Archive for May 24th, 2006

Pro-Family Leader Pleased to Find Ohio at Bottom of Homosexuals’ List

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

I think this statement from Phil Burress hits the nail on the head:
Opposing the homosexual activists’ agenda is “what they call intolerance.”

(AgapePress) – An Ohio pro-family activist says the state should consider it a point of pride that a radical homosexual rights group has ranked Ohio last in the United States in terms of providing special rights to homosexuals and similar groups.

A pro-homosexual group calling itself Equality of Ohio recently published a nationwide study about so-called discrimination against “gays,” lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals. The study rated the state of Ohio dead last in protecting the “equality” of those groups.

But Phil Burress of the Cincinnati-based pro-family group Citizens for Community Values (CCV) says one has to understand what homosexual activists mean when they talk about equality. What they are really talking about, he asserts, is “special rights” for homosexual, bisexual and transgendered people.

“You would be surprised what it is that they really want,” Burress says. “What they call equality is for everyone to accept their behavior and for them to have access to our children at a very early age, promoting homosexuality as normal.” Opposing the homosexual activists’ agenda is “what they call intolerance,” he contends.

Equality of Ohio recently conducted a Lobby Day in Columbus, hoping to persuade Ohio lawmakers to support a bill that would give individuals special rights based on their sexual orientations and prohibit “discrimination” on that basis.

“What they’re complaining about,” Burress asserts, “is … that they don’t have rights and privileges that override the rest of us who are average working families and people here in the state of Ohio. They want special privileges.”

Also, the pro-family advocate says, homosexual activists want access to the educational system and government sanction of same-sex marriage. “They want to have all the things that the people and the governments and the laws have said that they can’t have,” he says.

And because the majority of the people and their pro-family representatives are opposed to all these things the homosexual activists are demanding, Burress adds, “they feel like we’re intolerant. So I guess we should wear that as a badge of honor.”

Groups like Equality of Ohio want to force acceptance of their behavior and to promote it as normal, Burress points out; but he says the citizens of the state have apparently been resistant to that agenda. He feels Ohioans should be proud to come in last on the pro-homosexual group’s list of states advancing “special rights” for homosexuals and other groups.

Original Link.

Mexico’s Threatened Lawsuits ‘Ludicrous,’ Says Attorney

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

This is pretty much what I thought too.  It was almost a laughable comment from Mexico.

(AgapePress) – A constitutional attorney with the American Family Association says the recent threat of a lawsuit against the U.S. by the Mexican government over border security is absurd.

The threatened lawsuit is in response to President Bush’s pledge to use National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to bolster the efforts of the Border Patrol, primarily in support roles such as logistics and medical support. The Pentagon has stated that the bulk of personnel for the mission would be taken from National Guard troops in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas — the four border states.

Following the president’s announced intentions, a representative for Mexican President Vicente Fox stated that if the National Guard troops detain Mexican citizens crossing the border illegally, the Fox government will file lawsuits. Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the Center for Law & Policy and a constitutional expert, says while such a lawsuit is technically possible, it is not likely.

“What you have is Mexican nationals leaving their nation in droves, seeking to come to the free and prosperous nation of the United States on a permanent basis,” he says. “And so, for Mexico to sue because of some actions of our National Guard troops within our own borders, in policing those borders, is basically ludicrous.” And any lawsuits would be without merit, he adds.

The attorney believes the threat of lawsuits is meant simply to send a message. “The Mexican government wants to communicate to the U.S. government and to the world that they object to what’s going on [along the border],” says Crampton. He contends they have a purpose in sending that message. “They want to make waves and try to work, I think, an agreement and a treaty whereby the Mexican government can profit from our own internal unrest and dissension on the issue of immigration.”

This is not the first time Mexico has voiced such threats. Officials with the Mexican government have threatened lawsuits against the group known as the Minutemen Project when they started patrolling the southern U.S. border earlier this year.

Original Link.

Liberal Clergy’s Opposition to Marriage Amendment No Surprise, Say Conservatives

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

Take a look at my article “Falling Away” of the Church.  These are perfect examples of denominations that no longer hold to Biblical Truth and Moral Absolutes.

(AgapePress) – Clergy opposed to a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage” say religious conservatives who support the proposed federal marriage amendment are bigots. But those conservatives don’t appear to be overly concerned about the left-leaning clergy’s lobbying efforts to derail the proposed constitutional amendment.

Several dozen Christian and Jewish leaders held a news conference on Capitol Hill, where they are lobbying senators to reject the amendment when it comes up for a vote about two weeks from now. Involved in that coalition were United Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Reformed Jews, and others.

The proposed amendment that protects marriage as defined in the Bible, as the union of a man and a woman, is supported by Roman Catholic bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention. But Rev. Paul Simmons, a Baptist minister and University of Louisville professor, said the amendment “has the smell and feel of Salem,” comparing its supporters to the colonial Puritans who burned witches.

Simmons says he and many other clergy oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. “There is a broad and profound opposition to the proposed amendment among religious people,” he noted. “The thunder of the Religious Right should be resisted as misguided and prejudicial.”

And Rev. Kenneth Samuel, a United Church of Christ pastor and NAACP chapter president in Georgia, said black pastors who oppose homosexual marriage have turned their backs on civil rights. “A lot of what goes on is also tied on to the faith-based initiative money,” Pastor Samuel said, “and I am sorry to say that many of our African-American clergy have been bought out.”

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families is not concerned about the coalition of religious leaders who are lobbying against the marriage amendment. “I believe they’re way out of step with church-going Americans who, every study shows, overwhelmingly support keeping marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” he says. Every state that has considered a marriage amendment to its constitution has seen decisive majorities of voters — as high as 70 and 80 percent — approve the measure.

And Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council says he is not surprised to see these groups and other liberal denominations speaking out against defining marriage as it is taught in the Bible. “This is completely predictable for this bunch,” says Schenck. “Every time anyone anywhere asserts traditional moral values or traditional biblical positions on anything — and most especially marriage and human sexuality — you can predict that this same group will parade out and oppose it.”

Schenck says these groups are not only on the wrong side of Christian doctrine and the wrong side of what he calls “the moral divide,” but also on the wrong side of history. He believes that is why such groups are losing members. “While it’s lamentable, while it’s predictable, in the end it only makes them even more irrelevant than they are,” he states.

Effect of Legalized ‘Gay Marriage’ on Traditionalists
Meanwhile, the president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says churches and Christian schools that oppose same-sex marriage will face government pressure if it is legalized. Anthony Picarello says they could be barred from firing employees with same-sex spouses, forced to give them marital benefits, or lose charitable and property tax exemptions if they refuse.
Picarello and other legal experts took part in a recent panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation. Maggie Gallagher, a columnist who heads the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, offered grim predictions about people and churches who oppose same-sex unions, should they be legalized.“Once a court goes to rule gay marriage is a civil right, people who have an older, conjugal vision of marriage as inherently the union of husband and wife are going to be treated like racists in the public square,” she offered.

And as for churches that believe homosexual marriage is immoral? “The temptation will be … [to] simply mute your marriage theology,” said Gallagher, opining that many people will find it hard to resist that temptation. “If you are just quieter about it … as long as you’re not too loud about this and keep your nose clean, you’ll stay out of trouble.”

She believes recent events have shown why a federal marriage amendment is needed. “Leaving it to the states right now is leaving it to state judges, not to the people in states,” she noted. “We’ve already had judges in two states overturn state marriage amendments that were passed by more than 70 percent of the people.”

In essence, said Gallagher, unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to protect traditional marriage, judges will probably force states to legalize homosexual marriage.

Original Link.

Migration from BlogSpot Blog to New Web Site Blog

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

Sometime towards the middle of June, I plan on retiring the blogspot blog and moving all blogging activities over to the blog I have installed on our web site. It has always bothered me that on the blogspot blog, one mouse click away could be someone promoting a value that is not within the Christian atmosphere I am trying to promote through our blog. I understand that if someone wants to see these types of things, they can still get to them very easily, but at least our blog will be in our domain where it would take some effort.

I have enjoyed the blogspot blog and would still recommend it to someone who wants to start blogging. It requires very little computer knowledge and has a very good audience.

The way I plan to do this transition, is to post on both blogs. The blogspot one will have a brief description of the article and a link to the same article on the new blog. No comments will be allowed on the blogspot blog. I will also add a link at the top of the page to the new blog.

Since all the content of the blogspot blog is in the new blog, eventually, I will take the blogspot blog down completely. I was relying on it to be a search source for the blog, but I noticed today that Google already shows the new blog.

I appreciate the support all of you have shown me, and I’ll try to make this transition as seamless as possible.

God Bless!!

-Steve