100 Days of Change

This is a powerful video that shows what Obama's 100 days of "Change" has done for families in America. It also shows what Obama stated pre-election and what he has actually done.

Openly homosexual Miss USA judge discriminates against Miss California for her beliefs

This story has been going around on the blogs and the news - so I'm sure you have heard it. The openly homosexual blogger and judge of the Miss USA pageant, Perez Hilton, attacked Christian contestant Carrie Prejean – calling her a b-tch and a c---, as well as defacing photos of her with sexually explicit drawings – because she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. He admitted to giving Prejean a zero score.

At Sunday night's pageant, Prejean was asked the one question she dreaded most, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit?"

Her answer, which suddenly has made her the center of both praise and scorn, included the words, "In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman." ...

The outraged pageant judge later displayed a photo of Prejean speaking into the microphone on his website. In place of the mic, he drew a white outline of a penis on her face. ...

Despite providing a response that ultimately cost her the crown, Prejean stood by her answer.

"I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God," she told NBC's "Today" this morning. "I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct." ...

In the Fox News interview, Prejean added, "I have no regrets about answering honestly. [Perez Hilton] asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people, and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer."

Hilton also appeared on NBC's "Today," explaining that he demands a Miss USA winner be "politically savvy" and that even though Prejean is a Christian, he doesn't want her "talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that's offensive."

Video of the question and Prejean's full answer can be seen here:


Here is the video clip of Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, calling Miss California Carrie Prejean a “dumb bitch:”



Can you imagine if this story were reversed??? Can you imagine what would happen if a Christian Judge gave a homosexual contestant a score of zero, called her a b---- and a c---, openly criticized her for her beliefs on same sex marriage, and defaced her pictures. Heads would roll. There would be numerous law suits filed for discrimination for hate crimes. But hey since it is only a homosexual discriminating against a Christian; it's somehow perfectly acceptable???
In response to blogger Perez Hilton's outrageous and demeaning comments directed toward Miss California, more and more Americans are beginning to recognize that tolerance is a one-way street for many gay marriage advocates.

Perez Hilton is not a fair judge and should not be a judge for any competition ever! Miss California should NOT have been discriminated against and given a zero score for disclosing her own religious beliefs when asked this personal question.

I totally admire and respect Carrie Prejean for doing the right thing in defending traditional marriage and being true to her beliefs, even though it may have cost her the crown. Bravo to her!! What a true role model she is!! Prejean also holds no animosity toward Perez:

The pageant contestant says she knew afterwards that she was not going to win because of her answer because she "had spoken from my heart, for my beliefs, and for my God..."

Prejean has shared that she is praying for Perez Hilton and has no animosity toward him -- despite his profanity-laced rant against her that he posted on his website following the pageant.

"I can only say to him that I will be praying for him," she told the Today show on Tuesday morning. "I feel sorry for him, I really do. I think he's angry, I think he's hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject, and I gave him an honest answer."

However, CNN defends Perez's discriminatory actions (is that any surprise???):

Jane Velez-Mitchell, the Headline News anchor who replaced Glenn Beck after he switched over to the Fox News Channel, vehemently defended Perez Hilton's crude remarks against Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. After TruTV's Lisa Bloom blasted Hilton's use of "the 'B' word and the 'C' word, that rhymes with 'rich and runt,'" Velez-Mitchell replied, "Why is it that people should be very polite when they're told that they're second-class citizens?...If someone said to you...I don't think you should have the right to get married, wouldn't you be ticked off?" ...

Velez-Mitchell herself is not an uninterested party on the wider issue of same-sex "marriage," as she is an open lesbian who defended anti-Proposition 8 protesters during her Headline News program in November 2008: "I believe that gay marriage should be a right for all Americans. In other words, this should be ok across the country."

[This item, by Matthew Balan, was posted Wednesday afternoon, with video, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

For more on Velez-Mitchell's background, including her sexual orientation, see the March 3 New York Times article by Brian Stelter, "A Fill-In on Cable News Is Thrust Into Host's Chair," at: www.nytimes.com

For video of Velez-Mitchell's November 2008 remarks in favor of "gay marriage" on her Headline News program, see "CNN Headline News: Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell - Prop. 8 Passion," at: www.youtube.com

Will the law that bans homosexuals from serving in the U.S. military be overturned?

Obama is expected to overturn the military’s policy regarding sexual conduct. Commonly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell” the military prohibits the service of openly practicing homosexuals. This policy was created early in the Clinton administration after a long and divisive fight.


“It’s time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today’s LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) rights debate,” Obama said while campaigning. “The rights of all Americans should be protected — whether it’s at work or anyplace else. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation.”

"Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the US armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.

Under president Clinton, the policy that once saw homosexuals discharged from US military service evolved to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays to remain in the military so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

Obama has pledged to overhaul current law.

"The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited," reads an entry on the president-elect's transition website." ..."

from: yahoo news

..."Robert Gibbs made a startling pronouncement when he recently responded to a question from a Michigan man, who asked: "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?" Gibbs responded with the one-word answer: "Yes."...

"There were no details provided to reporters who asked [Gibbs] for more questions," she (Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness,) notes. "I don't think he knows the first answer to any of those questions."

While Donnelly acknowledges that Obama could get rid of "don't ask, don't tell" with the simple stroke of a pen, she believes that he really wants to get rid of the actual law which strictly prohibits homosexuals from military service. An obstacle, however, stands in the way.

"That can only be done by Congress," Donnelly explains. "And the members of Congress, when they approved that law [in 1993], did so with overwhelming bi-partisan, veto-proof majorities -- and the law has been upheld by the courts several times.

"You don't just take a perfectly sound and valuable law like that and just repeal it," she adds. ...

excerpts from: OneNewsNow

"Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Naval chaplain who is absolutely opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He fears it would negatively affect America's battlefield successes. "How can we expect God's blessing on our arms when we openly embrace sodomy?" he asks. "[That's] the same sin that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for committing. When we embrace that in our military...[we] will the lose the blessing of God upon our troops and we will lose wars -- it will cost us wars. America will be destroyed if we allow them to be openly embraced by our military." According to Klingenschmitt it would also introduce a health risk, as homosexuals affected with AIDS could expose others if they are wounded on the battlefield."

excerpts from OneNewsNow

for more information read these past post:
Soldiers say they'd leave military if 'gay' banned lifted
Homosexuals serving in the military

Our Tax Dollars Bailing Out 'Gay' Groups...

"The group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is outraged that even though government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went broke and received a federal bailout, they still managed to give thousands of dollars this year to homosexual activist groups.

PFOX executive director Regina Griggs says Freddie Mac shelled out $65,000 over the past two years to the Human Rights Campaign to help homosexual couples adopt children. The Freddie Mac Foundation has given more than $125,000 to homosexual activist groups over the last three years, and the Fannie Mae Foundation has given $80,000 to such groups in the past decade. ..."

read the rest here

California Attorney General changes his mind & urges court to overturn Prop 8

California Attorney General Asks State Supreme Court to Void Gay Marriage Ban

"In a dramatic reversal, Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters. ....

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."

"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 on Friday revealed for the first time that they would fight to undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions." ....

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one women, "deprives a minority group of a fundamental right".... hmm if you want to change the meaning of marriage for homosexuals because it "deprives" them of a "fundamental right" - then you will have to change it for ALL groups. Where do you draw the line??

Is HIV/AIDS a male homosexual disease?

This is a very interesting article on 12 facts about AIDS/HIV and its prevention in the U.S. from the site: American for Truth. All references from CDC for this study/article are posted on that site as well. There are several other interesting articles on HIV/AIDS and its relationship to homosexual males that I came across earlier - they are posted here: Is AIDS a gay disease? Other interesting facts/articles I came across about homosexual promotion in the public schools are posted here: Homosexual Promotion in the schools. The Americans for Truth site is a very comprehensive site, if one wished to learn the truth about homosexuality such as: health/science issues related to it, government promotion of it, media promotion of it, corporate promotion of it, targeting youth and schools, gay marriage, homosexual parenting, etc. Again, this site is very comprehensive and a great resource if one wishes to learn the truth.

"On World AIDS Day, 12 Astounding Facts about AIDS in the U.S.

December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.

In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.

Here are some facts to consider:

1. Over 1 million people now have HIV in the U.S.(a)

2. Almost half of HIV cases (just under 500,000) are known to involve male homosexual behavior.(b) This is a highly conservative figure. Male- to- male sex is a contributing factor in other transmission categories as the Centers for Disease Control defines them. A more realistic actual figure is around 60-70%.

An estimated 300,000 males in the U.S. have died of AIDS as a result of male homosexual sex.(c)

3. In 2006, 53% of new HIV cases were attributed to MSM (males who have sex with males). Another 4% falls into the category of MSM plus IDU (injection drug use).(d) And many of the cases in the category of “high risk heterosexual” (31%) originate with the homosexual behavior of the partners of the heterosexuals who contract HIV. There are also cases classified as “unknown” in origin, and many of these are likely to involve MSM.

4. In certain states, the percentage relating to male homosexual sex is much higher:

• In California, at least 67% of HIV/AIDS cases are directly linked to male homosexual behavior, with another 9% involving the combined risks of MSM and IDU.(e)


• In Oregon, 66% of AIDS cases are attributable to male-to-male sex, with another 10% involving the combined risk factors of MSM and IDU.(f)


• In Ohio, 58% of AIDS cases are caused by male homosexual behavior, with another 6% transmitted through MSM and IDU.(g)

5. The number of cases involving men who have sex with men is increasing while other transmission categories remain stable or are declining.(h) Safe sex is not working. Homosexual men know about condoms, but they often don’t use them.

6. Between 2001 and 2006, HIV among teen and young adult males who have sex with males rose over 12 % per year. Let’s repeat that—in the age group 13 to 24 years of age, HIV rose over 12% per year for six years.(i) Teen boys encouraged to enter the ‘gay’ lifestyle, are being enabled to enter a world of danger. Affirming homosexual behavior in schools should be viewed in this light.

7. California, where a faction wants to legalize homosexual relationships as “marriage,” has experienced 69,000 HIV/AIDS deaths due to males who have sex with other males since the beginning of the epidemic. Allow us to repeat this number: 69,000 dead due to male homosexual sex in California alone.(j)

8. In California, nearly 62,000 people are now living with HIV or AIDS.(k) Applying the current trend that at least two-thirds of these cases result from MSM, that means approximately 41,000 infected males who have sex with males might be eligible to legitimize this epidemic through “marriage” if the California Supreme Court rules against the voters’ decision on Proposition 8.

9. We are spending $3 billion federal dollars annually in the U.S. on a disease that is largely preventable.(l)

10. As of the end of 2006, approximately 566,000 deaths have occurred among people with AIDS, including 14,627 in 2006.(m)

11. The lifetime medical cost for an HIV patient is around $600,000.(n)

12. The top five deadliest states to live in regarding AIDS are the District of Columbia, New York, Maryland, Florida, and Connecticut.(o)

Conclusion: Does America benefit from male homosexual behavior? No. Along with unmarried heterosexual behavior,male homosexuality should be discouraged as much as possible to responsibly address the HIV/AIDS epidemic." (from Americans for Truth)

What I find interesting is that there are many anti-smoking campaigns - because smoking is dangerous for ones health. "The facts are that a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer. ..You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die"...

However the facts are that "between 13% and 23% (of homosexual males) have HIV/AIDS. ...This is how it's calculated -(click here) -This figure understates the percent of gay men who will become infected with HIV/AIDS, because many gay men who don't currently have it will become infected if they continue their lifestyle. I think it would be fair to approximate that a third of men who lead a gay lifestyle will become infected with HIV/AIDS."

Smokers have a lower risk of getting lung cancer than homosexual men do of getting AIDS/HIV, yet there is a huge campaign to stop people/teens from smoking, but no campaign to stop the promotion of homosexuality as a way to decrease HIV/AIDS. If any other activity, besides homosexual sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease as this, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal, but ironically enough instead government, media, schools, corporations promote this activity.

Now why do I bring this up and blog about this topic? I think it is important to find out the truth and to learn what is actually happening if we honestly seek as a society to reduce HIV/AIDS.

More to read...

Calling In 'Gay' to Work Is Latest Form of Protest

"Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress.

Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage." ...

Abortion Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Unlicensed Abortion, All Facilities Closed

In a San Diego county courtroom, Bugarin admitted her guilt in putting women's lives and health at risk by doing abortions herself despite the fact she's not a licensed physician....

Bugarin once owned a chain of 11 abortion centers and she began doing abortions herself when some of the abortion practitioners she employed lost their medical licenses for various reasons.

Nicholas Braemer, the medical director of the abortion centers, surrendered his medical license under pressure in 2000 after Operation Rescue exposed his numerous botched abortions and other problems.

He was replaced as medical director by Laurence Reich, a convicted sex offender, who lost his medical license in 2006 for continued episodes of sexual abuse against his abortion patients. He faces his own trial sometime next year. ...

..."Bugarin acted as if she was above the law, as so many abortionists do. The prosecutors did not agree, and now Bugarin should remain behind bars for many years.

Georgia Clinic Did Secret Abortion on Daughter Without Consent

"Victory and Genevieve Patterson may have been able to help their daughter find an alternative to abortion, but they say the Northside Women's Clinic never gave them the chance. They sued the abortion business saying it broke Georgia law by doing an abortion on their daughter without their knowledge or consent.

According to Georgia statutes, abortion practitioners are required to notify an underage girl's parents of her desire for an abortion and obtain consent beforehand. ...

...The Pattersons say the Northside Women's Clinic put false information on its web site that misleads teenagers about the law. They contend Northside's web site said "unmarried patients under the age of 18 are required by Georgia law to have a parental notification note on the day of surgery."

The boyfriend's mother wrote the note and took Renee to Northside for the abortion.

In their lawsuit, Renee's parents say the web site was misleading because the state law clearly requires a legal parent or guardian to accompany the minor for the abortion, not an unrelated adult.

They also point out that notification and consent from the parent or guardian must be obtained 24 hours in advance, not on the day of the abortion."
"It was clear that Renee was a minor, the note was not from her parents, the note was not dated and a note was not an acceptable substitute for notice under Georgia law," the complaint says. ...

Supreme Court rejects claim challenging Obama's citizenship, but schedules another for Friday

"Not even the U.S. Supreme Court can kill the dispute that has developed over Sen. Barack Obama's

eligibility to occupy the Oval Office based on questions raised over his birthplace and citizenship and his steadfast refusal to provide documentation on the issue.

The high court today denied a request to listen to arguments in a case, Donofrio v. Wells, from New Jersey that addressed the issues. But literally within minutes, the court's website confirmed that another conference is scheduled for Friday on another case raising the same worries.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells claimed Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president because of his dual citizenship at birth."

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested in Chicago Tuesday on two counts each of corruption charges relating to trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

"Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested Tuesday morning in Chicago on two counts each of federal corruption charges stemming from allegations Blagojevich was trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Fitzgerald described the alleged behavior by Blagojevich, who was arrested Tuesday morning along with his chief of staff, John Harris, as "appalling." He said his "cynical behavior" reached "a truly new low."

The arrest is part of a three-year probe of "pay-to-play politics" in the governor's administration. The criminal complaint by the FBI says each man was arrested on two charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. ...

The charges also relate to allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with previously convicted defendants and Obama associates Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others to arrange financial benefits in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds. ...

FBI Special Agent-in-Charge in Chicago Robert Grant said he was asked by reporters when he first started the investigation "whether or not Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States."

"And I didn't answer that question, yes or no, and I can't answer that question today. I don't have 49 other states to compare it with.But I can tell you one thing: If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, its certainly one hell of a competitor," he said".

Vatican Under Fire for Opposing U.N. Declaration on Sexual Rights

"Journalists and activist groups are blasting the Vatican for what they say is its "grotesque" opposition to a U.N. declaration on gay rights — even though only a small collection of countries has supported the measure.

The Roman Catholic Church is facing a barrage of protests and searing editorials for opposing a French-sponsored decree that calls for an end to discrimination based on sexual or gender identity. The U.N. hopes to abolish summary executions, arbitrary arrests and "the deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights" of gays.

The Church's opposition to the measure has enraged gay-rights activists, who are mobilizing nationwide protests at Catholic sites in Italy. Members of Italy's largest gay-rights group, Arcigay, gathered inside the Vatican on Saturday, hanging nooses around their necks as they accused the Church of being an "accomplice in the martyrdom" of homosexuals.

The Vatican worries that provisions in the document — the emphasis on "social and cultural rights" — could be used to pressure countries to embrace gay marriage, which the Catholic Church rejects. ..

"The fact that there are people who want to silence the Church is disturbing. If people want to disagree with the Church it's one thing, but when you start this kind of name-calling it is intended to have a chilling effect," said Susan Fani, a spokeswoman for the Catholic League."

Changing truths in the Bible to support homosexual marriage

Interesting articles I found on new movements from homosexuals advocates as they try to twist and change the truths in the bible to suit their purposes so that Christians may view their lifestyle as "normal" and not sinful. The whole gay marriage movement is not just about guaranteeing their civil "rights" - the homosexual agenda is for all to embrace and promote the gay lifestyle as the "norm." If Christians churches do not embrace and promote this homosexual lifestyle, they claim we, Christians, are showing hatred. This is not so. They claim Jesus would accept the homosexuals. Christ would love and accept the person, but not the sin. I believe Christ loves me as well as every other person - however Christ does not love my sins. He would have me repent and better myself. Just as he told the women taken in Adultery, "Go and Sin No More"

“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner. ...Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect." from lds.org

"Gay Group Plans 'Pink Christmas' festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two Josephs and two Marys. ...

ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen said Monday the event is intended to increase the choices for homosexual men and women during the Christmas holiday week. ...

The festival will also encourage people to think about homosexuality and religion, Van Dalen added. ...

Van Dalen said it was not intended to be offensive, but was meant as a "wink" at heterosexual assumptions. "Christmas is about more than religion, it's also about love and families, not to mention shopping," he said. "Two men or two women can form a family too these days, even one with a child."

excerpts above from and to read entire article click here: Fox News

Hollywood Humbugs Mock Jesus and Prop 8 Voters Just in Time for Christmas - tip from Americans for Truth

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... by Jack Black

Here are some excerpts from new Newsweek cover article - this is compelling very lengthy article written by Lisa Miller that twists and distorts the truths of the bible to convince churches to embrace and promote the homosexual lifestyle as she states "the bible teaches".

Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

..."Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

...All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes...

...In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so. ...

...Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)...

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)."The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?...

...Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage....

...Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument)....

...We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations. ...

...So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about." ...

Dr. Albert Mohler offered a response to this article, here are some excerpts:

...Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual. ...

...But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative....

...The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.

Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed....

...She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."

"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism," she asserts. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts."

Prof. Gagnon’s also writes 23-page report that debunks every shibboleth and inaccuracy by “reporter” Lisa Miller - “More than ‘Mutual Joy’: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus.” and produces a video also: What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? (see below)


Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.

"No" on Prop 8 Backlash an Outrage!!

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed appreciation today for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that decries the “violence and intimidation” directed toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8.

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times . This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

The ad was sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and was signed by scholars, dignitaries and religious leaders from a variety of faiths."

excerpts from: Meridian Magazine

Statements from the ad:

• “Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard.”

• “Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism, Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.”

• "Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever — from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, of any side of any cause, for any reason.”

To see ad click here NYTad

To add your name click here: add your name

A Gay Bible

Just in case you thought you heard it all... another shocker... sadly enough :(

"A gay version of the Bible, in which God says it is better to be gay than straight, is to be published by an American film producer.

New Mexico-based Revision Studios will publish The Princess Diana Bible – so named because of Diana's "many good works", it says – online at princessdianabible.com in spring 2009. A preview of Genesis is already available, in which instead of creating Adam and Eve, God creates Aida and Eve.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed."

The film studio said it would also adapt and direct the revised Bible as a two-part mini-series, The Gay Old Testament and The Gay New Testament, once it is completed. ..."

Excerpts from Alison Flood guardian.co.uk

Homosexuals banned from promoting their 'way of life'

Homosexuals here in America favor Obama and socialistic ways - but yet under a socialistic government (as seen in Russia), the homosexuals may be one of the first to lose all their "freedoms and rights". Gays and Lesbians may have to rethink their vote once they see what really happens in a socialistic country.

Moscow has now officially banned promotion of a high risk behavior that leads to a high risk deadly infection. - Doesn't sound too insensible -- does it?

Moscow has banned gays and lesbian from promoting their homosexual lifestyle because of it is a high risk for spreading AIDS... and also because the homosexual lifestyle promotes the extinction of the human race and Russia is short of children.

"Moscow has banned gays and lesbians from promoting their way of life because they can help spread HIV/AIDS, the Russian capital's 72-year-old mayor was quoted as saying on Thursday by RIA news agency.

Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, speaking at an HIV/AIDS conference in Moscow, also said there was no scientific proof that condoms provided full protection against sexually transmitted diseases.

"We have banned, and will ban, the propaganda of sexual minorities' opinions because they can be one of the factors in the spread of HIV infection," Luzhkov was quoted as saying by state-owned RIA.

"Some home-grown democrats consider that sexual minorities are a major indicator and symbol of democracy but we will continue to ban the spread of their views," Luzhkov said.

Luzhkov's administration has banned several gay rights marches in Moscow in the interests, it argues, of ensuring security and preventing public disorder. ...

While still president, Vladimir Putin quipped that his approach to sexual minorities was guided by Russia's demographic problems. The country is short of children. ...

And his comments came as no surprise to Gay Russia, a Moscow-based gay rights group. "We have to remember that the mayor of Moscow is one of the most homophobic politicians in Russia," the group said in a statement."

from: Reuters AlertNet

You may think what other homosexuals think - that AIDS isn't a gay disease anymore and anyone who thinks so is being homophobic ... however don't dismiss this question - Find out for yourself if AIDS/HIV is really a gay disease or not??? Look at the studies that are done.

The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has recently declared that HIV/AIDS is a Gay Disease to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population. To read more articles and studies done by the CDC on AIDS/HIV and the gay population click here: Is AIDS a Gay Disease?

"When one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, how can we say that this is an activity that can be made safe? The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal.....

But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being "homophobic"... Even the supposedly conservative Supreme Court has ruled that this dangerous sexual activity is a constitutionally protected right."

quote from: Half Sigma

More than one way to interpret the gay penguin story...

Heard about this story yet??

"Roy and Silo were a Chinstrap penguin couple in New York's Central Park Zoo.

The pair were observed trying to hatch a rock as if it were an egg. When the zoo staff realized that Roy and Silo were both male, it occurred to them to give them the second egg of a mixed-gender penguin couple, a couple which previously had been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at a time. Roy and Silo hatched and raised the healthy young chick, a female named "Tango" by keepers. Their story is the basis for the children's book And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell and illustrated by Henry Cole.

Tango is now a healthy young female penguin. She has formed a relationship with Tazuni, another female penguin. The two have paired the last two mating season."

info from: wikipedia

All this information on the homosexual penguins was quickly turned into a Children's book and trumpeted by the LGBT community as a shining, timeless, beautiful example of a "natural" homosexual relationship.

Here is a summary of the book:

"The Central Park Zoo is home to all kinds of animal families. But Tango the penguin's family is a bit different -- she has two fathers. This heartwarming story will open the minds of readers, resonating long after the story has finished."

And here are some comments about the book:

"A touching and delightful variation on a major theme." -- Maurice Sendak

"This wonderful story of devotion is heartwarming proof that Mother Nature knows best." -- Harvey Fierstein

"Charming! And Tango Makes Three proves that all kinds of love can create a family." -- Wendy Wasserstein

"A little miracle for children. Funny, tender, and true, the story of Tango will delight young readers and open their minds." -- John Lithgow

"Cole's pictures complement the perfectly cadenced text...Those who share this with children will find themselves returning to it again and again... for the two irresistible birds at its center and for the celebration of patient, loving fathers who "knew just what to do." -- Booklist, starred review

"In this true, straightforwardly (so to speak) delivered tale, two male chinstrap penguins at New York City's Central Park Zoo bond, build a nest and -- -- thanks to a helping hand from an observant zookeeper -- -- hatch and raise a penguin chick...Readers may find its them of acceptance even more convincing for being delivered in such a matter of fact, non -- preachy way." -- Kirkus Reviews, starred review

"[A] heartwarming tale. Older readers will most appreciate the...larger theme of tolerance at work in this touching tale." -- Publishers Weekly, starred review

"This joyful story about the meaning of family is a must for any library." -- School Library Journal, starred review

"And Tango Makes Three is bound to raise eyebrows, but for those of us eager to encourage our children to include, rather than exclude, it's a welcome addition to the library of families. The well -- written, perfectly placed text is delivered with a deft touch...Happily, and surprisingly, And Tango Makes Three rises above the message it carries and becomes the rarest of birds, a 'message book' that's also a really good story." -- New York Times Book Review

What a wonderful way to help "young readers and open their minds" and to help "encourage our children to include, rather than exclude" and to help older readers "appreciate the...larger theme of tolerance at work in this touching tale."

Ahhhhh.... "Being gay is okay" is the message in this book that we want to teach our children. -Never mind the fact that approximately one out of every three gay men practicing the lifestyle will acquire HIV/AIDS - being gay is "healthy" and "natural".

When one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, how can we say that this is an activity that can be made safe? The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. Advising men on how to have safe gay sex is, therefore, like advising people how to safely drive drunk, or how to safely smoke crack. The only responsible advice for gay people is not how to make such a dangerous activity safer, but that that they shouldn't engage in this activity at all.

If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal. We would be bombarded by public service announcements like the "just say no" to drugs campaign. Just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk," people shouldn't let anyone they care about participate in gay sex. But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being "homophobic." Movies and TV shows now routinely depict the gay lifestyle as perfectly moral and no more dangerous to one's health than the heterosexual lifestyle. Even the supposedly conservative Supreme Court has ruled that this dangerous sexual activity is a constitutionally protected right.

info above from: half sigma


Now let's find out some more facts:

• "Roy and Silo were kept in an unnatural environment, namely a zoo enclosure with no females. Still having the instincts for pairing up, Roy and Silo took the only choice afforded them - another male. ...

• The zoo staff had to provide a spare egg from a heterosexual couple in order for Roy and Silo to ‘reproduce’. After all, quite clearly, purely homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. If homosexual preference really is all in the genes, the trait will quickly disappear from the gene pool, as no offspring will ever be produced from a homosexual pairing. How does that help show that homosexuality is ‘natural’?

• Further undermining the theoretical notion (not the ‘indisuptable fact proven by science’ as some may argue) that homosexuality is all in the genes, Roy and Silo’s ‘daughter’ Tango grew up to display homosexual preference as well, this time in a female-female pairing. Now as you have seen... Tango is in no way related to Roy or Silo. She has none of their genetic material - not a single line of DNA from them. So where did she get her ‘gay genes’ from? Or could it be more likely that, being raised by two homosexuality-displaying parents, she was influenced by them - an environmental cause, not a genetic one?

• And to demolish the March of the Gay Penguins altogether, after 6 years of partnering together, Roy and Silo separated. Roy remained single, while Silo, gay icon and shining example of the alternative lifestyles of nature… Paired up with a female named Scrappy."

excerpts above from Burning Hot


These are a sampling of some questions for discussions that the LGBT community would have you discuss with your children:

• "'Family' is a prominent theme in And Tango Makes Three. Discuss the concept of a "family." What constitutes a family? Tango's family is different, but how is it the same as any other family in the zoo? In the world?

• Roy and Silo are a little bit different from the other penguins in the zoo. What does it mean to be different? Why is it sometimes good to be different?

• The Central Park Zoo, where And Tango Makes Three takes place, is home to all kinds of animal families. But Tango's family is unlike the other families in the zoo. Tango has two fathers instead of the traditional mother and father. Do you have a nontraditional family, or do you know someone who does? Do you think that Tango is missing out by not having a mother?

• Mr. Gramzay, the penguin keeper at the Central Park Zoo, is very sympathetic to Roy and Silo. He is accepting of their differences and wants to help them become a family. How can you learn from Mr. Gramzay's actions in the book? Who else is accepting of Roy, Silo, and Tango in this story?

• Mr. Gramzay decides to give Roy and Silo an egg to hatch in their nest. Why do you think he does this? What does he see in Roy and Silo that makes him decide that they would be good at raising a baby? Do you think that Roy and Silo are good parents? Why?"

Well, these questions below should ALSO be discussed with our children if we really want to discuss ALL of the facts:

• Is homosexual preference really a ‘preference’? Would Roy and Silo have chosen males over females if they had been given the choice during their formative, adolescent and mature ages - instead of being confined in an all-male environment?

• Is homosexuality ‘natural’? Considering that if nature were allowed to run its course, homosexual behaviour would die out within the short span of ONE GENERATION from lack of propagation - as it produces no offspring to carry on the so-called ‘gay genes’? Unless, of course, the homosexual individual ‘cheats’ and mates with a member of the opposite gender…

• Is homosexuality really 100% genetically determined and 0% influenced by upbringing and surroundings? Tango did not inherit any ‘gay genes’ from her adoptive parents, but grew up continually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle of Roy and Silo.

• If upbringing and environment can influence a child’s sexuality, what does it say about homosexual marriages and adoption and raising of children in a homosexual household? If genes are not the sole factor, then this is one way to ‘propagate’ homosexuality.

• Should the sexual and familial behaviour of animals be at any time used as an example or a guide for human behaviour? We are, after all, PEOPLE - the very definition of which excludes being beasts controlled solely by base and bestial impulses."

(questions from Burning Hot)

The Double Standard of Homosexuals

Some examples of this double standard are:

If someone murders a homosexual - there is a national outcry for "hate crimes", however if a homosexual murders someone else, there is sadly a deafening silence. Murder is tragic, but murder is murder. Increased penalties for attacking one group and less penalties for another group is unequal protection under the law. This sadly is one of the double standards.

"On November 21, William Smithson (a homosexual), 43, of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to life in prison for the September 2006 strangulation murder of 23-year-old Jason Shephard. Smithson, a homosexual, murdered Shephard after slipping him GHB, a date rape drug, then hid the body in the basement of his home.

... it is ironic that homosexuals used the murder ten years ago of Matthew Shepherd to push for hate crimes laws -- yet remain largely silent about the murder of Jason Shephard."[It's] a true double standard, because Jason Shephard's murder has been under the radar screen -- and basically, unless you're in Pennsylvania monitoring this kind of stuff, you don't hear about it," says Gramley. "But Matthew Shepherd? Everyone in the country knows who Matthew Shepherd is."

Gramley points out homosexual activists claim Matthew Shepherd was targeted because he was homosexual. But ABC News later revealed that Matthew Shepherd was the victim of a botched robbery -- a finding the media has largely ignored. ... She cites two other murders committed by homosexual men that met with relative silence in the homosexual community -- the murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Arkansas in 1999, and the 2002 murder of Mary Stachowicz in Chicago." -OneNewsNow

Homosexuals can NOT be targeted because as a special group with special rights any crime against them is a "hate crime" - however homosexual advocates CAN targeted other people simply because they are part of a group (i.e. Mormon). There haven't been reports of other backlashes against other groups that supported Prop 8, (i.e. African-Americans and other churches and religious denominations) and turned out in heavy numbers to vote yes on Prop 8. Seventy percent of black voters, more than half of Latino voters, and about two-thirds of Christians, and married voters and parents also showed strong support of Prop 8. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and evangelical groups in the state also urged for a ban on gay marriage.

So why is the Mormon Church their only target of anger? and why is this not a "hate crime"? - yet another double standard.

Here are some examples of how gays are targeting Mormons:

• A lawsuit by Fred Karger, homosexual activist, claims that the Mormons violated election laws in California.

• Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, was forced to resign when it was discovered he contributed $1,500 to support Prop 8.

• Homosexual groups are calling for the revocation of tax-exempt status.

• In the nearly four weeks since Election Day, gay activists and thousands of their supporters have rallied outside Mormon temples around the country, protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' support for California's Proposition 8.

• There have been calls to boycott the annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah "Anyone who attends Sundance is quite literally funding the enemy," Gay activist John Aravosis, editor of Americablog.com wrote.

• Some activists have called for a boycott of tourism and skiing as well as anything in the entire "Hate State of Utah."

• Protesters have defaced some church buildings, and in Arapaho County, Colo., the Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible hate crime — the torching of the Book of Mormon on a church's doorstep.

• Californians Against Hate also has called on gay-marriage supporters to boycott A-1 Storage facilities around the state because the business's owner gave more than $700,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.

• For more examples, Google "Mormons prop 8."

Why this hatred? First, opponents criticize the Church for donating money directly to the “yes on 8” campaign.

"This claim is false. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church." from: Meridian Magazine

Secondly, critics are upset and claim that members of the Church outside of California contribute financially to the “yes on 8" campaign, and this involvement of people outside of California was wrong.

	In-State Donations	Out-of-State Donations	Total Donations
For Proposition 8	$25,388,955	$10,733,582	$36,122,538
Against Proposition 8	$26,464,589	$11,968,285	$38,432,873
Totals	$51,853,544	$22,701,867	$74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times

Advocates of gay marriage are upset because members of the Mormon church who didn't live in California became involved financially with this Proposition. However advocates of gay marriage are happy to accept contributions from opponents on 8 that also did NOT live in California. Their thoughts "Supporters for Prop 8 shouldn't be able to contribute money for Prop 8 if they don't live in California however if you Oppose Prop 8 then you CAN contribute money against the Prop 8 even if you don't live in California..." again another double standard - don't you think??

A third claim is that the Church violated its tax-exempt status by participating in the “Yes on 8" campaign.

"According to IRS rules, a tax-exempt organization may not support particular candidates or parties. However, the church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues." from: Meridian Magazine

Critics then claim that Church owned companies violated contribution rules.

"Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make a profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church. They have the same opportunities and rights to act in this manner as any other tax paying entities in our country." from: Meridian Magazine

Another claim is that:

"contributions by Church members were unfairly considered tax deductible. This is patently false. California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions." from: Meridian Magazine

So all of these claims are false, yet still the question remains -why is the Mormon Church the only target - why are the Mormons the scapegoat for the homosexual's anger and frustration? and how is it any different than any other 'hate crime".... advocates claim it is different because of money...

"It's because of the money, says Evan Wolfe, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that supports same-sex marriage.

"The Mormon Church hierarchy led the way on this attack on gay families and the California constitution," Wolfe said. "They provided more than half of the funding. They provided the ground troops and were a major political force in a way that no other group was.

"It's not like there's one centralized voice telling everyone whom to protest. People have their own reactions to what they see with their own eyes, and what they saw here was a $40 million deceptive campaign to take away rights, led by the Mormon Church hierarchy."

Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, wrote on the organization's Web site that she doesn't blame African-Americans or minority groups for the passage of Prop. 8.

"We have been critical of all of the out-of-state conservative religious groups that made significant contributions to the campaign, including the Knights of Columbus National Headquarters in Connecticut and Focus on the Family in Colorado. But the truth is that the LDS church leadership in Utah specifically directed its membership to get involved with the Yes campaign in an unprecedented way — both in terms of volunteer time and dollars," Jean wrote.

"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of “thou shalt not lie.” ....

Mormon voters themselves had little effect on the ballot initiative's outcome, simply because the Mormon population is small in California. There are only about 750,000 Mormons in the state, about 2 percent of its 38 million residents.

But over 59,000 Mormon families contributed to the Yes on 8 effort, Karger said. "Without the Mormon money it would have been a very different campaign"." -from: FoxNews

The point is people (even people of faith) are free to support or oppose whatever legislation they want and they can contribute whatever amount they want to... like it or not same-sex marriage advocates: It is still a free country.

People of faith are citizens of the United States and still have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force people of faith out of public discussion with the violence and threats that are currently being made by homosexual advocates should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.