Supremes asked to defend faith of foster parents

City requires church organization to change beliefs to meet LGBT demands

 

supreme-court-wikipedia-feature

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overrule Philadelphia’s demand that Catholic Foster Services place children with gay and lesbian parents.

A petition filed Monday by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argues the church non-profit has a First Amendment right to place children according to its religious beliefs about family.

“As the city of Philadelphia attempts to shamelessly score political points, dozens of beds remain empty and children are suffering the consequences,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, which is defending Catholic Social Services.

“It’s time for the Supreme Court to weigh in and allow faith-based agencies to continue doing what they do best: giving vulnerable children loving homes,” she said.

In April, 3rd Circuit judges Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell endorsed the city’s policy.

The case is on behalf of foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch, who say they are standing up for faith-based foster agencies and foster children in need of a home.

“Catholic Social Services has been serving the foster children of Philadelphia and their families since 1917, long before the city got involved,” said Becket. “Ms. Fulton was a longtime foster parent who fostered more than 40 children with the help of Catholic Social Services, and Ms. Simms-Busch is a former social worker in the foster care system who recently decided to become a foster and adoptive parent herself.”

Simms-Busch said that as a social worker, she evaluated the quality of care provided by the foster agencies in Philadelphia.

“When I decided to become a foster parent myself, I chose to go through the agency that I trusted the most,” she said. “The consistency, integrity, and compassion of Catholic Social Services has made all the difference in my journey through the foster care process.”

WND reported the city cut off the foster homes in the CSS program even while it was making an urgent call for 300 new foster parents for the more than 6,000 children in Philadelphia foster care.

The request to the high court for review explains, “The city of Philadelphia chose to exclude a religious agency from the city’s foster care system unless the agency agreed to act and speak in a manner inconsistent with its sincere religious beliefs about marriage.”

The case centers on whether or not “a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.”

The petition explains: “On any given day, over 400,000 children are in foster care nationwide. More than 100,000 of those children are awaiting adoption. Because the government cannot find enough foster and adoptive families on its own, it has historically relied on private groups and faith-based agencies.

“It is no exaggeration to say that the decision below threatens the future of Catholic foster and adoption agencies throughout the country. In Boston, San Francisco, Buffalo, the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois, Catholic charities have already been forced out of foster care and adoption.”

The dispute provides “an important opportunity” for the Supreme Court to “apply the First Amendment to a post-Obergefell system in which same-sex marriage co-exists with the ‘proper protection’ owed to ‘religious organizations.’”

In the 2015 Obergefell case, the justices created same-sex marriage, even though the ruling was described by the chief justice as being unconnected to the Constitution.

The high court previously declined to intervene on an emergency basis in the case.

It said last year it would not immediately order the city to resume placing children with Catholic Social Services while the litigation continued.

Three justices dissented: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.

It was U.S. District Judge Petrese Tucker who originally said the city could order the Catholics to place foster children with same-sex foster parents in violation of their religious beliefs.

CSS argued in court that the city’s “vindictive conduct will lead to displaced children, empty homes, and the closure of a 100-year-old ministry.”

WND reported when CSS explained to the lower court the city made clear that the religious beliefs of CSS “would not be an acceptable basis for Catholic’s unwillingness to provide a written certification regarding a [same-sex] couple’s relationship and to approve that couple for foster care.”

“The city’s rhetoric further reveals that the goal of its actions is to force Catholic to change its beliefs such as the statements that it’s ‘not 100 years ago anymore’ and ‘times are changing’ and Catholic’s religious beliefs should change, too,” the court filing said.

CSS charged the city’s policy is motivated by religious hostility.

“What justice is there in taking stable, loving homes away from children? If the city cuts off Catholic Social Services from foster care, foster moms like me won’t have the help and support they need to care for special-needs kids,” said Fulton. “I have relied on Catholic Social Services for support for years, and the city is taking away this help and causing harm and heartache to countless families like mine.”

CSS said the dispute appears to be personal.

“The city has targeted Catholic Social Services because of its religious beliefs. City officials have been open about their disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage and their personal animosity toward the archdiocese,” the complaint stated.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/supremes-asked-to-defend-the-faith-of-foster-parents/

Advertisements

Outrage around proposed Modesto ‘straight pride parade’

Hannah Knowles, The Washington Post Thursday, July 25, 2019

An application to hold the event later this summer has thrust Modesto into a national debate over "straight pride," as a similar event that started out as a joking skewer of liberal "identity politics" heads toward reality in Boston.  Photo: DenisTangneyJr/Getty Images/iStockphoto

The event is billed as a “straight pride parade,” but it’s not just about heterosexuality.

A flier for the celebration posted online describes an amalgamation of conservative rallying cries: Christianity, Western civilization, “babies — born and unborn” and more.

An application to hold the event later this summer has thrust a California city into a national debate over “straight pride,” as a similar event that started out as a joking skewer of liberal “identity politics” heads toward reality in Boston. Last month, Boston approved the permit application and route of an August straight-pride parade that many called a mockery of gay activism. Organizers insisted they “don’t hate anyone” and are trying to draw attention to “heterophobia.”

The city of Modesto, California, says its decision on whether the parade can be held Aug. 24 in Graceada Park hinges on logistics and not the organizers’ views, spokesman Thomas Reeves told the Los Angeles Times.

“So although the city does not share in the beliefs of some groups that choose to hold their events here, we may not be able to deny a permit based on an organization’s values,” Reeves said. The Central Valley city is looking at “operational feasibility.”

But the values behind the parade are precisely what Modesto community members are fighting over.

Behind the event is San Leandro chiropractor and herbalist Don Grundmann, who chairs the non-ballot-qualified Constitution Party of California, the Los Angeles Times reports. The organization, which says on its website that it believes in “individual liberty and limited government,” works against such policies as mandatory vaccination and a halt in state executions.

Grundmann also directs a National Straight Pride Coalition that supports the Modesto parade, though the group now has a presence only in California, he told the Times. Grundmann said the event’s mix of causes is meant to celebrate “everything that made our country great.”

“Essentially it boils down to two religious views of the world,” Grundmann told a local CBS station. “One is Christianity, which is represented by heterosexuality, a culture of life, and its opponent is the LGBT movement, which is represented by an opposing religion and an opposing view of life.”

The group Modesto Progressive Democrats derided “straight pride” as responding to discrimination that does not exist.

“Have you ever been fired from a job for being straight?” the group said on its Facebook page. “Have you been banned from the USA for being Christian? No? That’s because it’s Straight pride day EVERY DAY.”

Critics of the Modesto event say “straight pride” is an excuse to promote homophobic views.

While Grundmann has framed the planned parade as an affirmation of traditional values, he also has attacked the gay community, claiming on what appears to be his Facebook page that members of the “Homosexual/Sodomy Movement” are likely “lying about any death threats to them” despite documented cases of intimidation and violence against gay people. This week, a Russian LGBTQ rights activist was found dead after her name appeared on a Web game in which players simulate hunting down and torturing gay people.

The Washington Post has contacted Grundmann and the city of Modesto.

Modesto community members reportedly have deluged City Hall with opinions on the event. Dismayed opponents of Grundmann’s parade are organizing a counterprotest in nearby Enslen Park should the straight pride celebration move forward.

“People are shocked and blown away that this kind of event could happen in our community,” the Modesto Progressive Democrats’ president, Chris Ricci, told the Times.

City Council member Kristi Ah You told CBS Sacramento that she would not allow the event if it were her decision.

“I don’t think we need to give a permit for anything that when you go to the page it talks about whiteness, it talks about western civilization, it talks about being Caucasian,” she said. “That’s all hate crime stuff to me; that’s not OK.”

Ah You said she hopes the event stays low-profile, adding that she thinks it might attract only a handful of people. Grundmann says he has core supporters lined up to attend. But the parade application has already drawn a torrent of attention.

“We’ve been getting letters, emails, comments, and phone calls all day about it,” the Council member said.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Outrage-around-proposed-Modesto-straight-pride-14131929.php

Will Amazon Ban The Bible Next?

Michael Brown: Site crossed a very dangerous line removing psychologist’s books

 

In a very disturbing move, Amazon has removed the books of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the psychologist whom critics have dubbed “the father of conversion therapy.” In other words, for claiming that sexual orientation is not innate and immutable, and for claiming that change is possible, Dr. Nicolosi’s books must be banned.

This leads to the logical question: Will Amazon ban the Bible next? There is no hyperbole here.

After all, it is the Bible that condemns same-sex relationships and the Bible that speaks of those who once practiced homosexuality but do so no more (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). These people, today, would be known as “ex-gays.” And it was Dr. Nicolosi’s life work to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Why, then, should Amazon ban his books but continue to sell the Bible, which provides the theological underpinnings for Dr. Nicolosi’s scientific work?

After all, gay critics of the Bible refer to the so-called “clobber passages,” referring to verses that have been used to speak against homosexual practice. If these verses, then, have brought such harm to the gay community, why shouldn’t the book containing these verses be banned?

Not only so, but there are numerous books on Amazon written by ex-gays, sharing their wonderful stories of transformation. Will their books be banned next?

And what about the books that come to different scientific conclusions than the LGBT activists and their allies? And the books that challenge the goals of LGBT activism in society? And the books that reiterate the Scriptural prohibition of same-sex relationships?

Will those books be banned next?

What makes this especially frightening is that it appears that one man, Rojo Alan, based in England, was responsible for getting the books removed.

As reported on Pink News, at first, after sharing his concerns in writing, he got no response from either Amazon or the British outlet, Wordery. But after he posted his concerns on Facebook, he got an immediate response from Wordery, which quickly pulled Nicolosi’s writings.

Amazon, however, claimed that the books did not violate their guidelines.

Alan explains that “since then, I had been working on getting these books pulled. I contacted Amazon regularly to speak to them about the books, about how unethical they are.”

He “used social-media sites to ask people to leave bad reviews of the books, and also began researching the ways in which they violated Amazon’s rules of publishing.”

And, he continues, “Once I gathered everything I went back to Amazon and I threw all the information I had at them in several conversations. Yet I was given the same ‘we will refer this to the relevant team.’”

Not long after this, the books were removed, and Alan was moved to tears.

Of course, I could produce scores of testimonies from former patients of Dr. Nicolosi who were greatly helped by his counsel. Some experienced profound changes in their attractions. Others were freed from shame and self-harm. That’s why he remained in demand until his sudden passing in 2017.

Why don’t these voices matter?

I could also produce literature from liberal psychologists like the lesbian activist Dr. Lisa Diamond, who argues strongly that sexual orientation is fluid.

But that is not the real issue here. The issue is one of banning books that violate certain guidelines, in this case, guidelines created by LGBT activists. Amazon is now playing a very dangerous game of censoring that which is not politically correct. Where will that lead next?

Amazon carries thousands of books (perhaps, several hundred thousand books) that many readers find harmful and distasteful. Amazon carries a staggering array of material that offends many buyers or that raises serious concerns among others.

There are books that encourage behaviors I believe are destructive. There are books and other materials that attack and mock ideologies that are sacred to me. Should Amazon ban these books too?

Should Amazon ban books encouraging atheism and mocking the Bible? Or, conversely, should Amazon ban books challenging Darwinian evolution?

Should Amazon ban books that encourage sexual experimentation and the casting off of conservative morals? Or, conversely, should Amazon ban books that decry the dangers of legalized marijuana?

Should Amazon ban books that lead people into religious cults? Or, conversely, should it ban books that help people get out of these cults?

Should Amazon ban books that provide unhealthy food recipes? Or, conversely, should it ban books that encourage healthy eating and potentially “fat-shame” people?

To repeat: Amazon has crossed a very dangerous, precarious line. It needs to make an immediate about-face, admit its error, and make Dr. Nicolosi’s books available again.

The readers can decide what to buy and what not to buy.

It’s one thing if a book encouraged illegal, life-threatening behavior, as in a terrorist’s manual for making a bomb.

It’s another thing when a book, written by a respected psychologist, is banned because it violates LGBT sensibilities. Is this also a fruit of Amazon working with the notoriously left-leaning SPLC?

I have been a long-term Amazon customer, purchasing tens of thousands of dollars of books from them over the years, along with everything ranging from computers to headphones to random household items. As an author, I also recognize the importance of selling books on Amazon and getting good reviews written. And for me, personally, Amazon’s customer service has been second to none.

All the more, then, do I appeal to Amazon: Please set this right.

We know Jeff Bezos supports the LGBT cause, and that’s his prerogative. But when political leanings influence censorship decisions, we move a step closer to burning books in the streets.

Amazon, please reverse your course.

(If you agree with this article, post and share it widely, sharing your concerns with Amazon as well.)

https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/will-amazon-ban-the-bible-next/

Backup plan launched ‘to force people of faith to abandon beliefs’

Looking to make exercise of religion subservient to LGBT rights in all cases

Bible dust read me

Democrats in Congress already have staged a massive campaign to promote their Equality Act, which would impose the LGBT agenda on churches and faith-based organizations.

But now they’re working on a backup plan should the aggressive Equality Act fail.

It’s named the Do No Harm Act, but it would destroy protections for the exercise of religion by changing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill would make the exercise of religion in public life subservient to LGBT rights in all cases.

The RFRA has helped protect religious freedom since it was enacted in 1993.

The law was cited when a Texas town arbitrarily tripled water connection fees for churches to make up for “lost” property taxes.

The RFRA has enabled citizens to use their constitutionally protected religious faith as a defense against unwarranted demands, including those of LGBT activists.

Doctors have used it to decline to do abortions. Pharmacists have, under its protections, declined to provide abortion-causing drugs.

It has been used to protect a Christian foster care program in South Carolina that provides homes for hundreds of kids. The Barack Obama administration threatened to shut down the program if it didn’t adhere to a “nondiscrimination,” pro-LGBT policy.

Democrats believe they can reverse the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision if the RFRA is changed. The ruling protected a Christian baker from being forced to violate his religious beliefs by creating a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Now come Democrats with their H.R. 1450.

While it claims to be the Do No Harm Act, it would allow LGBT activists to impose their religious “views, habits, or practices” on Christians or people of other faiths.

It would prevent using the RFRA to protect a citizen’s religious liberty if the action imposes “dignitary harm” or an insult “on a third party.”

It would modify the RFRA simply to say its provisions do “not apply” in such disputes.

And it states that “sexual orientation or gender identity” protections trump constitutional protections for religious freedom.

Faith-based morals also could not be used to deny “a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation.”

Courthouse News reported this week the House will hold a hearing on the bill.

The report explained it condemns “those who wield their faiths to hurt others,” according to a civil-rights lawyer.

Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed the Trump administration is “weaponizing” the law to “undermine civil rights protections.”

She said it harms “women, people of no religion, the LGBT community and religious minorities.”

She condemned RFRA because it allowed the South Carolina foster agency to operate according to its faith, which she said is unacceptable.

Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., had a different perspective.

“This isn’t about forcing religious beliefs; this is about forcing people of faith to abandon their beliefs.”

An obstetrician, he asked: “Will I be forced to perform something I believe is wrong? Will I be forced to perform an abortion?”

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., explained that the Constitution doesn’t confine religion to houses of worship.

“I understand that I am a Christian first and a congressman second. My faith is not divorced from my life. And I would expect everyone else who has a similar belief, that they, in this country, should be free, whether they’re Judeo-Christian or not,” he said.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/dems-launch-backup-plan-to-force-people-of-faith-to-abandon-beliefs/

Designers refuse to be at conference if Christian is there

Organizers cave to ultimatum to disinvite speaker

 

Bible11

The Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the American Institute of Graphic Arts makes a big deal about inclusion, with a pages-long statement concerning its “passionate conversations” about ethnicity, gender, race, ability, disability and age.

But its policy of inclusion apparently goes only so far.

That became clear after AIGA declared it would not participate in a design conference unless a Christian speaker was excluded.

Fox News reported the Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of AIGA refused to partner with the Circles Conference, a three-day event for graphics and user experience designers, if David Roark was on the speakers roster.

Roark is the communications director for The Village Church, a Texas megachurch.

He was disinvited from the conference by Circles because of the demand from AIGA, the report said.

AIGA claimed the church has “discriminatory policies and practices towards (sic) women and the LGBTQ+ community.”

AIGA said in a statement it would not tolerate The Village Church because of its beliefs.

AIGA claimed it would be a “misallocation of our membership resources” to participate in any event that included the church.

Roark responded on Twitter that he has no hard feelings.

“The last thing that I would want to do is cause a problem or be a distraction.”

He said that “to end division and pursue unity in our world, we must be willing to listen well, enter into dialogue and understand that we can show love, honor and dignity to one another while still disagreeing.”

“I want the creative community to be a place where individuals of all backgrounds, beliefs and lifestyle can learn from one another, regardless of differences, not a place where we shut each other out,” Roark said.

Commenters on the site pointed out that LGBT activists now are discriminating against Christians and their beliefs even when the subject at hand isn’t faith or issues such as homosexuality and marriage.

“Sounds to me as if the conference is inclusive of everyone except Bible believing Christians,” said one.

Added another: “So the ‘inclusive’ company wants to EXCLUDE Mr. Roark … Got it.”

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/designers-refuse-to-be-at-conference-if-christian-is-there/

VIDEO CA Legislators Blame Religious People For High LGBT Suicide Rates – no such thing as transgender

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None.

By Glenn T. Stanton  JUNE 27, 2019

Legislators in California have discovered yet another way to make it clear that mainstream religions holding to the sexual teachings of their sacred texts have no business doing so in the Golden State. Why? Because these faiths, which billions of good people worldwide happily hold, do not embrace homosexuality. This includes the three largest: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

In a resolution that recently passed the state assembly, “the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance” of LGBT people. It singles out especially faith-motivated individuals and organizations.

These legislators make a very ugly accusation against such people. California lawmakers are planning to spread the idea, with the power and moral authority of the state, that such religious beliefs actually kill people, including children. The text of this bill boldly states:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT and questioning individuals…

Note the absoluteness of their conclusions, particularly two words: create and cause. Stigma, created by religious groups, causes high rates of suicide.

Do Religious People Make Others Commit Suicide?

Let it sink in. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your beliefs make gay people kill themselves. If this is indeed true, we are among the worst of the worst kinds of people. These legislators believe this is true and are doing something about it. California is trying to insist that churches, synagogues and mosques, their leaders, congregants, grade schools, universities, and families fully and uncritically support homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identities in every way.

Thus, any teaching, preaching, writings or practices that are faithful to the clear sexual instructions of these faiths will be beyond the pale of official California values. They will not be tolerated. This charge makes this legislation overwhelmingly serious and consequential because of the seriousness of this charge. Either one party is directly culpable for deaths or the other of making such a dreadful allegation.

To be clear, what they’re proposing is a resolution and would not have the razor-sharp edge of law. But it would have the real and devastating blunt force of state-sanctioned shaming of religious convictions. They couldn’t criminalize you, but they could obliterate your reputation and your life. There are too many vivid examples of this already. Of course, this resolution will grease the skids for it becoming enforceable law.

I want to demonstrate, through some objective and undeniable facts, coupled with simple reasoning, why this long-used accusation has no foundation. The case consists of three basic points:

  • There is simply no dependable research support for the accusation. None.
  • Gay and lesbian individuals themselves report being significantly more likely to choose to attend the very churches that teach a more traditional sexual ethic than they do so-called “welcoming and affirming” churches.
  • The most dramatically gay-friendly places in the world still have incredibly and disproportionately high rates of suicides among their gay and lesbian individuals.

1. No Real Evidence

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None. It is largely created as an ideological assumption and political cudgel. But to even question the assertion will cast you immediately as a heartless stone. Remember, any science that does not permit it to be questioned has become fundamentalist dogmatism.
There is a very small amount of literature on the general harms of family rejection (which we at Focus on the Family strongly advise against), but none showing it causessuicide. There is certainly none establishing religious causation. That is an objective fact. Quite simply, anyone making the claim family responses and religious teaching cause suicide do so absent any bit of scientific proof.

2. LGBT People Choose More Traditional Churches

Let’s look at data that raise serious questions about the “religion kills” assertion. Research done by two gay-friendly scholars from Columbia and the University of California at Los Angeles found that, to their absolute disbelief, church-attending, same-sex-attracted individuals are 2.5 times more likely to attend congregations that hold and teach a more traditional, biblical view of sexuality than they are to attend so-called welcoming and affirming churches.
Let’s consider the implications of this interesting finding. Suppose for a moment that the “religion kills” accusation is correct. Either these individuals are too dull to realize they are doing grave harm to themselves by regularly attending such churches, or they find such churches are quite lovely and helpful. Why else would they choose to wake up early on a Sunday morning and go to the trouble of getting themselves there?
This study’s abstract states, “Guided by minority stress theory, the authors hypothesized that exposure to non-affirming religious settings would lead to higher internalized homophobia, more depressive symptoms, and less psychological well-being.” They were honest in admitting they found “There was no main effect of non-affirming religion on mental health, an unexpected finding discussed in this article.” No main effect on mental health itself, much less suicide.

3. Gay-Affirming Societies Also Have High Suicide Rates

Leading gay activists and their faithful allies in the media and academia operate on a simple and seemingly reasonable premise: non-acceptance of homosexuality leads to greater levels of suicide. To reduce these tragic rates, replace non-acceptance with full affirmation and all will be well. Doing so would not only dramatically reduce suicide, but also the disproportionately higher levels of mental illness among this population, which are strongly and consistently documented. (See herehere and here for just three strong examples.)
This thesis is easy to test: Determine the most gay-affirming places in the world. Are the suicide rates of gay and lesbian individuals in these places significantly lower than in non-affirming countries?
The most gay-affirming places on the planet are the Netherlands and Scandinavia. In Amsterdam, the gay movement has received every major law, policy, or cultural accommodation they’ve requested, with nearly no opposition, and often with great celebration. They televise their annual gay pride parade, and Amsterdam spends more than a million euros a year to promote itself as “The Gay Capital of the World.” The land of windmills and tulips is gay Valhalla.
Their gay and lesbian suicide rates should be extremely low, if non-existent, right?  That is not what scholars, government officials, and clinicians find. Rates of suicide and suicidal ideation among gay youth and adults are remarkably, tragically high in the Netherlands. Scholars even have a name for this. They call it the “Dutch Paradox.”
Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a world leader with respect to gay rights, homosexual Dutch men have much higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders and suicide attempts than heterosexual Dutch men. Epidemiologists report similar disparitieselsewhere in Western Europe and North America. [Emphasis mine.]
Let’s look at just a few examples of evidence. A 2006 Dutch study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that despite living “in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality” gay and lesbian-identified people were at dramatically higher risk for suicidality than the general Dutch population.
More recently, a 2016 Swedish study shows that the rate of gay males suffering from lifetime suicidal ideation there is 140 percent greater. The same measure for women there is 110 percent higher than the general population. Bisexuals are curiously even higher, with females 250 percent more likely and bisexual men 160 percent.
In France, fourth on the world’s gay-friendly list, gays and lesbians are on average 80 percent more likely to suffer suicidal ideation than their straight peers. All countries that keep such data show similar findings, regardless of changes in attitudes and policies concerning LGB-identified individuals.

Do Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Affect Rates?

With greater specificity, a 2016 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology examined how legalizing gay-marriage affected suicidality. It should have reduced it, right? Yet Swedes in same-sex marriages, enjoying their anticipated greater social acceptance and security, retained suicide rates nearly three times that of their married opposite-sex peers. The authors caution these numbers are likely an underestimation. A similar study found that Danish men in legal same-sex unions had a dramatic eightfold increase in suicide deaths over opposite-sex married peers.
The fact of the matter is this: There is no research whatsoever demonstrating significantly reduced rates of suicidal deaths or attempts among gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people as the overall acceptance or affirmation of these groups in a country increases. Any honest person who knows this literature well will admit it.
Thus, this is the conclusion that must be admitted: If the “acceptance of homosexuality equals reduction of suicide” thesis has any validity to it, a society would need to far exceed the acceptance, affirmation, and even celebratory actions of the Netherlands and other countries to demonstrate it. Of course, this is reasonably impossible. What is there left to do that these countries are not already doing?
Reasonable people, even those in the gay rights movement, must call for a sharp end to the absolutely vile and false accusation that certain mainstream religious traditions are culpable for the deaths of gay and lesbian people. The Bible Belt does not run through Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Copenhagen.
We must admit that something else is driving the tragically high suicide rates of our gay and lesbian neighbors, and it’s not traditional faith convictions. True compassion demands we find out what that cause is; these lives are too valuable to play baseless politics with.

Glenn T. Stanton is a Federalist senior contributor who writes and speaks about family, gender, and art, is the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, and is the author of the brand new “The Myth of the Dying Church” (Worthy, 2019). He blogs at glenntstanton.com.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/


There is no such thing as transgender – John F MacArthur

California wants to force pastors to adopt LGBT agenda – Biggest Assault On Religious Freedom

Resolution demands they ‘stop perpetuating the idea that something is wrong’

California marijuana

California, which already demands that public schools only portray homosexuality in a positive light and banned counselors from telling troubled youth they don’t have to be gay, now is moving against pastors and other spiritual leaders.

They, apparently, are guilty of telling homosexuals and others that the Bible teaches something else.

The dispute was revealed by columnist and commentator Todd Starnes, who recently interviewed Dr. David Gibbs of the Christian Law Association.

He explained that churches and pastors are just trying to help LGBT people.

But Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99, Starnes reported, calls on “counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators” and institutions with “great moral influence” to stop saying something is wrong with LGBT identities or sexual behavior.

“The proposed resolution also condemns attempts to change unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion as ‘unethical,’ ‘harmful,’ and leading to high rates of suicide,” Starnes reported.

While it is just a non-binding resolution for now, Gibbs said that does not mean it will stay a resolution.

“What we find over and over again across America is that before they put a bill in and pass a law they frequently pass a resolution,” he explained.

“They say there is a stigma associated with being LGBT that is often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, and that stigma has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, and depression,” Gibbs said.

“What they’re asking is that churches and religious groups change how they’re addressing this (lifestyle).”

Gibbs said, “We want to reach these people, but we believe that the scriptures absolutely take a stand on this issue, and we cannot change the stand that the Bible takes. They’re trying to make it where absolutely the churches and religious groups are being held up as the problem why these LGBT community people feel like they do. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Gibbs explained, “They’re saying in (the resolution) that the state has a compelling interest to protect this from happening, and that means that they would have the right to forbid that in the future in churches and other places. You can all but count on this wording showing up again when they pass a bill.”

Lawmakers appear to be headed toward another constitutional violation.

“What Christians are doing is constitutionally protected, their religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and they absolutely have the right to speak their faith and practice their faith,” Gibbs said.

https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/california-wants-to-force-pastors-to-adopt-lgbt-agenda/