GAY TRUTH

FREEDOM of speech has been dealt yet another whack by the gay lobby determined to get its way on same-sex marriage and, what is worse, it was done in the name of human rights. Last week the deputy chief psychiatrist of Victoria, Kuruvilla George, resigned under pressure from his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission . His resignation came after Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and various members of the gay lobby queried his professional judgment and his deeply held views on marriage. His crime? He signed a petition against same-sex marriage, as part of a doctors' group called Doctors for the Family. The petition pointed out that the health of the natural family is vital to the health of society and that homosexual relationships are not a suitable environment in which to bring up children. The petition was signed by 170 doctors and had numerous academic medical references (and some interesting non-academic ones from the likes of Andrew

The question posed by the title of this post is simply this: is it a denial of a fundamental human right, for a legal system not to extend the category of marriage to include marriage between parties of the same sex? The question was posed in a stark way by recent reported comments of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission , Prof Gillian Triggs . Prof Triggs, for whom I have great respect as a scholar and academic, was delivering the annual Sir Anthony Mason Lecture at Melbourne Law School on 4 August, 2016. She strongly criticised a lack of commitment to human rights in recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, and the Commonwealth Government. In a short paragraph near the end of her address , she also said the following: A recent example of the failure of Parliament to protect fundamental rights is the decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality. Why do we hold an expensive, potentially divisive compulsory but non–binding national vote on the right

In many elementary and secondary schools across America, October will be designated as LGBT History Month. It is certain to feature prominently in California where promotion of homosexuality to all school children is now mandated by law. And it is likely to be observed in all of the classrooms controlled by the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSEN), whose founder, Kevin Jennings, was appointed “safe schools” czar by President Obama. This week WND linked to a news story about a Broward County, Fla., school that will teach “gay” history to kindergartners, but most GLSEN teachers will conduct these indoctrination sessions with no meaningful outside scrutiny. LGBT History Month is not yet universally adopted by public schools. Nevertheless, throughout October tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent school children will be subjected to the most despicable brainwashing ever conducted in American classrooms. They will be taught, through carefully constructed le

The law exists to help rulers govern society, and should help those in that society to live peaceably. The law should allow people to live and let live. It should encourage people to get along with one another. However, it is more and more the case that the law is dabbling in questions which are beyond its proper brief and, in doing so, it makes the job of getting along with one another more difficult. One area where this is quite evident is the way the law deals with sexuality and gender. In recent weeks, the Victorian Government has introduced a bill which, according to the Attorney-General Martin Pakula 's second-reading speech, is demonstrative of its commitment "to stand up for people's rights " and to "put equality back on the agenda in Victoria." Broadly speaking, the bill will wind back the current freedoms for religious bodies and schools regarding employment decisions in Victoria's anti-discrimination law (the  Equal Opportunity A

The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any form of intolerance. – US Commission on Civil Rights Chairman, Martin Castro. September 19, 2016  (HLI)  — There it is, folks — the official position of an official agency of the federal government , not an LGBT activist group. Actually, it appears that the Commission on Civil Rights is now, in fact, an LGBT activist group. For those paying attention to the assault on life, faith, and family – really on every natural and traditional institution in the nation — the September 7 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is not so much shocking as it is another chance for people to wake up to how far our nation has fallen. The report from the now-ironically named commission was called  “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Religi

Congregations across the state of Iowa are in grave danger of having their pastors silenced in the pulpit over LGBT public accommodation rules, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Fort Des Moines Church of Christ filed what is known as a "pre-enforcement challenge"—arguing that a portion of the Iowa Civil Rights Act is a threat to First Amendment freedoms. Alliance Defending Freedom , a legal firm that specializes in religious liberty lawsuits, is representing the church in its fight against the commission. "Churches should be free to teach their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without being threatened by the government," ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said. "That is a foundational First Amendment principle." The issue involves the commission's interpretation of the 2007 Iowa Civil Rights Act—specifically about public accommodation. The law includes a fac

Are you shocked by the radical success of LGBT activism in recent years? I hate to say it, but I told you it was coming, clearly and in detail. Here’s what I wrote in A Queer Thing Happened to America back in 2011. (In fact, much of this was written years earlier, before the book reached its final form in the beginning of 2011). I stated there that: “civil rights” for some means “limited rights” for others, and that by specific design. As stated explicitly in a teacher’s lesson aid published by the Gay and Lesbian Educators [GALE] of British Columbia: “We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.” All this is part of the gay agenda. Does this surprise you? If so, bear in mind that these are not predictions. They are statements of fact, a recap of what has already taken place in America and what is currently taking place around the worl

We should have seen it coming. Back in 1989 two young activists pushing for the normalization of homosexuality coauthored a book intended to serve as a political strategy manual and public relations guide for their movement.  In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance.  Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.” Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue tha