GAY TRUTH

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman should be added to the Russian constitution, adding that under his leadership Russia would not adopt terms such “parent number 1” and “parent number 2.” Putin made the comments last Thursday at a meeting to discuss Russian constitutional reform. During a discussion on family values in Russia, conservative lawmaker, Olga Batalina, said that some people would like the word “family” to be defined in the constitution as a “union of a man and a woman.”“We need to clarify some things. A marriage is a union of a man and woman,” Putin responded. “'A family is a different thing, but the idea is right and it should be supported. We need to only think about how to formulate it and where.”  Batalina also claimed that the family is under attack from attempts to introduce new terms like “parent number one” and “parent number two.” “This is not fantasy, this is realit

First, a declaration. I have long supported the idea that gay couples should be allowed to be joined for life with all the equal rights, recognition and dignity that any heterosexual couple or de facto couple enjoy under the law. As with most people, when the idea of same-sex marriage first loomed several years ago, I shrugged and thought, “Sure, why not?” I also accepted, as any sane person does, the counter-argument that, historically, marriage has always been uniquely, by definition, the union of two people of the opposite sex, ideally ’til death us do part, for the purpose of procreation. So — again, like most sensible people — I put these two conflicting arguments together and asked the obvious question: surely there can be some new form of legal civil union with an appropriately respectful phrasing and dignified ceremony that denotes a homosexual coupling for life with the intention of raising a family where children are intended to be the biological offspring of one of t

The battle lines have been drawn. On one side, you have those who will not stop at an illegitimate redefinition of marriage who are now demanding passage of something they call the Equality Act — which, despite its name, absolutely takes away equality for people who hold religious convictions. It's really the Persecution of Americans Act. The legislation being backed by homosexual activists gives them special legal rights and the ability to bring down the power of the federal government to investigate and punish any individual or group they claim is discriminating against them. Don't want to personally be involved in a gay ‘wedding'? Discrimination! Don't want your children and grandchildren taught in public school that same-sex unions are beautiful and normative? Discrimination! Don't believe that a man who "identifies" as a female is actually a woman? Discrimination! Don't want to have a biological male in the women's restroom or school shower

C ol. Michael Madrid knows he is not the only person in the military who has experienced “religious hostility” for his beliefs and so he decided to take a stand out of concern that “religious freedom will continue to slip away." Madrid, whose 26 years of military service earned him the Meritorious Service Medal four times, was  punished  by his new commanding officer because Madrid believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Despite Madrid being completely cleared after a thorough Air Force investigation into allegations that he spoke derogatorily about homosexuals, Major Gen. John E. McCoy arbitrarily and without evidence accused Madrid of lying and issued a surprise Letter of Admonishment against him, ensuring he would never be promoted and could be demoted. LifeSiteNews interviewed the beleaguered officer: LifeSiteNews:   Tell us about your 26-year record of military service.   Col. Madrid:   I began my military career as a Naval aviator . In

“It’s going to be an issue.” You may recall those five words that were spoken by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the oral arguments phase of  Obergefell v Hodges . Specifically, that sentence was Verrilli’s response to a question from Justice Alito about the tax-exempt status of private religious schools that continued to define marriage traditionally over and against the definition of the government.   Justice Alito made a salient observation: If the Obama administration’s contention was that traditional marriage laws were analogous to racial segregation, wouldn’t schools that defined marriage traditionally be in the same category as those (such as Bob Jones University in the 1990s) who continued to enforce anti-segregation campus policies (and, thus, were ineligible for tax-exempt status)? Verrilli’s response was telling; it signaled a willingness to acknowledge the latent tension in the same-sex marriage debate between the advance of “equality” and the preservatio

It is not 'homophobic' to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and to wish to have the freedom to say this out loud, according to the Australian Christian Lobby. ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was insulting the intelligence of millions of his fellow Australians by saying a people's vote on redefining marriage would unleash 'homophobia'. "It is unbecoming of someone aspiring to lead our nation to effectively bully his fellow Australians into silence by labelling them 'homophobes',” Mr Shelton said. "There are big consequences to changing the definition of marriage that have nothing to do with homophobia. "We should be allowed to debate these consequences without emotional blackmail being used to silence debate. "There are legitimate ethical issues associated with deliberately denying children the love and nurture of their biological mother or father. "Many Aus

The picture above is a Homosexual Parade where homosexual walk naked in front of children and the Prime Minister of Canada happily attends. Last weekend in Australia the same thing happened. Senator Brandis wants to hold a same-sex marriage plebiscite, and change the Marriage Act , by the end of 2016. Senator Brandis said the government would hold a plebiscite on homosexual marriage before the end of the year if it won the federal election in September 2016. And if there was support for immoral homosexual marriage in Australia, Senator Brandis said, the Coalition government would introduce changes to the Marriage Act that he expected would become law "by the end of the year".  But not every Liberal senator or lower house members agrees with homosexual marriage.   Mr Turnbull's office, however, distanced itself from Brandis' pro-gay push that a plebiscite would be held by the end of the year.  A spokeswoman for Mr Turnbull said only that the

The recent decision of the Supreme Court Royal of the United States, to declare that a man has the physiological capacity to mate with another man, has been hailed as a victory for “love.” We have heard that before. The whole sexual revolution was hailed as a victory for “love.” It requires a sensible person to pause and say, “Love of what, exactly? And what do you mean by that word?” It cannot be an orgy of sexual license. “Such love is hate,” says the poet Edmund Spenser, putting matters as bluntly as possible. Nor is it indifference, going by the name of tolerance; hardness of heart for the weakling. “An amiable niceness to everybody,” says Frank Sheed in Society and Sanity , “was not what Christ made into the second greatest commandment .” A normal man accepts womanhood on its own terms, as the real thing it is, and desires that it should be fulfilled – usually and most obviously in marriage. He looks upon another man as, like himself, the begetter of children, obviously ma