RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

Real Bullies: The Homosexuality Is Normal Movement
By Lloyd Marcus
March 24, 2013


Think of us as crew members on the starship Enterprise of the Star Trek TV show, boldly going where no one has gone before. This is what it feels like challenging the Homosexuality Is Normal Movement. It is extremely dangerous.

Homosexual activists attempt to humiliate and politically destroy anyone who dares even criticize their agenda. Meanwhile, the MSM (mainstream media) casts us who believe marriage should remain between one man and one woman as the aggressors, as hate-filled villains.

Have the Homosexuality Is Normal Movement stolen our kids? Despicably, while we were not looking, homosexual activists sneaked their agenda in the back doors of our elementary schools, indoctrinating our kids early. Unquestionably, lack of access to your child for indoctrination contributes to the Left's hatred for home schools and their relentless attempts to close them down.

Here is another example of homosexual activists' in-your-face, aggressive indoctrination of our kids. A Massachusetts charter school, grades 7-12, will host a production of the play "The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told," a retelling of the biblical story of Genesis with gay characters. Keep in mind that American schools have a cow when a kid brings a Bible or wears a t-shirt with religious, patriotic, or U.S. Military images. And yet, this school gleefully hosts a play which blasphemes Christianity while promoting homosexuality.

Our forty-year-old son and twenty-year-old granddaughter support homosexual marriage. Their attitude is What's the big deal? It is only fair that gays be allowed to marry. America's youths are parroting the liberals' argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is discriminatory and bigoted.
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, support for gay marriage is at 65 percent among those 18 to 29 years old. The gay marriage approval rating is probably even higher among high school kids.

A twenty-something-year-old Christian youth pastor picked me up from the airport in California. Justifying his support of same-sex marriage, he said, "God does not care who we love." Wow, I could hardly believe my ears. This young man, who claimed to be a minister of God, chose to ignore the Bible and spout the liberal pop-culture spin.

From cooking shows to home improvement and everything in between, it has become difficult to watch TV without the Homosexuality Is Normal agenda being forced down your throat. If you do not believe that these people are outrageously aggressive, listen to this. The Green Street United Methodist Church will not perform heterosexual marriages until gays can marry.

I have dear friends and beloved relatives who are homosexual. I am loving and kind to their mates. My 85-year-old dad has been a Christian pastor over 50 years. Dad said he loves the homosexuals in his life, but they know where he stands on this topic, which is the biblical view.

Dad's tolerance is not enough to please the aggressive Homosexuality Is Normal Movement bullying America today. They seek to politically bend Dad's arm behind his back, forcing him to declare homosexuality normal, against his faith.

My point is, homosexual activists are extremely aggressive while portraying themselves as innocent victims of an intolerant society. In reality, we who believe in traditional values are the ones being bullied. The MSM gang vilifies anyone who dares to stand up for traditional marriage. Come hell or high water, they are going to make us embrace homosexuality as being normal by severely punishing those who refuse to comply.

And will someone please tell me why homosexual activists are so hell-bent on forcing Christian institutions to betray their faith by embracing the homosexual agenda? Homosexual activists have sued the Boy Scouts of America and launched a war on the Catholic Church.

No one is opposing homosexuals doing their own thing. Rather than aggressively trying to infiltrate the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church, why not form their own Fabulous Scouts of America and the Church of If It Feels Good, Do It, and leave Christian institutions be?

Christian institutions are simply saying you cannot come into our house and force us to change the rules - especially when those rules come from God. And what is the MSM's response to Christian institutions defending their religious freedom? The MSM campaigns to brand the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church intolerant haters. We are living in crazy, insidious, evil times.

The Homosexuality Is Normal Movement takes no prisoners - not even new Pope Francis. They have already begun finding fault with him because he is against gay marriage and gay adoption.

Question: will homosexual activists get away with branding the pope a hater?

The Homosexuality Is Normal Movement is not made up of passive, well-meaning victims simply seeking tolerance and their place in the sun. They are relentless, vicious, and hell-bent on forcing all of us, particularly Christians, to say their behavior is normal.

An America that abandons thousands of years of tradition and common sense is an America that has set itself firmly on a path toward decline. That is the central issue of gay marriage that the Supreme Court will struggle to determine. A similar experience in social engineering gave us the federal protection of abortion and the murder of an entire generation of the unborn.


What we are witnessing is the tyranny of a determined minority, gays, lesbians, and transsexuals in America, barely three percent of the population, demanding that their particular sexual orientation should be codified in law by redefining marriage for everyone else. This isn’t about equality. It’s about special privileges and the destruction of marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Imagine if the court had agreed with the early Mormon Church and established polygamy as the law of the land? In 1890, the Supreme Court ruled in The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States that “the organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the Supreme Court strikes down the decision of voters in California to prohibit gay marriage, it will have to ignore the Tenth Amendment. At this point in time, 41 States have passed laws protecting traditional marriage.


As one observer noted, if gay marriage is deemed legal by the Supreme Court, what would prevent the North American Man/Boy Love Association from demanding that their claim that sex with children is valid?

A rational society must have rational laws and the Constitution, which limits the powers of the federal government, makes it clear that the states have the right to determine their own response to such issues. Throwing overboard centuries of English law and the Constitution to favor gays and lesbians opens the doors to an “anything goes” society.

As a March 27 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “The Supreme Court wrapped up its second day of oral argument on a pair of gay marriage cases Wednesday, and the Justices on the left and right seemed genuinely discomfited by the radicalism of redefining the institution (of marriage) for all 50 states.” Make no mistake about it, the demand for gay marriage is radical and would transform our society from one that has respected thousands of years of tradition and practice to one that abandons a religious and cultural norm to one that undermines society.

The cases before the Supreme Court arrive at the same time the nation has reelected a President who made clear that his objective is to “transform” our society from one that became a superpower based as much on its moral leadership as on its military and economic strength. The result thus far has been to impose a huge debt that will impact generations to come, undermines our ability to project strength, and threatens the value of the dollar. The Obama administration is currently trying to deprive Americans of the Second Amendment right to own firearms in the event a tyrannical government should occur.

The result, not surprisingly, has been an increase in the use of nullification by the states as they pass laws making it clear they do not intend to implement Obamacare as in the case of Indiana, South Carolina, and others. Six state legislatures already have bills filed that would prohibit cooperation with any attempt to indefinitely detain people without due process under a provision of the NDAA.

Several states, including Wyoming, will consider blocking any federal actions violating the Second Amendment. Florida, Indiana, and Missouri will look at legislation prohibiting spying by domestic drones. The Tenth Amendment Center has developed a legislative tracking page on its website because of this growing movement to resist federal mandates.

Sexual mores, the devaluation of our currency, and the general decline of moral values has plenty of precedent in history, most notably the decline of the Roman Empire. America fought a Civil War over the moral issue of slavery, ending it. It granted the right to vote to women. It stumbled badly with Prohibition, but abandoned it. All central governments tend to over-reach.

The Supreme Court’s decision on abortion is now being resisted as states begin to pass legislation to limit this practice in order to protect the lives of the unborn.

The President and other politicians who favor gay marriage, supported by a liberal media, will not have the last word. This is not about equality. It is about fundamental morality and, should America abandon that, it will cease to be a great nation no matter what path other nations may take.

Actually "traditional" marriage has evolved all along. Sometimes it's allowed for polygamy and for most of it's history it was about women being property.

Excellent point, MEM.

Missouri man arrested at hospital for refusing to leave gay partner
By David Edwards
Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:50 EDT
Topics: power of attorney ♦ Roger Gorley ♦ WDAF

122K Email 122KEmailA gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.


“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.

“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.

In a 2010 memorandum, President Barack Obama ordered hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights for gay and lesbian partners.

For its part, Research Medical Center insisted that it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

“We believe involving the family is an important part of the patient care process,” the hospital said in a statement. “And, the patient`s needs are always our first priority. When anyone becomes disruptive to providing the necessary patient care, we involve our security team to help calm the situation and to protect our patients and staff. If the situation continues to escalate, we have no choice but to request police assistance.”


Gorley cannot currently visit his partner at all due to a restraining order issued after his arrest on Tuesday.

Watch this video from WDAF, broadcast April 11, 2013.

G-man could better extrapolate if power of attorney applies in a state that doesn't recognize gay spouses.

by Eric Erickson
March 26, 2013


The kids these days on the right are full of a great libertarian notion that “hey, let’s just get the government out of marriage.”

“Rock on,” say other libertarians.

They then all smugly self-congratulate themselves, pat themselves on the back, and move on to other issues.

What they ignore is that the left will never take marriage out of the hands of the government. The left cannot. But it goes beyond that. The left cannot take marriage out of government because for so long it has been government through which marriages were legitimized to the public and the left must also use government to silence those, particularly the religious, who refuse to play along.

Let’s ignore, for the sake of this post, that the Democracy of the Dead has settled for us that in society marriage should be between a man and woman as the best way to propagate the species.

The left has done an admirable job in secular society making the case that gay marriage merely allows a class of people to be happy and have what everyone else has.

The front on which the gay rights movement has failed is the religious and, in particular in the United States, the Christian front.

• From Matthew 19:4-6:
  
  
  “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The Christian Left would prefer to view Matthew 19 as a passage on divorce, which is discussed. But they willfully ignore Christ’s definition of what a marriage is — one man and one woman united to become one.

As much as many would ignore, obfuscate, or try to confuse the beginning of Matthew 19, Christ makes it very clear. The Creator made a male and a female and the two become one. That is marriage in Christianity, despite what a bunch of progressive Christians who have no use for the Bible would have the world believe.

Therein lies the problem for the gay rights movement.

As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent.

So those Christians must be silenced. The left exerted a great deal of energy to convince everyone that the gay lifestyle is an alternative form of normal. It then has exerted a great deal of energy convincing people that because the gay lifestyle is just another variation of normal, gay marriage must be normalized.

Meanwhile, those Christians are out there saying it is not normal and are refusing to accept it as normal because of silly God dared to say marriage is a union between a man and woman.

Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals.

Already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more.

Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this. Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.

Churches, businesses, and individuals who refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution must be protected as best we can. Those protections will eventually crumble as the secular world increasingly fights the world of God, but we should institute those protections now and pray they last as long as possible.

The left cannot allow Christians to continue to preach the full gospel. We already see this in, of all places, Canada. Gay marriage is incompatible with a religion that preaches that the unrepentant are condemned, even of a sin the world has decided is not one. The religious freedom will eventually be ended through the judiciary. We should work to extend that freedom as long as we can.

Now many of you have read through this and you are shaking your head in denial. “No way this is possible,” you say. But then just a decade ago no one seriously considered gay marriage as possible. And we are already seeing signs we’re headed in this direction. It’s coming. Get ready.

Libertarians will have to decide which they value more — the ability of a single digit percentage of Americans to get married or the first amendment. The two are not compatible.

You're not really for religous freedom when you're so obviously willing to try to restrict others of theirs.

An interview with Michael O'Brien


An abbreviated version of this interview with Michael O’Brien appeared in the August 15, 2004, edition of Our Sunday Visitor. The interviewer is Thomas Szyszkiewicz. Reprinted with permission.

The Canadian Parliament recently passed Bill C-250 which amends the federal hate crimes law to include speech against sexual orientation. Some Canadian groups have complained about it, saying even the Bible could be seen as hate literature. What's wrong with what was passed?

O’Brien: A number of aspects of the new law are profoundly disturbing. For one thing, there already exists in Canadian law abundant protection of human rights, including protection against discrimination on grounds of "sexual orientation." What is distinctive about the new law is the criminalization of negative criticism of homosexuality as such.

While the bill was in formation in Parliament two crucial amendments proposed by the conservative opposition party were defeated. The first was to ensure that religious pastors and teachers would retain full freedom to teach traditional Judeo-Christian view on these matters. The second was an attempt to make a distinction in law between homosexual persons and homosexual activities. The Church does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns sinful activities--activities that are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any public criticism of homosexual activity is a hate crime against homosexual persons, punishable by jail sentences.

Has there yet been any practical effect to what has been passed?

O’Brien: The ink is still wet on the document, and there has been little time to bring many law suits. For the time being we’re in the eye of the storm, a temporary calm. I think there is a widespread drawing back as journalists, teachers, and pastors ponder their options. At the same time activist homosexual groups are bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in this country with mockery and threats, planning strategies (in open forums) for silencing all opposition, warning that those who don’t keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual activist strategy is at times quite shocking. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor.

I should add that during the past two years a number of significant "human rights" law suits have been brought against traditional Christians, litigation that predates the new hate crimes law. The courts generally have sided against the churches and individuals who do not want to cooperate with the "gay agenda." For example, a printing company that declined to print Toronto’s annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business. A Catholic school was coerced by a court order to admit an openly homosexual teenage boy and his older male lover to the school prom; the court also refused the school board permission to cancel the prom. A daily newspaper that published an advertisement page of Biblical quotes regarding homosexuality was fined. Such incidents are multiplying.

Is this another slippery slope issue? How far can this reach in terms of what alleged crimes might be committed or who might be protected by it?

O’Brien: Potentially very far. The law can be used primarily to further intimidate the timid and to punish the outspoken. We now have Thought Crime in Canada, just as Orwell predicted. Few people believe this could be the beginning phases of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World. But the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual activity was a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual activity has become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it has become the crime. I see this as a prime example of the new totalitarianism. Clearly, we have now arrived at a situation in which "some of us are more equal than others", as Orwell predicted.

In its hate propaganda provisions the law states that in order to be found guilty of an indictable offense, a person must communicate statements in a public place which "incite hatred against an identifiable group" in such a way that there will "likely be a breach of the peace." The courts have already proven their startling subjectivity on homosexual issues. A breath of protest from a Christian is a hate crime, while aggressive disruption of Christian gatherings by gay militants are often overlooked and go unprosecuted.


A whiff of Germany in the early 1930’s is discernible in the atmosphere. Of course, glancing about our streets we do not see any concentration camps or marching jackboots. But will the prisons some day hold Christian inmates whose only crime is speaking the truth? And as for jackboots, activist homosexual groups have behaved like Nazi hooligans of the late1920’s and early 1930’s, for example their recent outrageous behavior at Archbishop Adam Exner’s residence in Vancouver.

Many of the terms in the new law are largely undefined, such as "sexual orientation," "inciting hatred," "a likelihood of breach of the peace" and thus there is an ambiguity so broad that one could drive a battleship through it. It will be left to the courts to do the dirty work of interpreting, condemning, and imprisoning. They have already proved themselves quite willing to do so, and the new law offers them added incentives.

Some European countries have similar laws. What has happened with those?

O’Brien: They have been used fully and without hesitation to punish traditional Christians for their beliefs. In England, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, Spain and other countries, Catholic and Protestant pastors, bishops, and cardinals have been prosecuted under similar hate crimes laws. For example, Cardinal Varela of Madrid is on trial in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathedral on the feast of the Holy Family. (see the Washington Post article, 01/03/04). Reverend Ake Green, the pastor of a Pentecostal church in Sweden, was recently sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court for a sermon he preached last year citing Biblical references to homosexuality. Cardinal Gustaaf Joos of Belgium is facing a lawsuit under Belgian discrimination laws for his comments in a magazine regarding the nature of homosexuality and the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject.

We might do well to recall that Pope John Paul II has warned repeatedly that democracy is not immune from totalitarianism. In his encyclicals Centessimus Annus, Familiaris Consortio, and Evangelium Vitae, for example, as well as in other writings and speeches, he has stated that grave threats to genuine freedom are already at work in the democracies.

In The Gospel of Life he says that when "democracy contradicts its own principles, it effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism." When the right to speak the truth is violated, when the rights and responsibilities of the family and Catholic institutions are invaded by the State, when the suppression of vaguely defined "crimes" becomes a growth industry fostered by mindless legalisms, the human community is "betrayed in its very foundations." The Holy Father goes on to say that in a nation where some individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity, "the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun." (EV n.20) In Centessimus Annus he writes, "As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

Perhaps I should point out here that in the Western nations where democracy is being eroded, the worst of the destruction has been brought about, by and large, through "Catholic" politicians, people who are "personally opposed, but...." Where, then, does the slippery slope end? Were there Catholic politicians in Nazi Germany who were "personally opposed" to some of Hitler’s more negative programs in the beginning of his regime, but went along with it for "the good of the people"? Will our leaders find themselves saying one day in the not too distant future, "Well, I’m personally opposed to concentration camps, but...." Of course the camps would not be called by such a repulsive term––you can be sure that a government psychologist would come up with comforting terms like "Social Rehabilitation Center" or "The Tolerance Project". Far-fetched? Perhaps. But how far-fetched did our present situation appear only one generation ago?

In your book, Landscapes With Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind (Ignatius Press, 1998), you have a chapter entitled, "Are Christians Intolerant?" in which you raise several interesting points. One of those is that a mother "who fiercely protects her little ones from predators...suffers from a bias against rattlesnakes and wolves" or a doctor "who has seen an epidemic ravage a people...is prejudiced against deadly viruses." But this is not how the rest of the world views intolerance or even how Christians necessarily view it, is it? Mostly intolerance is seen as an evil thing in which the Christian is judging, not simply the external actions someone takes, but the interior disposition of the mind, heart and soul. How does this image get changed?

O’Brien: The Christian view must always be this: I love the carrier of this Tuberculosis or AIDS virus as a person, but I do not love his virus. I want to protect him as a person but I do not want to protect his virus, for it is his virus that is killing him, and threatens to kill others as well. I will do what is reasonable to help him find healing, if he so wishes, but I will not allow his virus to invade my family, my body, my mind, my children’s education, and if at all possible my government. And I maintain my right to say to him that he is in danger.

Tragically, throughout forty years of massive propaganda from media, especially through the entertainment industry, we have been bombarded with gross caricatures of repressive moralists and vicious "fundamentalists", while the image of the immoral or amoral hero has been exalted in the name of "freedom." As a result, people who "love the sinner but hate the sin" are now commonly considered to be dangerous sociopaths while those who promote and protect the deadly virus of sin are considered to be enlightened. We have suffered a cultural revolution of epic proportions (one that is far from over), and most people hardly realize what has happened, nor how grave the consequences will be.

For the culture to change requires evangelization, yet I observe two things: 1) Catholics aren't out evangelizing as we should - we tend to shrink from such a thing, and 2) evangelization is itself considered an act of intolerance since it challenges one's way of life. In light of such an atmosphere, how does one go about changing the culture?

O’Brien: I think it begins with one’s own interior conversion. Speaking the truth will be effective to the degree that we speak in the spirit of love. Hatred and contempt have no place in the Christian heart, nor in our efforts at evangelization. At the core of one’s being––what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls "the heart"––we must recognize elements of fear, anger, lack of mercy. Whenever we see these impulses arise within us, we should invoke the extraordinary and specific graces of Christ to dispel them with mercy, so that His presence within us may speak and be made present to others. Genuine mercy never undermines Truth. False compassion, by contrast, usually betrays truth on some level and generates other evils.

With the growth of genuine Love there will be accompanying growth in courage. "Perfect love casts out fear," Jesus says. Too seldom have we relied on grace. Too long have we relied on strategies and public relations programs, as if the spread of the Gospel were dependent on such devices. In the end this kind of pseudo-knowledge or ersatz "wisdom" will fail us. Indeed it has failed us. It has proven itself practically useless and in fact counterproductive during the recent crises in the Church in America. Now is the time for courage and bold witness. If we do not yet have it within us, we need only ask Our Lord for it. He will give us all that we need. Then, if we respond, things around us will change. Potentially the whole character of the West can change for the better, if Catholic Christians would only become who we are.

There is a lot of talk today about the whole political climate and religious involvement in it - even in Canada there have been some bishops who have spoken out on pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion. This kind of "intolerant" talk is taken by the media as a political ploy. How does the Church effectively get her voice heard if it is shut down by simply declaring her to be "intolerant"?

O’Brien: We simply must stop being distracted and intimidated by media polemics and name-calling. It so often infects us with compromise, a fear-based approach to evangelization. We must rediscover confidence in the living Jesus and the full power of the Holy Spirit, exactly what Christ always calls us to be.


As I grow older, having raised six children, I’ve learned a few things about fathering. It has been a long trial and error process, and perhaps the most important thing I’ve learned along the way is the crucial connection between human fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood, and through this the connection to our Father in Heaven. Whenever we opt for a superficial "democratic" model in the life of the Church or the family, something basic to human nature (and to society) is lost. Such a model of family or "church" may seem compassionate in the short run, but it almost always fosters a long range cruelty. Fathers, especially shepherds of flocks of the Lord, must exercise their authority in love. In love, yes, but with firmness and clarity. The time for nuanced policy statements is over.


The time for lack of consequences is over. The time for courageous witness to Christ is long overdue. This means that all those who have responsibility for other souls must become "signs of contradiction" in opposition to the spirit of this age, because its culture is devouring human lives and societies at an unprecedented rate.

What has been the reaction of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops? Is there any danger of the Church getting in trouble with the Canadian authorities based on this new law?

O’Brien: Before the law was passed in Parliament, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops departed from its customary qualified and careful statements to our government, and issued forthright warnings about the dangers of the new hate crimes law. Their words had little or no effect. I suspect that legislators had simply grown comfortable with regular mild-mannered position statements from the CCCB, and were well accustomed to ignoring them. There is a hard lesson to be learned here.


The "tolerance" of clearly evil legislation displayed by ecclesial bureaucracy is now showing its bad fruits. In fearing to offend, they have failed to resist a terrible offense against the human community. By seeking to save some things they have brought us closer to losing everything. The large majority of Catholics in this country remain uncatechized, unevangelized, and in dissent from the teachings of the Church. Decade after decade they vote for politicians who promote clearly evil laws, often in ignorance, and usually without suffering any discernible consequences. What is the cause of this ignorance?

It should be noted that courageous bishops and pastors have not been lacking among us. Since the nineteen sixties, a small minority of bishops have fought a relentless battle for truth, in a spirit of love. The good news is that there are more and more shepherds like them. In increasing numbers they are standing up and speaking as "signs of contradiction" to the culture of death. I expect that some of them may be in prison one day, as is the case in some countries.

How are the smaller Protestant churches dealing with this?

O’Brien: Much the same as we Catholics are. The evangelical churches especially have been concerted in their resistance to a number of government violations of moral law. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, for example, has been a strong voice of protest in the debates over several questionable new laws.

What would happen if a bishop or priest from outside of Canada were to say something to violate that law?

O’Brien: It’s only my guess, but at the least he would be conducted to the border and told never to return, and his Canadian hosts could be charged under the new laws.

Is there any chance, with the elections that recently occurred that this law will be overturned?

O’Brien: Short of divine intervention, none. In last month’s national election the country returned the government to power for five more years, albeit with a few less seats. Our population is more than 50% baptized Catholic. Almost all of the past seven Prime Ministers and their Ministers of Justice have been "practicing Catholics". Personally opposed, but.... It is our present Prime Minister, apparently a practicing Catholic, who ensured the passage of the hate crimes law, against widespread popular protest. Why, then, did his party win the election? Because Canadians almost always vote for security and comfort over principle. They have failed to understand that when the moral foundations of a nation are destroyed, great evils are to follow, and in the end there will be no security of any kind. I pray that Americans learn from our mistakes.

What hope, short of the Lord's return, do you see for changing Western culture?

O’Brien: Immense hope. God is full of surprises. It is not unthinkable that a great grace, a great illumination of conscience, is coming for the world. It has happened before. New saints may arise among us, and new movements that will call us back to a vital, dynamic faith. We should never retreat into a ghetto, never despair of the world. But neither should we be lulled into a false peace with the evil that is at work in it.


Catholics can be neither facile optimists nor gloomy pessimists. We are called by Christ to a kind of Christian realism, which means that we must always keep before the eyes of the heart the ultimate victory of the Lord. Each of us must play his part in this, carrying the cross of present trials with the Resurrection in our eyes.

I find this funny as it's a catch 22 for the hardline conservatives. It's a plus for gay marriage, which they hate, while also being a plus for states' rights, which they love.

by Blaise Joseph


April 10, 2013 (Mercatornet) - A recent report by polling company Pew Research appears to show that there has been growing support for same-sex marriage over the last 10 years. This is unsurprising, given factors such as the media bias on the issue (see last week’s CNN segment with Piers Morgan and Ryan Anderson for just one example), President Obama and Vice-President Biden supporting it, and the growing number of celebrities and public figures in favour.

According to the report, 14% of Americans have changed their minds and now support same-sex marriage. These people were asked to give reasons for why they changed their minds.



The most common reason given (32% of those who changed minds) was that they know someone who is homosexual. Republican Senator Rob Portman, who a few weeks ago said he supported same-sex marriage because of his son who is homosexual, is an example of this. But this is hardly a reason for supporting same-sex marriage. Firstly, many homosexuals oppose same-sex marriage, and secondly the issue is not whether or not we should love homosexuals, but rather what marriage is, and whether or not same-sex marriage is beneficial for society.

The rest of the reasons given were almost all just meaningless platitudes. They ranged from “I’ve grown more open” to “it’s inevitable,” “the world is different now,” and “I believe in equal rights.”

What is common to all these reasons is that they are so superficial. It is significant that nothing along the lines of “I’ve thought about the meaning of marriage and realised it is unjust not to allow same-sex couples to marry” or “I’ve realised same-sex marriage would benefit society” made the list. This just goes to show that support for same-sex marriage tends to be based more on emotion rather than reason. This is cause for hope among supporters of traditional marriage, as we know that there is no intellectual drive behind growing support for same-sex marriage. All that is required is to turn public opinion around again is to convert the intellectual case for traditional marriage into accessible, understandable arguments.

Another interesting thing to note from the report was that the wording of questions in opinion polls matters on this topic. “Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?” saw 58% of people respond in the affirmative, whereas when the question was phrased “Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry?” under 50% of people said yes. Obviously, it is ridiculous to suggest the issue is about whether or not same-sex marriage should be illegal, as no one is arguing that people who get dressed up and participate in a same-sex wedding should go to jail. What is being debated is the legal definition of marriage.

Note that both of the above questions are skewed towards same-sex marriage anyway, as they focus on the issue from the perspective of same-sex couples, and not on marriage itself. If the question was “Do you support redefining marriage to be between any two consenting adults?” or “Are you satisfied with the traditional definition of marriage?” the responses would likely be very different.



This also applies to questions surrounding same-sex parenting. The Pew Research poll asked respondents if they supported the statement “Same-sex couples can be as good parents as heterosexual couples” to which 63% of respondents agreed. But this statement is completely unclear. It could mean that the best same-sex parents can be as good as the worst heterosexual parents, it could mean that on average same-sex couples are as good parents, it could mean in theory same-sex parents can be as good parents, and so on. The responses are problematic and for all intents and purposes meaningless.

The results would likely be very different if the question was, for example, “Do you think mother and fathers contribute different things to a child’s upbringing?” or “Do you think ideally a child should be raised by its biological mother and father?”

This is seen in polling around the world. Depending on how opinion poll questions are phrased, different conclusions about social attitudes can be drawn. This is because the concept of same-sex marriage is a complex issue and there are such different ways of looking at it.

It is important that we remain sceptical of opinion polls which appear to show that the marriage debate is over. It is even more important that we continue to ignore people who claim same-sex marriage is inevitable, as attempts to stifle rational debate on such an important issue deserve no respect.

Aug. 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Few people doubt that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hopes to become president in 2016. Unfortunately for him, he may have just signed away any chance of that.

On Monday, Christie signed A3371, a draconian piece of legislation that bars licensed [psych] therapists from helping children overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior or identity. This law bans help for minors even when – as is so often the case – those same-sex attractions arise from childhood sexual abuse by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky.

This law will prohibit minors and their parents from receiving counseling they desire and will force counselors to violate ethical codes because they will not be able to help clients reach their own counseling goals. This law would enslave children – whether abused or not – to a subjectively determined sexual identity that they reject.

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Consider this: Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that homosexual men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse)” than heterosexual men.

Moreover, the Archives of Sexual Behavior – no bastion of conservatism – determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all gay-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender” noted the study.

For obvious reasons, this politically motivated law has been dubbed the “Jerry Sandusky Victimization Act.”
Liberty Counsel, one of the fastest growing civil rights law firms in the country, has stepped in to protect New Jersey children, parents and licensed therapists. We’ve filed suit to block the law, as we’ve already blocked a similar law in California.

In his signing statement, Gov. Christie wrote: “Government should tread carefully into this area and I do so here reluctantly. I have scrutinized this piece of legislation with that concern in mind. However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards.”

Beyond the fact that Christie and the New Jersey Legislature have just violated the First Amendment rights of New Jersey parents, children and counselors, there remains another problem with his assertion. It’s not true. As with any form of therapy, the “experts” are all over the board on the issue of change therapy.



For instance, both New Jersey Democrats and Christie cited the American Psychological Association, or APA, as justification for this gross infringement on the right of self-determination. Although, no doubt, the highly liberal APA supports this and similar Sandusky Laws for political reasons, the group’s own task force on change therapy – led entirely by members who themselves are “gay”-identified or known political activists – has had to admit, nonetheless, that homosexuality itself “refers to feelings and self-concept.”

The [APA] taskforce confessed that such therapy has shown “varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success.” It acknowledged within its own skewed, very limited “study” that some people had “altered their sexual orientation. … [P]articipants had multiple endpoints, including LGB identity, ex-gay identity, no sexual orientation identity, and a unique self-identity. … Individuals report a range of effects from their efforts to change their sexual orientation, including both benefits and harm.”

Reports of “both benefits and harm”? Exactly what might be expected from any form of therapy.

But that’s for adults.

Here’s the kicker: The APA also acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever that change therapy harms minors. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, addressed this, the most outrageous aspect of the law: “The very report that the governor cited for signing this law also admitted that there is absolutely zero research – none – regarding the effect of change therapy with minors.”

Get that? Gov. Christie just signed into law a bill purporting to prevent harm to minors from change therapy, citing, as the reason, an APA report that admits there is neither research nor empirical evidence to suggest that change therapy harms minors.

Is your head swimming? It should be.

The governor is one of three things. He is either: 1) ill-informed, 2) politically motivated or 3) stupid.

I don’t know, I guess he could be 4) all of the above.

Meanwhile, there are many experts outraged over this gross overreach by Christie and other New Jersey liberals.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, wrote in USA Today: “Contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.”

Dr. Cummings has testified to personally helping hundreds of formerly homosexual clients achieve the change they desired.

Things get more sinister yet. On Wednesday, New Jersey Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly homosexual, bombastically compared change therapy to “beating a child” and suggested that the government take children seeking change away from their parents. He told Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, “What this does is prevent things that are harmful to people. If a parent were beating their child on a regular basis we would step in and remove that child from the house. If you pay somebody to beat your child or abuse your child, what’s the difference?”

Mat Staver responded on the same program: “It is shocking to hear the law’s sponsor threaten parents that the state will remove their children from them if they provide the counsel they need and which helps them. This is the ultimate nanny state,” he said.

I’ll take it a step further, and I think I speak for many Christian fathers. None of my three children suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction, but if any of them did and they decided to seek change therapy to reconcile their feelings with their faith, Mr. Eustace and the rest of his Gaystapo would be extremely ill-advised to crest my front porch with designs on taking my children.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?
____________________________________

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action

...
Gay rights groups say the practice of conversion therapy is damaging to young people because it tells them that it's not acceptable to be whoever they are.

Some social conservatives framed the debate as a parental rights issue, saying a ban on the counseling would limit the ability of parents to do what they think is best for their children.

The idea of conversion therapy is an old one that has increasingly drawn criticism for its methods. Last year, four gay men sued a Jersey City group for fraud, saying its program included making them strip naked and attack effigies of their mothers with baseball bats.

Lawmakers heard horror stories from some during hearings on the ban, including Brielle Goldani of Toms River, who testified she underwent electric shocks and was given drugs to induce vomiting after being sent to an Ohio camp at age 14 to become straight.

...

This law will prohibit minors and their parents from receiving counseling they desire and will force counselors to violate ethical codes because they will not be able to help clients reach THEIR OWN COUNSELING GOALS. This law would enslave children – whether abused or not – to a subjectively determined sexual identity that they reject.

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Consider this: Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that homosexual men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse)” than heterosexual men.

Moreover, the Archives of Sexual Behavior – no bastion of conservatism – determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all gay-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender” noted the study.

by Fred Lucas
August 23, 2013



It is a state court decision that could have national reach. In the words of Red State’s Erik Erickson, “You will be made to care.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian wedding photographer violated the state’s human rights law by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.


New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that photographer Elaine Huguenin violated a lesbian couple’s rights by refusing to photograph their commitment ceremony.

This shouldn’t be the end of the matter, said Ken Klukowski, the director for Center for Religious Liberty at the conservative Family Research Council.

“This decision would stun the framers of the U.S. Constitution, is a gross violation of the First Amendment, and should now be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the basic principle that the fundamental rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion do not stop at the exit door of your local church, and instead extend to every area of a religious person’s life,” he said in a written statement.

Klukowski added, “Rather than live-and-let-live, this is forcing religious Americans to violate the basic teachings of their faith, or lose their jobs.”

The Albuquerque-based photography studio Elane Photography did not want to photograph the ceremony between Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth because studio co-owner Elaine Huguenin said it would violate her Christian beliefs and that the company only photographs traditional marriages.

The majority opinion for the court stated that the studio violated the rights of the lesbian couple “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of two different races.”

.

A Rasmussen poll found that 85 percent of Americans believe a photographer has the right to turn down a same-sex wedding job.

The state of New Mexico does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, hence the couple was having a “commitment ceremony.”

The opinion further stated that the New Mexico Human Rights Act does not violate the photographer’s First Amendment because it “does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.”

Attorney Jordan Lorence, with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, said the ruling prioritizes gay rights over religious liberty.

“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.”

But Amber Royster, the executive director of Equality New Mexico, called this an important victory.

“What it came down to is this was a case about discrimination,” she told Fox News. “While we certainly believe we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, religious beliefs don’t necessarily make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”

Royster said forcing a business that offers services to the public to abide by discrimination laws does not violate the First Amendment – and does not pit gay rights against religious rights.

“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”

By Todd Starnes

The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.



The Pentagon also considered the [far-Left Soros funded propaganda site] Southern Poverty law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for determining extremism and labeled “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.

The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.

The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.

PENTAGON CALLS FOUNDING FATHERS EXTREMISTS

CHECK OUT THE ARMY’S LIST OF DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS

“The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, an organization that represents thousands of military chaplains.

The documents show an unknown number of equal opportunity officers were trained at Fort Jackson, SC, using information obtained from the SPLC.

The training material was made public after a soldier who attended the briefing alerted Chaplain Alliance.

“He considers himself an Evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews said. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

The soldier “produced the slides based on EO Leader’s Course Program of Instruction obtained from the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,” the document reads.

In addition to the slide presentation, the Reserve unit was also shown a video provided by the SPLC and Teaching Tolerance. The trainer told her superior officers she showed the video because it was part of the “EO [Equal Opportunity] Advisor course curriculum.”

Crews is calling on the Pentagon to stop relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center or any other group that considers mainline religious organizations to be extremist or terrorist groups.

“Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” Crews said. “The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings.”

The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment. Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.

“Mr. Wright’s response is accurate but incomplete,” Crews told Fox News. “Yes, the one offensive slide was deleted, but how many other EO officers continue to use the SPLC as a source for training materials?”

Gay Conversion Therapy is Not Free Speech — It's Child Abuse
Alex Uriartein
Politics2 weeks ago


Mic this!
4 9 15 10 Gay Conversion Therapy is Not Free Speech — It's Child Abuse
© AP
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a bill Monday morning banning all licensed therapists from practicing a controversial method known as “gay conversion therapy” on anybody under the age of 18, make New Jersey the second state in the nation to do so.

Opposition to the governor’s decision is largely coming from the religious right and other social conservatives who are erroneously invoking the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Indeed, limiting parental choice in their children’s may seem to be an infraction of the First Amendment, but in this case it is clear that since it is illegal to subject a child to any form of abuse, this ill-founded and scientifically damaging form of counseling should be banned immediately.

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and even the World Health Organization have all publicly opposed conversion therapy, also known as “reparative therapy, because it causes “serious and long term harm.” In other words, patients can suffer from substance abuse, declining self-esteem, severe depression, and even suicidal thoughts.

In this CRS report For Congress summarizing the major exceptions to the First Amendment, it states under the “Speech Harmful to Children” section that “it is recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors,” and that it must be accomplished by “narrowly drawn regulations without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms.”

To come to his decision, Gov. Christie has used both scientific evidence and the limit of his legal powers. He is at once honoring the principle of free speech (reasonably regulating it to apply only to those under legal age), and acting upon a very serious public health concern for that same age-group.

Those against Christie's decision must consider other, similar laws that protect children from abuse and damage — ones that limit not only the decisions of parents but also of children themselves.

Take underage drinking. Regardless of parental consent, it is illegal in most circumstances for anybody under the age of 21 to purchase or consume any alcohol due to the harmful side effects youthful drinking can lead to. The government — as it can with the issue of reparative therapy for gay adolescents — takes choice out of the hands of children who are not yet mentally, emotionally, or physical developed enough to fully understand the consequences of their decisions and out of the hands of parents as a means of promoting general public welfare based on scientific facts.

Governor Christie hasn’t interfered with anybody’s right to free speech or imposed on a professional’s ability to delivery therapy, he has only halted the disastrous effects of a damaging pseudo-science aimed at “altering” the sexual identities of minors who are often forced into it anyway.

I want to raise everyone else's kids!

Pope Francis faulted the Roman Catholic church for focusing too much on gays, abortion and contraception, saying the church has become "obsessed" with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be "home for all," according to an extensive new interview published Thursday.

The church can share its views on homosexuality, abortion and other issues, but should not "interfere spiritually" with the lives of gays and lesbians, the pope added in the interview, which was published in La Civilta Cattolica, a Rome-based Jesuit journal.

“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel," Francis said in the interview.

"The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,' Francis said. "The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials."

The 12,000-word interview ranges widely, touching upon the pope's personal faith, the role of women and nuns in the church, Latin Mass and even the pope's favorite artists.

"He's very open honest and candid like we have not seen in a pope before. He critiques people who focus too much on tradition, who want to go to time in the past that does not exist anymore," said Fr. James Martin of America Magazine, which published an English translation of the interview. "He reminds people that thinking with the church, in obedience, does not just mean thinking with the hierarchy, that church is a lot bigger than its hierarchy."

In the interview, Francis does not come out in support of gay marriage, abortion rights or contraception, saying that church positions on those issues are "clear," but he added that the "the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.”

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,” he said to Jesuit priest Fr. Antonio Spadaro, who conducted the interview for La Civilta Cattolica. “I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

The comments on gays and lesbians follow up on remarks Francis made aboard the papal airplane in July when asked about gay priests. "Who am I to judge?" the pope then said, in a quote that made international front-page headlines. In Thursday's interview, Francis clarified that those comments were about all gay people and not only priests.

Francis, 76, also touched upon where he falls within the political and theological spectrum of Catholics. Because of what he said was a purposeful avoidance of talking about sexuality and reproductive issues during the first six months of his papacy, some critics have said the pope has shifted from being more outspoken on conservative issues when he was a Jesuit province superior in Argentina and later was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The pope, who was appointed to the jesuit leadership position when he was 36, said his youthful lack of experience made him too authoritarian of a leader.

“But I have never been a right-winger," he said.