The United States of....Homosexuals?

Many of us have been incensed when we see the American flag be treated disrepsectfully by supporters of illegal immigration (flag flown upside down, flown under the Mexican flag, etc.). However, I believe disrespect has been taken to a new level by something I saw yesterday--an American flag with the "gay pride" rainbow stripes in place of the red and white stripes. I imagine it won't be too long before homosexual activists will be pushing to have this made our official national flag.

One point of irony: The house flying this flag is located on Rainbow Drive.

It's Only a Big Deal If a Republican Does It, I Guess...

Many of you reading this will have heard of the homosexual scandal involving Larry Craig (R-Idaho). However, there is another story out of Florida that you may not have heard about.

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle has been attempting to crack down on homosexual sex in public bathrooms, the very offense with which Larry Craig was charged. Not only is there very little national media coverage of this, but the mayor, rather than being lauded for his efforts, is being attacked from various quarters. Story here.

Of course, you would expect the homosexual community to be vociferous in their opposition, and they are. In fact, they are calling for his resignation, merely because he is enforcing the law! To see his apology to the community for not being aware of the problem earlier, select the video entitled "Mayor Naugle, other speakers attack gay sex" (little bit of spin in that headline!) at this site. There are other videos about this story you will want to watch, including a very angry, disruptive, and disrespectful person trying to prevent Janet Folger from speaking.

I can understand why the homosexual activists want to get rid of the mayor (and silence anyone else who stands with him and speaks out against this). He is bringing attention to this perverse homosexual behavior, which is commonplace, that would lose them support from many of their allies, and energize opposition from the complacent public, if they became aware of it.

But it gets worse. The county commissioners of Broward County voted unanimously to remove Mayor Naugle from the Tourism Development Council, citing fears that his remarks about the rampant illegal sexual activity and his vows to clean it up would result in lost tourism dollars. Click on the video link at this site to see the commission's comments and vote. Read the story here.

Just another example of the Almighty Dollar triumphing over right, although I'm sure some of the commissioners don't see anything wrong with having homosexual sex in public restrooms. So what if a child might walk in on the middle of it. As long as the county doesn't lose the gay tourists, everything will be just fine.

Why I am supporting Tancredo instead of Huckabee

I had originally planned to support Mike Huckabee, and was still somewhat undecided until the ICA/ITR forum on June 30, but he is kind of waffling or hedging on some of the important issues, in my opinion. A lot of what he says sounds good, especially to a conservative evangelical Christian such as myself. However, you have to listen carefully to hear what he is NOT saying, and note the questions about the issues that he is not really answering directly, even when asked directly. Some might wonder why I, as a conservative Baptist, have chosen to support Tom Tancredo over a Baptist minister (Huckabee). Here are a few of the reasons:

1) While I do appreciate some of what Huckabee has said on the evolution issue, and his boldness to say he believes there is a God who created things, and his refusal to back down, he does hedge somewhat. If he really doesn't know how long it took God to form creation, or how long ago he did it, then he apparently doesn't take the Bible literally. It seems, though, that he is trying to give a "safe" answer. No doubt he knows that, while the majority of people may not believe the literal account of creation, only a small minority believe there is no god or that God had nothing at all to do with creation. So his somewhat vague answer played to the majority, while offending probably only a small percentage.

Huckabee said he believed God "created this process". What 'process' is that? Calling it a 'process' makes it sound more like evolution than creation. God didn't create the "process", he created creation! Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I have high expectations of him because of the fact he is an evangelical, conservative Baptist pastor. I understand that Christians disagree on this issue, but I would at least expect that--being a pastor--he would have a position on it! And he seemed irritated that the question was even asked at a debate.

2) Huckabee has refused to say same-sex marriage is wrong, saying instead that we need to fix heterosexual marriage before we talk about whether or not to change the definition of marriage. In the meanwhile, the courts ARE changing the definition of marriage.

3) He refuses to say adoption by same-sex parents is harmful to a child, instead saying that "we just don't know yet", and saying we need to look at what is best for the child, whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. I agree that we need to look at what is best for the child, but he is avoiding answering the question about same-sex adoption.

4) He wouldn't directly say that homosexuals serving in the military was not a good thing. When pressed with the question two or three times, he would only say that "it is already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice", and he didn't think that needed to be changed.

5) He does not appear to be very strong on trying to make abortion illegal, instead saying, "We need to look at changing one heart at a time, rather than passing one piece of legislation at a time". While I agree winning hearts should be the ultimate goal, many hearts will never be won. Meanwhile, thousands of babies are being killed every day.

6) Finally, although many would disagree with me, and it wouldn't be an issue for most, as a conservative Baptist Christian it bothers me somewhat that a supposedly conservative Baptist minister would play songs like "Born to be Wild" in his secular rock band. A lot of people would probably think it "cool" that a presidential candidate--especially a Baptist minister--would not be so stuffy, but instead is willing to get in touch with his "wild side" through the music he plays. However, I am ready for someone who is more interested in espousing conservative principals than embracing pop culture.

Maybe he is just being a smart politician, but aren't we ready for someone who isn't afraid to boldly proclaim their positions on the issue, no matter to whom they are speaking? Haven't we had enough of politicians who change their rhetoric to fit their audience? How do we know what they really believe? I know electability is a factor, but I believe Tancredo IS electable, AND he shares his same core beliefs unabashedly with every audience. Look what happened when Nussle was anointed our candidate for governor because of his perceived greater electability. If we would have gone with Vander Plaats, we could very well have a Republican governor now. I'm not trying to second guess, but I'm just saying that the "electability" factor doesn't always serve us well. I am looking for someone I know is a true conservative on every issue. I want someone who is not afraid to take a stand on the controversial issues. Like Tancredo says, "When conservatives run ON our principles, we win. When we run FROM them, we lose".

If Huckabee becomes the Republican candidate, I will certainly support him with passion in the general election, but he is not my first choice of candidates. From what I know of all the candidates, Huckabee might be #2, but not a close #2 at this point. I don't know enough about Duncan Hunter, but he might bump Huckabee if I knew more about him.

It's GAYLA Week at Wartburg!

Wartburg College, in Waverly, Iowa, is holding its 2nd Annual Gayla Week. Wartburg is afflliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a liberal denomination that is becoming even more liberal, abandoning God's word in the process. A spokesman from Wartburg once told me that Wartburg is not a Lutheran college, but a college operated by the Lutheran Church. Huh? In any case, I think Martin Luther would grieve that such a college is being operated by a denomination that was founded based on his teachings.

What concerns me perhaps more than the "Drag In The City Cabaret Show" is how the Waterloo Courier reports on one of the celebration's speakers. Story here. Notice how the word "homophobia" is used without quotes and without identifying it as the opinion of the author (neither the author being reported on nor the author of the Courier piece). In other words, the Courier's objectivity (and that of most other media) is out the window on this issue.

I have known for quite some time that the media, in general, is helping to advance the homosexual agenda but, for some reason, when I read that article it really sank in. When you see it happening in your local paper, it really hits home.

They just throw the word out there like any normal and rational person would accept that 1) there is a condition called "homophobia", 2) it is a widespread problem in this country, and 3) anyone identified as a "homophobe" should be punished and/or sent for "sensitivity" training. You might think that "homophobia" would mean "fear of homosexuals" or "fear of homosexuality", but you would be wrong. The way that homosexual activists and their allies define a "homophobe" is anyone who doesn't accept that homosexuality is normal and morally equal to the sexual relationship between a married man and woman.

I know it seems that I focus on this subject a lot, but I consider it to be the greatest threat to our religious freedom that we face. Not only that, but the children in the public schools will be indoctrinated (ARE being indocrinated) with pro-homosexual beliefs This means that, within a generation, we could live in a culture where the vast majority of people consider homosexual behavior to be normal, natural, moral, and equivalent (if not superior) to heterosexual relations. And anyone who dares to say homosexual acts are sinful will not only be called names like "homophobe", religious fanatic, hateful, and bigoted. They will also be considered ignorant throwbacks to an era when people were unenlightened on this matter. They will be seen not only as intolerant, but dangerous.

To be honest, I think we have lost the battle to prevent the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality, unless God miraculously intervenes. But that doesn't mean that we have to go quietly! I pray that God will raise up a legion of pastors, as well as Christian leaders and laymen, who have the boldness to stand for His word. We should show love and compassion toward all, but we should not stand by silently while sin--any sin--is being written into law by giving a protected class status to those who practice it.

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.

More on Deerfield High

In response to a poster (thanks, Activist Scott), here is more info concerning the story I blogged about in my previous post. Story here. It appears that the panel is part of a mandatory class that all freshmen are required to take.

This is just one of many examples I could post where students are being indoctrinated with homosexual behavior. Unless something changes radically, and soon, we will see this happening more and more.

There has been a huge cultural shift in this country in the last few years. It is now virtuous to proclaim your homosexuality, and it is noble to help promote the homosexual agenda. Perhaps, people who missed out on the civil rights movement of the 60's see this as a similar cause (it is NOT) that they can latch onto and feel like they are making the world a better, more "tolerant" place.

Homosexuality is a civil right?

Tomorrow is designated "Civil Rights Lobby Day" at the Iowa Capitol by the groups pushing the homosexual agenda. Wake up folks! Our rights and liberties are fading away with each new piece of legislation that writes homosexuality (specifically "sexual orientation" and "gender identity") into law. Schools are indoctrinating students into this lifestyle without giving parents an opportunity to opt their kids out. Employees who don't accept the celebration of homosexuality are being disciplined and fired. Public officials who say homosexual acts are immoral are attacked, and their resignation is often demanded. And it will only get worse.

If this law passes, employers will be unable to prevent male employees from dressing and making themselves up to look like females, churches and other religious institutions will be forced to hire individuals who--contrary to the beliefs of the institution--are in the homosexual lifestyle (with the only exception being for positions that have "bona fide" religious qualifications), and public establishments may be required to provide a third (or fourth) restroom for those who claim a different sexual identity than that with which they were born.

If you are opposed to making homosexuality a civil right, and all that will result from that, contact your legislator as soon as possible. The bill in question is SF427 / HF603.

More From San Diego "Pride" Parade...If You Can Handle It

I wanted to share a bit more about the parade I mentioned in the previous post, so you can fully appreciate what these kids will be exposed to. Here is a description from their own website at www.sandiegopride.org.

"The Pride Parade is a powerful display of diversity, acceptance and celebration. Thousands of Parade participants move with flamboyant splendor on the mile long route with their gay banners waving above the exuberant caravan of lavish floats, drag mavens in fancy duds, dykes on bikes and gay-friendly politicians, sponsors, and civic organizations. Over three hours, the streets of Hillcrest burst with colorful displays of pride amid music and dancing emanating from the 200 parade contingents. 150,000 enthusiastically cheering spectators lining the Parade route, the Pride Parade is a highlight of the Celebration."