GAY TRUTH

In another demonstration of the new majority’s priorities, Democrats passed new rules barring “discrimination” against “LGBT” staffers in the U.S. House of Representatives almost immediately after taking office. Proposed by Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus head Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, the measure was part of a rules package passed on the first day of the new legislative session, the homosexual site  PinkNews   reports . The vote fell along party lines, 234 to 197. “The new requirements closely mirror employment protections that Cicilline has introduced as part of the Equality Act,” a  statement  from the openly homosexual congressman’s office elaborates, “his bipartisan, comprehensive bill to extend anti-discrimination protections to all LGBT Americans.” The so-called  Equality Act  would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” to “non-discrimination” categories in “public accommodations,” and forbid employers from “discri

A man running to represent Virginia in Congress who admits he is a paedophile wants to make adult-child sex, including incest, legal. Convicted felon Nathan Larson is competing in the primary of Virginia’s 10th district as a Libertarian (the party says he’s been expelled). In addition to admitting to the  Huffington Post  that he is a paedophile, Larson is supportive of assisted suicide, white supremacy, and the legalization of child pornography. He advocates for “legalizing early marriage” and ending age limits to holding office or voting. “Since young women begin to enter their years of peak beauty and fertility before age 18, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that they wait till that age before having sex and children,” Larson’s campaign manifesto says. On May 31,  the  Huffington Post  published an interview  with Larson in which he confirmed he is a paedophile and ran online sites for paedophiles: When asked whether he’s a pedophile or just writes a

June 27, 2013 ( blog.heritage.org )   -   The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America . Some key numbers following the decisions: 50  - The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions. 38  - The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California , where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation. 12 -  The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize

The Supreme Court announced disturbing decisions today on  two important cases dealing with marriage law . The Court refused, however, to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 In its ruling on California’s Proposition 8 , the Court declared that the citizen group that sponsored Prop 8 did not have standing to defend the constitutional amendment that millions of Californians voted to pass. The only reason this jurisdictional question was an issue is because the governor and attorney general of the state of California  decided to not defend a law  passed by the people of that state. It is scandalous that the governor and attorney general refused to perform their duty. That abdication of their constitutional responsibility should not have prevented these laws from having a vigorous defense in court. This sets a disturbing precedent and distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. It would

On the last day of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on two same-sex marriage cases. Both are important cases, and both will go far in redefining the most basic institution of human civilization. The Court knew it was making history. A majority of the justices clearly intended to make history, and future generations will indeed remember this day. But for what? In the first decision handed down today, the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act , passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, is unconstitutional. Specifically, it found that the federal government’s refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage that is legal in a state to be unconstitutional. The Court left in place the DOMA provision that protects states from being required to recognize a same-sex union that is valid in another state. In the Proposition 8 case, the Court’s majority held that the plaintiffs in the case, representing the people of California

Brazilian pro-family politicians have announced that they will fight a decree issued by the country’s National Council of Justice (CNJ) that orders all of Brazil’s registrars to accept applications for homosexual “ marriage ” and threatens them with legal action if they refuse. The decree, which was issued on May 14, claims to implement a  2011 decision  by the country’s Supreme Federal Tribunal , which ruled that homosexual unions are eligible to be registered as “stable unions,” similar to common-law marriages in Anglophone countries. However, parliamentarians from the Social Christian Party and other pro-family representatives are crying foul, pointing out that the Tribunal’s decision does not mention “marriage.” They say they intend to file suit with the Tribunal against the CNJ to nullify the decree. “Our understanding is that it was disastrous decision, inappropriate and unconstitutional,” said Everaldo Pereira, vice president of the Christian Social Party. He a

May 14, 2013 ( FRC.org ) - The Left has a funny way of celebrating Mother's Day. First, the President issues a  bizarre tweet  reminding moms that his gift is free birth control -- presumably so they never have to become mothers again. Then, of course, there was Secretary Arne Duncan 's announcement that the Department of Education would stop acknowledging moms' existence altogether. Starting in 2014, the DOE is replacing "mother" and "father" with  "Parent 1" and "Parent 2"  on its student aid forms in an effort to be more politically correct (and anatomically incorrect). Now, some in Congress want to get in on the act with  a bill  that would intentionally deprive children of a mother. Under this legislation, the government would punish any adoption agency that gives priority to married, heterosexual couples. The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), would cut off the federal fund