GAY TRUTH

New Zealand Labour has returned to government across the Tasman Sea, massively increasing its number of seats in Wellington.  Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will return with 64 seats in the Lower House, up 18 from the last election in 2017. New Zealand Greens, Māori Party, and ACT New Zealand also won seats from the Conservatives and nationalist party New Zealand First, who were wiped out of parliament at the polls. The election also brought a record number of visible LGBTQ+ MPs to the nation’s Parliament, with 11 queer politicians ready to represent their electorates.  The makeup means 9% of elected MPs in New Zealand identify as LGBTQ+, overtaking the UK’s record-setting 7%. All of these MPs are sitting for Labour or the Greens.  The Greens will return as Labour’s confidence and supply partner, increasing their representation in Parliament from eight seats to ten. NZ politics will now be driven by immoral gay lies and gay ideology.  It is a destructive mix and poor ...

Former Australian tennis champion, Reverend Margaret Court is under attack again for her religious moral views. Her application for funding to assist in the purchase of a new freezer truck to distribute food to the poor was recently turned down because of her Bible-based views on marriage and gender. Victory Life Centre is a church in Perth, Western Australia that was founded by Rev. Margaret Court in 1995. Its large charity arm, Victory Life Community Services, provides food and assistance to the needy in the Perth area.  Their application to Lotterywest, a funding organization with the responsibility of distributing grant money to worthy causes, was turned down by a unanimous decision of that organization’s Board, who cited Lotterywest’s “commitment to equality and inclusion” as the reason for their decision. Apparently their “commitment to equality and inclusion” doesn’t include tolerance of Christian beliefs. This type of behavior is what we see in North Korea and China. Susan ...

  Q: If the Bible says so little about homosexuality, why do Christians insist on talking about it so much? A: The reason the Bible says comparatively little about homosexuality is because it was a comparatively uncontroversial sin among ancient Jews and Christians. There is no evidence that ancient Judaism or early Christianity tolerated any expression of homosexual activity. The Bible says a lot about idolatry, religious hypocrisy, economic injustice, and pagan worship because these were common sins for God’s people in both testaments. The prophets didn’t rail against homosexual practice because as a particularly obvious and egregious sin it was less frequently committed in the covenant community. The Bible talks about bestiality even less than it talks about homosexuality, but that doesn’t make bestiality an insignificant issue—or incest or child abuse or fifty other sins the Bible barely addresses. Counting up the number of verses on any particular topic is not the best way to ...

This week, Justice Clarence Thomas reminded us of this important truth: People of faith should be able to live according to their beliefs without fear of government punishment. This reminder came in Thomas’s concurrence to a denial for certiorari in a case called Davis v. Ermold. The case involved a county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who declined to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision nationalized same-sex marriage. While Thomas didn’t think the questions of the case were clear enough to warrant the Court’s hearing, he did think that it brought up this important reminder for all Americans. After the Obergefell decision, many were concerned that people of faith—such as Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews—who believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman would have their First Amendment rights compromised. Some brushed off this concern. But, as Justice Thomas notes, it turned out to be well warranted. “Since Obergefel...

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, lashed out on Monday at the religious liberty implications of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. Thomas wrote that the decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss." Thomas' strong opinion came down on the first day of the court's new term and reflects the fact that critics of the landmark opinion from five years ago that was penned by now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, are still infuriated by its reasoning. They believe the court should have left the decision to the political arena and have long said that it will infringe upon the rights of those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage. Supporters of LGBTQ rights are fearful that the court is poised to contin...

During her interaction with California Senator Diane Feinstein on Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett used the forbidden term “sexual preference” with reference to LGBT sexuality. Not only did this cause an instant Internet firestorm, but it apparently led to an instant adjustment in a major online dictionary. The term is now officially “offensive” when used in the sense of “orientation.” To give the background, Feinstein asked Barrett if she would “vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community.” Barrett replied, “I have no agenda. I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” That was a crystal-clear answer. She would not discriminate against the LGBT community based on sexual preference. That was the legal question at hand. But that was not got the attention of other senators, including Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono. She argued that “sex...

ANOTHER OFFENSIVE DEMOCRAT Hawaii’s Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono raised eyebrows during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a particular line of attack focusing on Barrett’s earlier use of the term “sexual preference” to reference homosexuality. “Even though you did not give a direct answer” on the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling (which made same-sex “marriage” the law of the land), Hirono said, “I think your response did speak volumes.” “Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” she went on. “And let me make clear: ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell,...