GAY TRUTH

Before the Court’s official decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was released, President Biden was already warning that same-sex “marriage” would be next. As he said in May, “It’s not just the brutality of taking away a woman’s right to her body … but it also if you read the opinion … basically says there’s no such thing as the right to privacy. If that holds … mark my words: They are going to go after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.” Was he right? Why Roe is Different On the one hand, Justice Samuel Alito made clear in his opinion for the majority that the overturning of Roe was different than other cases the Court could one day revisit since Roe involved “potential life.” As David French explained, “In plain English, Alito argues that abortion is dramatically different from cases involving marriage because abortion involves harm to a non-consenting party, the “potential life” (to use the language from Roe) of the unborn child. Interracial marriage involves consenting adu

Trinity Western University, an evangelical tertiary institution in British Columbia, has lost two cases it had brought protesting the decision of two Canadian Provincial Law Societies to not authorise graduates of their proposed Law School as able to practice in the Provinces. The reason for the denial of accreditation was that TWU requires students and staff to agree to a Community Covenant Agreement, which undertakes (among other things) that they will not engage while studying or working at TWU in “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman”.  The Supreme Court of Canada, in two linked cases, has now held by a 7-2 majority that the Law Societies were justified in their refusal to accredit the TWU Law program, on the basis that any interference with religious freedom was minor, and that the Societies were entitled to take the view that the Covenant requirement imposed “harm” on LGBTQ law students. I disagree with both those conclusions,

The chair of the California LGBT Caucus recently introduced a bill to outlaw Christians and others with a Biblical view of sexuality from helping people with unwanted same-sex desires or gender identity confusion. Assemblyman Evan Low’s bill, AB 2943 , declares “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual” as illegal under state’s consumer fraud law. The implications of this legislation spread far beyond regulating the type of counselling offered by licensed counsellors, who are already banned from helping minors with unwanted same-sex attractions . Several legal experts have confirmed that this bill targets the ability of religious non-profits, churches, and pastors from teaching and practising their faith regarding sexual orientation and gender. “The language used in this bill casts a wide net calculated to entangle religious institutions and ministers,” said Kevin Snider, Chief Counsel Pacific Justice Institute . “

Australian parliament is expected to pass a temporary law this week making it illegal to “vilify” or “intimidate” supporters and opponents of same-sex “marriage” as the country braces for a non-binding postal vote on the issue. The bill applies to content produced by the “yes” and “no” campaigns.   “It includes measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation  reported . The measure will "safeguard against hate speech." “I have no fear whatsoever with regard to any of the comments that I have made on the public record,”  said Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby , which is urging people to vote “no.” “I will always stand up and criticize public policy which requires a child to miss out on their mother and father, not through tragedy or desertion but be

Question: Why should Christians care if same-sex couples marry? If they are unbelievers, why should Christians dictate their actions? Shouldn't we just worry about preaching the gospel? This question is based upon the false premise that Scripture assigns the accountability to marriage to Christians alone rather than to society at large. Christian concern for marriage is deeply concerned with the moral risk taken by unbelievers when they marginalize, reject, subvert, or harm marriage in any way.  Christians believe this risk threatens acting parties with eternal consequences. Furthermore, it is quite selective and arbitrary to say that when it comes to same-sex marriage , Christians should not ask unbelievers to act like unbelievers. Why should that request be limited to same-sex marriage?  Should it be applied to other aspects of the criminal code?  Should Christians not expect non-Christians to live by the same civil laws they live by?  Should Christians require n

A Brazilian federal prosecutor is demanding that a televangelist retract certain statements he made which the prosecutor says incited “hatred” against homosexuals - a thinly veiled threat of future legal action . “The people in the Gay Parade mock the symbols of the Catholic Church and no one says anything,” televangelist Silas Malafaia reportedly said. “The Catholic Church should take a stick to these guys, you know? They should lower the club on them.” Silas Malafia Malafaia has reportedly responded to criticisms that he was inciting violence against homosexuals by stating that by “take a stick” (“entrar de pau”) and “lower the club” (“baixar o porrete) he meant the Church should “formulate criticisms, take legal actions.” In his remarks Malafaia was referring to the desecration of sacred images that occur regularly in homosexual parades in Brazil. Federal prosecutor Jefferson Apareceido Dias says the comments contain “clear homophobic content, because they incite violenc

The Senate’s rejection of the February 11 people’s vote on same-sex marriage should be the time to draw a line under this long-running saga. Most Australians don’t rate it as a top order issue and, quite frankly, have had enough. Even gay marriage advocates of the Turnbull Government such as Tim Wilson , Trent Zimmerman and their fellow traveller Warren Entsch have rightly said there is no plan B. It’s plebiscite or nothing. This was the Coalition’s election commitment; failure to honour it would be a breach of trust. Gay marriage now remains gridlocked for years and few will be worried about this, apart from activists in the inner city areas of Sydney and Melbourne where rainbow flags adorn shop windows. Quite frankly there are bigger issues facing the nation. There is no popular clamour for a change to the Marriage Act. Even the left-leaning GetUp! organisation’s supporters consistently rate same-sex marriage way down their list of priorities, with it coming in at number

Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A same-sex couple has won a custody battle with a surrogate mother after she refused to sign documents allowing the baby to obtain a passport and leave the country with them.  Bangkok’s Juvenile and Family Court ruled on Tuesday that American Gordon Lake, baby Carmen ’s biological father , is her legal guardian.  Carmen’s biological mother was an anonymous egg donor. Carmen’s surrogate mother, Patidta Kusolsang, gave Carmen to Lake and his “husband” Manuel Santos Valero after she was born.  She then changed her mind and refused to sign documents allowing baby Carmen to obtain a passport, which would have allowed her to leave the country with Lake and Santos Valero. The gay couple took Kusolsang to court, arguing that Carmen, who was born over a year ago, has the right to be raised by her biological father.  The Bangkok Post reported in May 2015   that Lake and Santos Valero were in hiding with baby Carmen and an older baby