayo/James McKenzie

Tens of thousands of pro-life supporters marched through San Francisco on January 24 to register their opposition to the continuing abortion holocaust unleashed by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. However, the event was almost totally blacked out by the so-called "mainstream" media. Except for coverage by pro-life websites and the global Catholic EWTN television network, one wouldn't even know the West Coast Walk for Life had occurred, unless one had been there.

Read the full article here.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Prop 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps the Pressure On

From United Families International

Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps the Pressure On
It’s time to take our blinders off and throw away the rose-colored glasses.  If they’re getting busy, we need to be organized, united, and, more importantly, even busier than they.  If you haven’t done so already, be sure to join the DNA and receive daily actions items for blogging, Facebooking, contacting legislators, talking with neighbors, and writing letters to the editor for your local newspapers.  Whether you’ve got 30 minutes or four hours each day to be an activist, we need you.

Gay-Rights Boot Camp (LA Times):

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in “the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California.”

“The Camp Courage training, inspired by ‘Camp Obama,’ is based on grassroots organizing models that have developed leaders and nurtured progressive social movements for many years, including the fundamentals of community organizing; volunteer recruitment and management; voter persuasion and more,” according to a statement.

Prop 8 Opponents Distribute Maps of Traditional Marriage Supporters’ Homes:

Radical opponents of Proposition 8, the proposition that democratically amended the California constitution to define marriage as the union of one man with one woman, have used a variety of tools to alter, and then reject, the popular will of Californians. They tried running vile ads that unfairly targeted groups such as Mormons. When that failed, they resorted to violence and brutal assaults.

And now, they’ve crossed the line once again. They have posted maps online that very clearly show the addresses of those who donated money to the Prop 8 cause (supporting traditional marriage), including even small donors who gave $50 or less.


The UFI blog has learned that up to 1/3 of the Christmas packages that were sent to Californian missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) were not delivered. The LDS church has been widely criticized by the Militant Homosexual Rights Movement for their opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. It is suspected that the Christmas presents were stolen in retaliation to the passing of Proposition 8.


Friday, January 23, 2009

Vote for Marriage "Equality" = Re-Election?

Please read the article before and then kindly write your state representatives a little email (or give them a phone call), to let them know how you feel about the importance of traditional marriage in society-- especially if you live in a state which is considering revising its marriage laws.

--San Francisco Bay Times
Voting for same-sex marriage or against an attempt to ban same-sex marriage is a safe move for politicians, a new study by the group Freedom to Marry has found. A review of such votes in 21 states by more than 1,100 legislators found that the legislators were consistently re-elected. The report revealed:

* Legislators who voted to end marriage discrimination in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts had a 100 percent re-election rate in all 499 instances in three consecutive elections.

* Legislators who changed their position from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage had a 100 percent re-election rate in consecutive elections.

* Legislators who voted for marriage equality in their state’s lower house and then sought higher office all won.

* None of 664 legislators from 17 states lost re-election after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

15 Million Dollar Thought Tax!

by Beetle Blogger

15 Million Dollar Thought Tax
Taxing the Church to Feed the State

In what amounts to a free speech fine reminiscent of a scene out of Robin Hood, San Francisco City government is assessing a 15 million dollar tax on a tax exempt church. This thinly veiled retaliatory move for church involvement in the passing of proposition 8 is outrageous and clearly steps over the line in the separation of church and state.

Government has no say in church affairs, including what morality gets preached or how church officials and their parishioners vote. It doesn’t matter how unpopular the prop 8 vote was in San Francisco, government tax agencies can not be used as weapons to beat churches into submission, or cow them into silence.

Noam Chomsky said: “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

Separation of church and state is just that, freedom for the church to speak and act independently from government authority, and free from reprisal. This action by San Francisco City to quash the free exercise of speech and religion smacks of intimidation and corruption at City Hall.

Is the economy so bad, are budget issues so dire that we have to raid the donation coffers of the local parish, Mayor?

—Beetle Blogger

[Read full article here…]

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It is a Solemn Day

It is a Solemn Day NYT2009012012141335C Husband and Wife 

From United Families International

The air is crisp and cold. Flags are waving. People are cheering. The military salutes. Another President is inaugurated. And people who care about families, marriage between a man and a woman, the sanctity of life and religious liberty stand by the side and wait with baited breath.

Is he really going to abolish all abortion restrictions?  Will he repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?  Will he appoint judges who will strip churches of their right to preach their beliefs?  Will he ask Congress to ratify the most terrifying treaty to come from the UN?

It is a solemn day when a President is inaugurated who promises to oppose the values that this country was founded on.

It is a solemn day when the strident voices of feminism at the United Nations are cheering.

It is a solemn day when those who feel the State has more say over the education of a child than the parents are giddy with enthusiasm.

It is a solemn day when those who promote the taking of the lives of unborn children are counting how many more abortions will now be able to take place.

It is a solemn day.

Those of us who have fought so hard to achieve the victories of the DOMA, Proposition 8, the defeat of the ratification CEDAW treaty, the rights of doctors to refuse abortions, and the ban on partial-birth abortions are saying, “We will not give up!” We will not allow the family to be destroyed! We will not allow our children to be raised by the State! We will not allow the gay-agenda to define the environment in which our children will be raised!

The battlefield is being readied. The forces are assembling. Choose to become engaged. Decide that you will be a part of the fight. United Families International will help you. We will be the voice of thousands around the world who want to be successful in this battle. Together we will fight for the values we hold most dear. Together we will defend families, sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

O God of our Many Understandings: A “Prayer” for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama

Today we celebrate the inauguration of the first black president of the United States of America. However, the ceremony has already been tainted by the words of openly gay Episcopal Bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson.

He claims his words are a prayer. But instead of words of sincere gratitude, sincere faith in God, sincere humility, Robinson’s words drip with pretentiously didactic cliches promoting his own agenda.

At one point during the prayer, people laugh-- not for their own irreverence, but for the irreverence of Robinson’s words.

A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event

Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC

January 18, 2009

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless this nation with anger – anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah. [Laughter from crowd]

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.


© Copyright 2004-2006 by The Diocese of New Hampshire, The Episcopal Church


Monday, January 19, 2009

Happy Martin Luther King Day: Fight the FOCA

Happy Martin Luther King Day! We have achieved so many dreams for civil rights in this country. We have a black president! Children of all races go to school together. No one has to drink from a separate drinking fountain.

Despite all of these beautiful advances, unborn children have no rights. Their lives are at the mercy of their mothers’ choice.

Came across this post at the Opine-Editorials blog. It has some compelling ideas about how to fight the Foca.

Newly Minted Federalists: Freedom of Choice Act

by Op-Ed

"Newly Minted Federalists" is what Opine contributor Fitz called foes of the Federal Marriage Amendment back in 2007. Then, several senators voted against bringing the amendment to a vote on the grounds that marriage was a social issue best left to the states. Fitz doubted their sincerity at the time, and perhaps with good reason. The proposed amendment was voted down primarily on party lines with the Democrats voting against. Democrats historically have not been known for their support of states' rights.

Federalism, it seemed, was simply a convenient fig leaf behind which senators at the time hoped to hide their opposition to marriage as currently constituted. Well now we have a chance to put these newly minted federalists to the test.

Democrats are planning to introduce a sweeping bill taking away what little latitude has been left to the states in that other contentious social issue of our time: abortion. Senate Democrats, flush from their gains in the 2008 election plan on reintroducing the Freedom Of Choice Act, a bill designed to crush existing state laws regulating abortion, many of which have already been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have included below the names of all Senators who opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2007. I cannot research myself all of these senators to see which gave "states' rights" as their reason, but I urge Opine readers to call their senators and ask if they voted for states' rights in 2007 whether they plan on voting the same way when it comes to federalizing abortion. While you're at it, feel free to call President Elect Obama's office and get his take. In 2007 he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that it should be left to the states but he promises to vote against states' rights and sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it makes it to his desk.

Senators voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Email links for senators: Family Leader Network Map

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Full results of the vote can be found here. Votes on a house version in 2006 can be found here.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Google H8 Maps

prop 8 maps

Facilitating Dreams of Stormy Portent

by Beetle Babee

Martin Luther King had a dream…..but not all dreams aim as high as his did.  Some aim a little closer to home:

“I had a dream. In in I saw HATEFUL actions, but of course I would NEVER advocate any of them.

In my dream the LDS Temple, as well as Catholic and Christian Right churches were vandalized daily since gays decided they all have WAY TOO MUCH MONEY if they can purchase H8 and demonize gays; businesses who supported PROP 8 were also vandalized for the same reason.

White powder shows up in tithing envelopes.

People spray-painted HATE or H8 on the sidewalks outside with arrows pointing towards gay-hating church doors.

Death threats and bomb scares disrupted H8 church services every Sunday across the USA.

I am NOT advocating these measures…..but they would not surprise me either.”


These are the words of one deranged and slightly off-kilter commenter who frequents this site and who obviously has some fairly intense emotional build-up over the passage of proposition 8.

Now, imagine this guy knew you, not personally, but imagine he knew you donated money to the p8 political campaign and decided you had deeply and personally offended him?  Imagine he decided to make it personal in return?  Imagine he knew where you lived, had your street address, including how to get there— and imagine all this information was freely provided on the internet for no other purpose than to harass you?

Welcome to where we provide the h8 maps for you to vent your hate!  Welcome every crazy, loony whack-job and thrill seeker!  If you don’t like how the election turned out, take your frustration out on your good neighbors who voted for it!

Sounds pretty American doesn’t it?  Let’s ask Tom Hanks about that…..but while we’re waiting for a real man’s answer, who is going to stand up and stop this kind of harassment from happening?

Who is going to remind the slightly unhinged gay activists that the election is over, and that it’s time to begin promoting healing and unity?

Not the able Governor.  Not our illustrious Senators.  Not the powerful media watch dogs either, they’re all too busy watching…  All these have shamefully remained in stony silence throughout the ugly aftermath of the marriage campaign.

It is time to step forward and put an end to the ugly politics and personal destruction of people who have the right and freedom to vote their conscience, free from harassment and intimidation.

After all, this isn’t the mafia, Venezuela, or communist Russia, this is America.

—Beetle Blogger


Saturday, January 17, 2009

Indiana| Next Up For Marriage Amendment

Indiana Next Up for Marriage Next Up For Marriage: Indiana

by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Indiana wants the people to decide on a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

The Indiana Family Institute is at the helm of the drive. Spokesman Curt Smith admits efforts in the past have not been successful.

"We've met with a lot of legislative roadblocks," he shares. "But not to be deterred, we submitted new legislation, working with several very courageous state legislators -- and [we] hope that the Indiana General Assembly will pass it this session and allow the voters in the future to decide that marriage should be given the full protection of Indiana's constitution."

Under Indiana law, the measure would have to pass in two separately elected legislative bodies to go to the voters, which means a minimum of four years before it would appear on a ballot.

"But we're not going back off, and we're not going back down," Smith promises.
He believes the residents of the Hoosier State want the chance to make the decision. "I believe if given a chance to vote on this, Indiana would overwhelmingly pass it -- as have about two-thirds of Americans in the states where they've had the privilege of voting on this."

Currently, 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. Another 11 have statutes banning same-sex "marriage."


Related Articles:

MSNBC: Some Want to Revive calls for gay Marriage Ban

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama Supported Gay 'Marriage' Before He Opposed It

obama for gay marriage

Obama Supported Gay ‘Marriage’ Before He Opposed It

by Jennifer Mesko

'Is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?'

A gay-activist newspaper in Chicago has discovered that President-elect Barack Obama supported same-sex "marriage" during his run for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Conservatives and liberals alike seem irritated by the flip-flop.

In 1996, Outlines newspaper, which merged with Windy City Times in 2000, surveyed candidates for all levels of elected office. Obama's answer was very clear: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

But with an eye on the White House, Obama quickly dropped his support for gay "marriage" in favor of civil unions. More recently, he has said marriage is a religious issue and a state issue.

"I wonder, is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?" asked conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity.

Obama's transition team has had no comment on the report.

Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said: "I wish this was a change in policy we could take seriously, but unfortunately, Mr. Obama's actions do not support the lip service he's given to marriage. He did not support the state marriage amendments that passed in November.
"His position on marriage seems to be one of political expediency rather than personal conviction."


Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope

From Good Sense Politics comes a story of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Messiah” Obama Book Required Reading in California Schools

Barack Obama - Son of Promise, Child of Hope
A client of mine expressed her extreme frustration over discovering that her children's school district (Los Lomitas in Menlo Park, California) is requiring that the controversial book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope be read in every classroom as part of a mandatory curriculum in celebration of President-Elect Obama. Upon examining this book for herself, this mother was horrified to find a propaganda-laden story describing Obama with tears in his eyes, being called forth by a God-figure called "Hope" to lead the nation to their salvation first as a prophet (the book compares him by name to Moses and Joseph of Egypt) and then as a "Messiah."

She also described to me a picture of Obama kneeling in anguished prayer with the rays of "Hope" shining down on him from heaven, more than a clear allusion to Christ suffering in the garden of Gethsemane for the sins of mankind. The final picture, she described, depicts Obama hands outstretched and glory shining in rays from his body, the classical Christ image of Christian iconography.

[Read more…]

*Be sure to take a look in the comments section where blog author WhoisJohnGalt? adds some commentary on the book from reviewers at Amazon.

UK Christian Care Home Refuses to Ask Patrons about Sexual Orientation & Refuses to Display Homosexual Promotional Literature| Loses Funding

elderly 2

Christian Care Home Loses Funding Over Homosexuality Stance

By Maria Mackay, Christianity Today

Brighton & Hove City Council has pulled thousands of pounds worth of funding from a Christian care home because of its religious beliefs on homosexuality.

The council withdrew £13,000 of funding when the care home refused the council’s request to ask the elderly Christian residents about their sexual orientation every three months. The home also refused demands from the council that it use images of homosexuals in its promotional literature and show staff a Stonewall presentation on ‘gay rights’.

The home is run by Pilgrim Homes, a charity serving elderly Christians for more than 200 years. Its residents include former missionaries and a retired church minister.

Phil Wainwright, director of human resources at Pilgrim Homes, said he was told by the council that the home must ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or ‘unsure’, even if they objected.

But managers at the care home told the council that meeting its demands would “unduly distress” the residents and go against their Christian ethos. They also informed the council that residents over the age of 80 in particular would regard probing from the council on sexual matters as “hostile and intrusive”.

“There was a strong feeling among people in the home that the questions were inappropriate and intrusive,” said Mr Wainwright. “They felt they had come to Pilgrim Homes because of its Christian ethos and were upset they were not protected from such intrusions.”

The council responded by accusing the home of “institutionalised homophobia” and withdrew the funding, which was being used to pay for warden services in sheltered housing.

Pilgrim Homes said it now plans to take Brighton & Hove Council to court for religious discrimination. The legal bid is being financially supported by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defense Fund.

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “Brighton Council is displaying a very prejudiced and discriminatory attitude to the religious beliefs held by the elderly residents of the home run by Pilgrim Homes.

“After a lifetime of Christian service, these elderly men and women deserve to live in a restful environment which supports and nurtures their Christian faith.

“This case is the latest in a series of troubling incidents where the rights of Christians are seemingly being ignored in favour of ‘gay rights’.”

[Hat-tip: Secular Heretic]


Tuesday, January 13, 2009

CA Lawyers File Lawsuit to Block Campaign Finance Records From Public View

I'm Scott Eckern! e coyote

Pro-Marriage Supporters Face Threats in California

by Steve Lawrence, AP writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions...and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

[Read entire article here]


Hospital Could Force Staff to ‘Dismember Pre-Born Babies’

utrasound baby

Hospital Could Force Staff to ‘Dismember Pre-Born Babies’

by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

A legal alliance of Christian attorneys is taking University of Wisconsin hospitals to task on second-trimester abortions.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Matt Bowman has sent a letter to officials at the hospitals and clinics about implementing a secret and potentially illegal plan to perform the abortions with a jointly-operated clinic.

"In Wisconsin there's a plan to take a legitimate medical facility and impose upon it -- by its leadership at the University of Wisconsin -- late-term, second-trimester abortions," he explains, "and pro-life health professionals at the facility who object are in danger of being required to participate in some way."

According to an ADF press release, the plan could force reluctant employees to "[dismember] preborn babies," regardless of firmly held religious views they might have against it. The act could also be determined as illegal funding of abortion by the state.

Bowman believes no one should be forced to act against ethical or religious objections in the work place. "ADF is prepared to take legal action immediately on any coercion or penalties applied to pro-life health professionals because of their objection to this," he points out.

Any coercion, Bowman adds, could mean the school is violating state or federal law, or both.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Minnesota Court Affirms Rochester Health Club Did Not Discriminate Against a Same-Sex Couple

athletic club No Family Membership for Gay Rochester Couple

by Pat Pheifer, Star Tribune

The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed a ruling by an Olmsted County judge that the Rochester Athletic Club (RAC) did not discriminate against a lesbian couple when it denied them a family membership.

Amy and Sarah Monson, a same-sex couple raising a daughter together, sued the club and its president and CEO, John Remick, in 2007, claiming the RAC discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The club said it simply was following its policy to provide family rates only to married couples.

In November 2007, Olmsted County District Judge Kevin Lund granted summary judgment to Remick and the RAC, saying that the Monsons couldn't prove that heterosexual unmarried couples were treated any differently than same-sex unmarried couples.

The Monsons and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota in a friend-of-the-court brief argued at the Appeals Court that the lower court's analysis was legally flawed because it compared the Monsons to unmarried heterosexual couples rather than to all heterosexual couples. They asserted that because same-sex couples can't legally marry in Minnesota, only heterosexual couples can qualify for family memberships.

Gregory Griffiths, an attorney for the RAC, said at the time of the lower court's decision that the court upheld his argument that the issue was not up to the courts but rather to the Legislature to change the statute.

Phil Duran, an attorney with Outfront Minnesota, who has helped represent the Monsons, said Tuesday that he is disappointed but not surprised by the Appeals Court ruling.

"We have been aware since the case was filed in 2007 that in many respects, it hinged on questions regarding technical aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act which might ultimately have to be resolved by the Minnesota Supreme Court."

[Read entire Article here]

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Prop 8: I’m Spartacus! No, I’m Scott Eckern!

After posting about this grand, Big Hollywood, conservative website reveal, we have spent some time browsing the archives there.  Very impressive, by the way.  Before too long, we came across this Prop 8 beauty.  Replete with full text Facebook letters from the instigator, and savvy commentary from the author (aka Spartacus/Scott Eckern), we recommend settling in for this eye-opening read which exposes the circumstances of Scott Eckern’s distressing demise.

I'm Spartacus! I'm Scott Eckern!

To set the tone, we here at Kingfisher would like to give our readers a small taste of the gay “rights” supporter’s “tolerance” and “reason” at work in this case. 

Susan Egan, instigator:

Letter #1, pre-resignation

“I personally do not wish for him to resign, but rather to
write a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world we
all share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards an
organization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment to
the gay and lesbian communities, which have contributed so much over
the years to CMT and SMC, and to him personally. To me – this is what
we should be asking for first.”

Letter #2, post-resignation

“…changing Scott’s mind about the proposition was never my goal. Informing the theatre community of how he uses his earned income was my goal.”

Read on.  If you think that’s bad, it’s not.  It’s much, much worse.

Prop 8: I’m Spartacus!  No, I’m Scott Eckern!

by Stage Right

That’s what I felt like yelling during last November’s horrifying public shaming of a theatre executive in California.  Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre, was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign.  I felt like calling all of my friends in the theatre industry and saying “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!”  I felt like responding to all of the e-mails I received from my colleagues urging me to join the drive to remove him from his post by saying:  “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!”  “If you take him, you should take me! ” Like all those slaves standing in solidarity with Spartacus.  I was also an executive in the industry with similar views.  There but for the grace of God….

But I didn’t stand up and shout.  I didn’t because I am a coward.  I didn’t because I have children and a mortgage and I might need the next job that comes along so I keep my mouth shut.

But make no mistake, there are many of us working in the theatre industry and the spectacle that was Scott Eckern’s ouster was terrifying and enraging to us.  Many readers of Big Hollywood suggest that as long as we are effective in our jobs and we “put butts in seats” then we should have the courage to speak out and fight for our beliefs even if we are a minority in a hostile environment….  I hope this morality tale speaks to you…

[Read more…]

Related Links:

Scott Eckern – Martyr for Prop 8
Martyr McGehee
Prop 8’s Collateral Damage: Tolerance

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Will Vermont Be the Next to Legalize Same-Sex “Marriage?”

Hopefully not, but here’s what WCAX-TV News had to report about the matter.

Will Vermont Be the Next to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

Will Vermont Allow Same-Sex Marriage?

By Bianca Slota

It has been nine years since Vermont lawmakers and residents were embroiled in a bitter battle over civil unions. In the meantime two states -- Massachusetts and Connecticut -- have granted same-sex couples the right to marry. New Jersey and New Hampshire started offering civil unions, and California performed same-sex marriages until voters passed Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, on November 4, 2008.

Now Vermont could be on the cusp of becoming the next state to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Senator John Campbell, D-Quechee, has introduced a bill that would do just that. It also grants religious institutions the right to deny performing the marriages.

"I believe very strongly that the people of Vermont do support equality for all people," says Campbell.

For the Senator this bill is a personal matter. He introduced a similar bill last legislative session. It led to the creation of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, a group tasked with holding hearings across the state and creating a report for lawmakers on whether the public supports gay marriage and whether it is needed. After hearing testimony at the commission's public hearings, Campbell says he became convinced the state needs to take the next step to granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Campbell's hope is that the bill would pass during the first half of the legislative biennium. He says support in the Senate is strong and believes he has support in the House as well. He's also getting help from gay marriage advocates who say they will work hard to make sure the bill passes.

[Read more…]

Related Links:

Will Vermont Allow Same-Sex “Marriage?”
Vermont: Call to Defend Traditional Marriage
New Vermont Group to Oppose Gay Marriage
Vermont Marriage Advisory Council

Friday, January 9, 2009

Conservative Hollywood ‘Comes Out.’

by SE Cupp at Fox NewsConservative Hollywood 'Comes Out'

Hollywood Conservatives Encouraged to Come Out of the Closet

A once-timid group of social outcasts is emerging from the shadows in Hollywood. If the past year is any indication, Tinseltown may have to get accustomed to the loud presence of a growing minority.

After years of silence, conservatives are coming out of the closet.

Andrew Breitbart, the conservative founder of and author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon," is launching a Web site he hopes will help challenge the status quo in what he believes has been a one-party, left-tilting town. Set to debut on Jan. 6, "Big Hollywood" will be a place where center, right and libertarian-leaning celebrities and industry-insiders can weigh in on Hollywood politics, offer film, television and movie reviews, and have an open forum for political discussion.

"Our goal," says Breitbart, who lives in Los Angeles, "is to create an atmosphere of tolerance — something that does not exist in this town."

Breitbart has invited a number of conservative politicians, commentators and journalists to write regularly about the cult of celebrity, liberalism in popular culture, and politics. Among the names who will be contributing, he says, are Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va), political commentator Tucker Carlson, and former Tennessee Senator and Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson.

The site will also feature the punditry of some well-known Hollywood actors, directors, producers, and writers, Breitbart says.

As celebrities like Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Stephen Baldwin and Kelsey Grammer came out publicly with their political ideas over the past few years, the news that there were, in fact, conservatives in Hollywood, had many wondering who would be next.

Recently, there have been rumors that Robert Downey Jr. is a closet Republican, though his publicist will neither confirm nor deny it, saying only, "We unfortunately have no comment, as RDJ does not comment on political matters."

But Breitbart says the goal of Big Hollywood is not to "out" conservative celebrities, and he will not pressure celebrities like Downey to jump into the fray. He says conservative celebs who aren't comfortable with full transparency will be allowed to write under an alias.

"I want them to come on their own volition," he says. "'Big Hollywood is going to have to be a compelling daily read that speaks to Hollywood conservatives' unique burden before some will stick their necks out and choose to speak up for what they believe."

Sticking their necks out has not always been good for business. Mark Vafiades, president of the Hollywood Congress of Republicans, says, "I'm hoping that one day politics won't make a difference in Hollywood. But because there is still subtle intolerance here, conservatives remain somewhat shy.

"If you come to an audition wearing a Bush or McCain button, the casting director will most likely pick another actor. Just being on a set you hear people bashing Bush and the right, because they assume everyone agrees."

Some have suggested the purported anti-conservative tilt in Hollywood is overstated — if it exists at all. Perez Hilton, the self-proclaimed "Queen of All Media" and author of his eponymous gossip site, said, "I think Hollywood is very tolerant. They may mock you for your political beliefs, but at least they'll do it to your face!

"It won't ever interfere with people getting a job. Kelsey Grammer still works!"

But some conservatives in the entertainment industry say there may not be a literal blacklist in Hollywood, but there is pressure to keep silent.

"Conservatives don't necessarily have to be covert about their politics, but in many cases they are because the liberals aren't fair and balanced towards those with differing points of view," says Jerry Molen, the Oscar-winning producer of big Hollywood hits like "Schindler's List," "Jurassic Park" and "Rain Man."

"In too many cases, conservatives are immediately labeled racist, homophobic, bigoted, hateful, demonic, or even un-American without the benefit of debate, and are locked out of the hiring process, with a few exceptions."

But the doors may be slowly opening "An American Carol," a conservative parody that lampooned liberal Hollywood this year, galvanized conservative celebrities like Robert Davi, Dennis Hopper, Kevin Farley, Voight and Grammer, all of whom had roles in the film.

And conservative film festivals, including the American Film Renaissance and the Liberty Film Festival, have also helped bring to market conservative projects that a few years ago might have had a difficult time getting made.

Some industry insiders credit John McCain with helping to embolden Hollywood conservatives during this year's presidential election. Andrew Klavan, a conservative author and screenwriter of psychological thrillers including True Crime and Don't Say A Word, said, "For people who had a lot to lose, McCain gave them some cover. He wasn't a true Republican like Bush was. He was someone even the left liked, whereas Bush was demonized. Hollywood conservatives could support McCain without necessarily supporting the GOP."

Klavan suggested that a spate of recent political movies like "Rendition" and "Redaction" also strengthened the conservative cause.

"These movies are genuinely anti-American. Never before have we had anti-war movies made while our troops were at war. Many people like me were ashamed of the industry, and there's been a bit of a backlash."

Vafiades says increasing numbers of conservatives have joined his organization in the past year, and more organizations like his are sprouting up.

But hush-hush groups like "Friends of Abe," a secretive society of Hollywood conservatives, still operate well under the radar. And the increased spotlight on conservative celebrities has not changed the political climate as much as Breitbart, Vafiades, Molen and Klavan would like.

They say liberal celebrities still have an easier time "being political" than conservatives do.

"Sean Penn is out dancing with dictators, and no one gives him flak. Instead they give him Oscar nominations," says Klavan. "Jon Voight may have some semblance of job security, but he still has to be careful about what he says."

Related Links:

Big Hollywood

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Proposition 8 and Our Society – The Majority Perspective

With a little digging, we happened upon this gem published in the UCSF Student Newspaper.  The author is anonymous and the editor’s note is extremely revealing…and commendable.

Proposition 8 and Our Society - The Majority Perspective

A Note From the Editors

It is not the policy of Synapse to run opinion articles anonymously, but we have broken that rule to publish the accompanying article on Proposition 8.

We do so because we think it is important for all shades of opinion within the campus community to be heard. We do so because we have printed many articles from those opposing Prop 8, but hadn’t received any from the other side.

Efforts were made to get the writer to agree to use his name, but he refused, citing fear of harassment. While we devoutly hope that would not be the case, we were sobered by a column on November 23 by the San Francisco Chronicle’s Editorial Page Editor John Diaz. He wrote:

A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community’s and “liberal media’s” refusal to accept the voters’ verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.
“Please show respect for democracy,” he wrote, in a letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed – a condition for publication of letters to
The Chronicle – opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer’s small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the “Comments” section of – urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.

We at Synapse would like to think that this would never happen at UCSF, but finally decided to let the accompanying article run anonymously, to spare the writer of any of the harassment that has occurred since the passage of Prop 8.

In this democracy, the way to rectify errors at the polls is to convince a majority at a future election of the rightness of your cause. No matter how passionately one feels about an issue, it is important to maintain a civil dialogue and a reasoned debate. [emphasis added]

We welcome any and all comments from the campus community. Email them to us at

The Editors


Proposition 8 and Our Society – the Majority Perspective

In light of the recent election, and the call for reflections on the outcome by Synapse, I feel that it is time to voice the feelings shared by a MAJORITY of us Californians and perhaps many of us here at UCSF: we support a traditional definition or marriage being between “one man and one woman.” The responses published in Synapse, both before and after the election, have been in strong opposition to Proposition 8 and in reading these articles and discussing them with others in the campus community I have realized an irony that exists here at UCSF. I hope to address both the issue of tolerance here at UCSF, and also the justification of Proposition 8.

The UCSF Principles of Community ( claims, “We affirm the individual right of public expression within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect. We recognize the right of every individual to think and speak as dictated by personal belief, to express individual ideas and to state differences with other points of view, limited only by University requirements regarding time, place and manner…[and] we reject acts of discrimination…based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and religious or political beliefs.” In light of this unbiased, and non-discrimination policy let us examine the following example.

I became aware of a recent situation in which a speaker with a conservative (and in no way discriminatory) background was sponsored by a group on campus. Before he even arrived, numerous emails expressing offense to his conservative background and messages were circulated among students and sent to those responsible for the event. After the speaker’s presentation, those in opposition to the event called for an open forum for their opposition to be voiced to the event’s organizers. Unfortunately, the discussion was tense, and some of the comments would perhaps be more appropriately termed accusations.

[Read more…]

Related Articles

The Intolerance of Tolerance
Queen of Hearts Campaign
Gay Rights and Hate Crimes
The “Right” to Win

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Oregon Church Refusing to Sign Marriage Licenses for Heterosexual Couples

by Julie French at Ashland Daily Tidings

Clergy members of First Congregational United Church of Christ are refusing to sign marriage licenses for any couple until they are able to sign the document for any couple, gay or straight.

Refusing to Sign Marriage Licenses
The Rev. Pam Shepherd came up with the idea after realizing she was inadvertently contributing to discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, she said.

"I've been for civil rights for gay and lesbian people for a long, long time, but I never thought, 'I'm helping the discrimination every time I sign a license,'" she said. "Every time I sign a license, it's like I'm saying, 'OK,' but it's not OK."

[Read more…]