Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda

Gov. Ducey: Resist Tucson’s Demand for Special Homosexual Rights

Message for newly elected Governor Doug Ducey: be wise and resist the pressure from Tucson city leaders to envelop the State of Arizona with the radical homosexual agenda.

Tucson’s city council is demanding Gov. Ducey do just that, based on a vote by the city leaders this week:

The City Council voted unanimously to call on Governor Ducey and our state leaders to support marriage equality, equal LGBT rights, and advocate for a highly diverse statewide workforce and community. The City’s Small, Minority and Women-Owned Business Commission originated the recommendation and sent it to Mayor and Council for action yesterday.

 

Gov. Ducey, if you are not aware … this is a power move by a radical, fringe element of society that wants to make all of America subservient to a freedom-destroying agenda. It will elevate a tiny, tiny majority — less than two percent of Arizona’s population — to a status of privilege that will subjugate the masses to a severe loss of constitutional freedom.

 

The call for equal rights is a red herring that will substantially harm free speech and the free exercise of religion for all Arizonans.

 

The demand for a highly diverse statewide workforce and community is subterfuge for an extreme left-wing movement to silence the voice of Bible-believing Christians. As you know, Gov. Ducey, Arizona is a highly diverse state now. Any special privilege given to this tiny, vocal left-wing minority will result in policy that will be dangerously above and beyond the Constitution. Anyone who opposes this agenda on moral grounds will be severely demonized. We are already seeing the results of this agenda, as hard-working, honest and law-abiding citizens are under attack for attempting to exercise their rights of conscience. Litigious groups across America are proving that religious freedom and the homosexual agenda are not compatible.

 

Marriage equality has existed throughout Arizona’s history as a state since 1912. More than 1.2 million Arizona voters went to the polls to enact marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is the bulwark of society the world over.

 

But then last fall one rogue federal judge in Phoenix disenfranchised those voters to throwing their votes in the trash can and, legislating improperly from the bench, unilaterally declared same-sex “marriage” legal. Our attorney general is now opposing that alarming and outrageous act of judicial over-reach. We pray that higher courts will sensibly overturn this unwise action by the federal judge and restore the social order in Arizona. We ask that you support the efforts of Attorney General Mark Brnovich and others working to strengthen the marriage culture in Arizona and to protect it from further judicial incursions.

 

The people who are demanding you exercise your power to destroy Arizona’s marriage culture and hand them special privileges opposed your election. They are aligned with the Democratic Party. In fact, they and other radical left-wing elements have seized control of the Democratic Party. Their vision and their agenda for Arizona and the nation will cause long-term damage if they succeed.

 

Resist. Protect faith and families, religious freedom, free speech. Do not allow this trojan horse to damage Arizona’s cultural landscape. Stand against this attack on common sense.

 

Homosexuals are not subject to job loss or discrimination in hiring in Arizona. They have always had the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because they don’t like that choice is insufficient reason to change the law. The majority of Americans oppose their efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

 

There is nothing lacking in diversity in Arizona today and no reason exists to elevate rules, regulations or law that damage the balance of freedom in the Grand Canyon State.

 

We trust you will do the right thing, Mr. Governor. Thank you.

Religious Liberty Under Assault from Special Rights Efforts

An Open Letter to the Judge Who Disenfranchised 1.2 Million Voters

An Open Letter to U.S. District Judge John Sedwick:

I am one of the more than 1.2 million Arizonans who was disenfranchised last fall when you exceeded your authority and redefined marriage in our state. The nature of highly important issues like marriage is best left to the voice of their people or their elected representatives in the legislative branch. Arbitrary decisions like yours were never intended to be left to the judicial branch. You acted without the authority to do so.

Here’s how your regrettable decision will impact our communities:

More children will grow up without their father. Fatherlessness has wrought a devastating effect on our society.

More children will grow up without the nurturing care of their mother

More children will struggle in school.

More children will grow up in confusion about themselves and their sexuality.

More children will be subject to pornography. More of them will act out what they’ve seen, on other children.

More children will be placed at higher risks of sexual assault and rape. They’ll carry this trauma with them the rest of their lives.

More adults will be subject to domestic violence. This will create a greater drain on public resources left to pick the pieces.

There will be more divorce.

Your actions will reward alcohol and drug abuse.

There will be more STDs and AIDs in our Arizona communities traceable directly to your decision.

And you can’t have more drug and alcohol abuse and more disease without having more absenteeism in our work places.

All of these claims are backed up by decades of social science research in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you doubt that, please scan The Arizona Conservative website or contact us for the data.

Furthermore, you have seriously damaged the democratic process in Arizona. How many Arizonans will now be skeptical about engaging in the proposition process? How many more people are now left with an attitude that asks, “why should I bother to vote when a single judge can just throw my vote in the trash?”

You may never realize the damage you have wrought. But as we wrote to you before: when you come to a gate in the road, stop and ponder why it was placed there in the first place before you remove it.

Arizona, and America, need a strong marriage culture. It can’t be strengthened by redefining it, as you did. Nor can you lightly brush off the disenfranchising of 1.2 million Arizonans who enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment with good intentions and for good reason.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

The Arizona Conservative

Does Abuse Contribute to the Development of Same-Sex Attraction?

You won’t get the following scientific information from the left-stream media or the government schools. They are purposely withholding the truth about same-sex attraction. To be fully informed about the truth, please read below:

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday. People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the ‘non-exclusively heterosexual” groups. Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.  Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behavior.”

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/117336/sexual-orientation-link-past-study

Several studies have demonstrated that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to report childhood abuse and adult sexual assault. It is unknown, however, which sexual minority women are most likely to experience such abuse. We recruited adult sexual minority women living in the US through electronic fliers sent to listservs and website groups inviting them to complete an online survey (N=1,243). We examined differences in both childhood abuse and adult sexual assault by women’s current gender identity (i.e., butch, femme, androgynous, or other) and a continuous measure of gender expression (from butch/masculine to femme/feminine), adjusting for sexual orientation identity, age, education, and income. Results indicated that a more butch/masculine current self-assessment of gender expression, but not gender identity, was associated with more overall reported childhood trauma. Although one aspect of gender expression, a more butch/masculine gender role, was associated with adult sexual assault, feminine appearance and a femme gender identity also significantly predicted adult sexual assault. These findings highlight the significance of gender identity and expression in identifying women at greater risk for various abuse experiences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758810/

43 percent of males with same sex attraction reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of males with opposite sex attraction.

Source: Manosevitz, “Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males,” Journal of abnormal psychology, 76 (1970), 396-402.

A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became same sex attracted, versus opposite sex attracted.

Source: Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, Sexual preference: Its development in men and women (1981). 7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.

Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became same sex attracted suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse did not.

Source: Sheir and Johnson, Sexual victimization of boys:… (1988) pp. 1189-93

“This report describes the high prevalence and context of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among men who have sex with men (MSM) across 3 independent qualitative studies.” ‘Childhood sexual abuse in men who have sex with men: results from three qualitative studies.’”

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY…2008 Oct;14(4):385-90.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954175

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner. They are only 2-3% of the entire population. And the median age of first contact was as young as 10 years old!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1486514

The Archives of Sexual Behavior: “One of the most salient findings was that 46% of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”

(Marie, E. Tomeo “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons.” Source:Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

..homosexual attraction was greater in pedophiles than in other adults involved with sexual crimes with nearly a 2:1 difference.”

‘Review of 554 Medical Reports on Pedophilia’

Dr. John Hughes D.M.,M.D.,PhD., Medline Clinical Pediatrics: (See here & here).

A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”

Source: Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1737828/

A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes.’”

Source: Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people who experienced no victimization as children.”

Source: Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”

Source: Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): pg. 582.

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”

Source: Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995). p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

Some homosexual activists have argued that sexual abuse shows no causal effects for lesbianism. Feel free to dig around on this point. You will find that is probable that self-identified lesbians have been participants in the samples of these studies, but they rarely have been studied separately from their heterosexual counterparts ( Source: Baker, 2003. Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: Community, identity, and resilience. Canadian Journal of Community, 22, 31-45).

So the reality is that there hasn’t really been a big effort to study a link between child sex abuse and lesbianism, but it looks like some have more recently…

“Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%).” (2008 May;17)

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447763/

“…lesbians reported a greater incidence than their sisters of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as adult sexual abuse.” ‘Sexual and physical abuse: a comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters’”

University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 2009;56(4):407-20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418332

“Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013) presented evidence that childhood maltreatment is related to adult homosexuality, using an instrumental variables regression analysis. Briefly, several instrumental variables—presence of a stepparent, poverty, parental alcohol abuse, and parental mental illness—were related to adult homosexuality, but these relations were statistically mediated by childhood maltreatment. Roberts et al. concluded that childhood maltreatment causes adult homosexuality.”
 

And more independent data found within this link:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/

Mom + Dad = Marriage

A Casualty of Love: the daughter of two moms speaks out

A single Arizona judge has taken the audacious step of overthrowing Arizona’s constitutional marriagement amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. He mistakenly and purposefully is denying children of what they need most: a mom and a dad. Read this account of what this judge, and many other judical activists around the nation, are doing by writing new, unwanted laws, from the bench.

By Meg

I was raised by my biological mother and her same-sex partner. I have only a few fuzzy memories of my father: a phone call here and there, his deep and unfamiliar voice wishing me a happy birthday, and a dim picture of the way the furniture had been arranged in his house. I have less than a handful of pictures of him. My mom and dad were married for a short time but she left him when I was too young to remember. She always knew she was gay and she wanted a chance to be happy with someone she really loved—with a woman.

I was raised in an area that was pretty liberal, open, and accepting of gays and lesbians. I know my mother experienced a lot of pain at the hands of others because of her sexuality, but as a child of same-sex parents, I was never mistreated because of it. I had two loving mothers who cared for my every need and with whom I have many wonderful and sweet memories. There was one need, however, that they could never meet no matter how much they loved me: the need for a father.

I love my mom deeply, fiercely, and unconditionally. She is an incredible woman, but I cannot pretend that her decision to leave my father and raise me with another woman did not have long-term and devastating consequences for me. I am a casualty of same-sex parenting. You see, I also love my absent father. I love a man whom I don’t even know. A man who, by all accounts, is a lousy father. I don’t know why I love him, I just do. When you are separated from a parent, for whatever reason, a wound is inflicted upon you. I ached for my father to love me. I ached for the father I knew I would never have. Losing my father was a tragedy in my life and it is a loss that I feel deeply every day. It’s a loss that can be ignored or numbed, for a short time, but never forgotten. Growing up without my dad colored everything about me. I had abandonment issues. I expected and feared that everyone close to me would leave me. Even as an adult I still grieve for what was taken from me. It wasn’t until my husband and I had children and I watched him with our kids that the full weight of what I’d lost with my own father hit me. And it hit me like a ton of bricks. Many people believe that so long as a child has two parents, gender doesn’t matter. But it does. I shouldn’t love my dad, but I do. I should love my “other mom,” but I don’t. I can’t change that, though I’ve definitely tried.

My relationship with my “other mom” was awkward. She helped raise me through my most formative years and I cannot recall life without her. I have many fond memories with her, but what I mostly remember is how awkward and uncomfortable our relationship felt. I had a mom, a dad whom I ached for, and then I had her. I hated the times she would try to parent me by offering me comfort or discipline. I accepted her only as my mom’s partner, not as a parent. Later, when she and my mom split up I felt relieved. I felt sad for my mom but I didn’t miss my “other mom” despite the fact that she raised me as her own daughter.

As a child growing up within the gay community, I was exposed to a lot of inappropriate things very early on. From the adult toys and pornographic magnets in the local gay and lesbian bookstore, to the men who parade around in S&M costumes at gay pride festivals. My interaction with and exposure to these parts of the larger gay culture and my missing father created the perfect storm that led to my early sexualization. As I got older, I used attention from boys to try to fill the wound my missing father left. I found myself in two abusive relationships in college because I was looking for the love and approval of a man but I had no idea how a good man should treat me. I accepted almost anyone who would “love” me.

Do I wish my mom lived a miserable life married to a man she didn’t love? No. I want my mom to be happy. But I also wish that she and my dad did love each other and that somehow it could have worked out. Her happiness cost me a great deal. We have to recognize that all children of same-sex parents are being raised in brokenness. Something precious and irreplaceable has been taken from us. Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent. In my case, and in many like mine, I was raised by same-sex parents because I was intentionally separated from my other biological parent and then told that “all that matters is love” and “love makes a family”. Love matters, but accepting and promoting same-sex parenting promotes the destruction of families, not the building of families.

Mesa Tribune in the Tank for Same-Sex Marriage

A Mesa Tribune article offers more evidence that the left-stream media just cannot be trusted to be honest with Arizona’s citizens. The article “No Easy Answer” plays fast and loose with the reality of the existing marriage culture in Arizona.

The story co-written January 18 by Jeff Grant and Eric Mungenast gets it wrong right out of the starting gate.

The co-writers open by referring to an October 17 federal court ruling in Arizona that allows homosexuals to marry. Then it goes on to say churches in Arizona differ on whether or not to marry same-sex couples — basing their positions on the Bible.

The court actually struck down Arizona’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Newly elected Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is fighting against this blatant act of judicial activism.

Next the Tribune writers remarkably claim, “As confusing as it may seem, the dueling positions are part of the landscape upon which the state is forging ahead in the new era of homosexual rights in what’s considered one of the most fundamental of those rights — that two people who love each other to be legally united.

First, the state is not “forging ahead in a new era of homosexual rights.” More than 1.2 million Arizonans voted to enact marriage law … and they endorsed the long-held, by societies through the annals of time, commonsense recognition of marriage as one man and one woman.

A single activist judge disenfranchised those voters by turning democracy on its head and moving Arizona backwards to a point of not recognizing that boys and girls need a mother and a father. If the state is supposedly “forging ahead” and re-thinking marriage, someone forgot to tell the state and millions of voting citizens.

The next problem is that Grant and Mungenast fail to understand the nature of marriage. When county officials grant requests for marriage licenses they do not inquire if the couple are in love. That’s because marriage is a private commitment with a public purpose. If marriage was only about love, you could marry your favorite aunt or uncle. The co-writers are not breaking new ground with their obvious left-wing bias, but merely re-stating the tired, refuted language of homosexual pressure groups. Because left-stream media in Arizona are in the tank for the homosexual agenda.

So it is to be expected that a left-wing mouthpiece like the Tribune would feature a photo with the story of a pastor who said he is willing to marry same-sex couples. And the story also uses a breakout quote from someone in favor of same-sex marriage on page 1 before it jumps inside to page 8. There is nothing in support of current marriage law on page 1.

But then we should never expect anything related to balance in Arizona’s left-stream media coverage of social or political issues. They march in lockstep with those dedicated to tearing down the long-held social order.

On page 8, The propaganda piece quickly establishes a list of churches that will perform same-sex weddings and quotes a person from an organization pressuring for same-sex marriage.

Eventually, and begrudgingly, the story brings in an opponent of same-sex marriage — Past Bart Brauer of a Lutheran church in Tempe. He explains that homosexuality is not how God lives.

The next eight paragraphs are used to affirm same-sex marriage. One person from a homosexual pressure group says we have to wait for religion to evolve to a point of accepting same-sex marriage. He also claims we have to protect religious freedom, but those words ring hollow because homosexual activists and leftist dominated cities are using nondiscrimination policies to trample Christians and First Amendment religious freedom.

Remarkably, the story claims some churches are waiting for the Supreme Court to act on marriage before making their own decisions. Implying that courts — not the Bible, not God’s Word — are the determining factor for some churches. The co-writers also make the point that marrying homosexuals also is broadening the congregation, as if it is a marketing plan.

Shortly before the end of the story, the co-writers quote officials from the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church who uphold marriage as “churches in opposition.”

But then Grant and Mungenast quickly back to their real purpose as they state same-sex couples “turned away are left to find a church willing to perform the ceremony.

Ninety-seven percent of the article is on one side of the issue. That’s unfair and unbalanced.

*          *          *

The Arizona Conservative advocates for marriage as the union of one man and one woman for several reasons:

  1. Homosexuals make up just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and estimates are less than that in Arizona. There is no groundswell of support for same-sex marriage in Arizona, and the judge acted against the compelling interests of this state when he struck down our marriage law.
  2. Despite the repeated inaccuracies of the left-stream media, homosexuality is not genetic. It is the result of environmental impact on individuals, most notably disconnection between father and child, the rape of children (some of whom act upon the pornography they have seen), and activism in public schools and society. Many male homosexuals were sexually abused by men or older boys.
  3. Counseling is available — and effective — in Arizona for individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction.
  4. The pressure groups and the public schools are doing a disservice to people struggling with same-sex attraction by claiming these stressors in their lives are to be celebrated and by demanding radical new laws to normalize homosexuality. The testimonies of thousands of people who came out of homosexuality prove this. People with these struggles need Jesus and the love and compassion of their family, friends and church, as well as counseling, more than anything else. Without these positive influences, it is no wonder so many people struggling with same-sex attraction feel unhappy and unfulfilled.
  5. Children need both a mother and a father. Two men cannot provide the nurturing care of a mother. Two women cannot provide what a father brings to child development.
  6. All the radical laws and rights conferred by activist judges and leftist lawmakers may get those legislators re-elected and those judges celebrated, but they will not heal the hurting hearts of people with same-sex attraction.
  7. The left-stream media in America does a tremendous disservice to people struggling with same-sex attraction by perpetuating false claims about the causes of homosexuality, how many people are struggling with it and by sucking up to homosexual pressure groups. In Arizona, this includes virtually all the television stations, daily newspapers, and numerous radio show hosts.
  8. Heterosexual marriages last far longer than homosexual couplings (more than 10 years on average, compared to 18 months). When hetero couples make it to 10 years, the divorce rate plummets to extraordinary lows. The hetero divorce rate has been declining for several years. The homosexual couples who have been together for several years raise the average UP to 18 months.
  9. The children of hetero parents do better than the confused children in homosexual homes on all accounts. The studies claiming otherwise are unscientific (many subjects were self selected for reasons of bias) and non-representative of the population (due to small sampling sizes). The best science we have, along with the personal testimonies of many adults who grew up with a homosexual parent and the attendant dysfunctions, confirms the problems of same-sex parenting. Thus, it is unwise to allow same-sex adults to adopt children.

You will never hear any of this from the left-stream media; no wonder a majority of Americans do not trust the media for accuracy. Homosexual pressure groups will react to this with anger, not civility, and will claim these facts are “lies.”

These nine points represent the truth and have never been refuted.

Glendale, Fountain Hills Defeat Radical Bathroom Bill Efforts

By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

The Left calls them “fairness ordinances” — but for whom? Certainly not Christians, many of whom are being hauled before city commissions as casualties of them — or worse, losing their jobs and businesses altogether. No, these aren’t fairness ordinances. They’re a license to discriminate against anyone who holds the mainstream view of marriage or sexuality.

Thanks to a very public clash in Houston that pulled back the curtain on the LGBT’s agenda, Americans are starting to wake up to the nightmare of these ordinances, which slipped through too many cities when voters weren’t paying attention. Now they are — and their pushback is throwing a major wrench in the Left’s plans. In states where these measures might have snuck by, more churches and families are on guard, ready to go to the mat against a movement disguised as “equality” but delivering anything but.

This week in Starkville, Mississippi, members of the city council voted 5-2 to rescind a special rights ordinance. People on the ground knew there was storm brewing when Human Rights Campaign came to Starkville and convinced the Mayor to back it. “I just think he hoodwinked the Board,” said Buddy Smith of American Family Association, whose headquarters are in Mississippi. “They didn’t know what they were passing. You know it’s all dressed up in ‘discrimination language’…” “We all know that the mission of the Human Rights Campaign is to create special rights for those who are choosing the homosexual lifestyle — to kind of force this as something that’s good and natural among those who don’t believe that’s good behavior.”

In Fayetteville, it took a groundswell of voters to undo what the liberal council had done. But ultimately, those voters prevailed, voiding a measure by a 52-48 margin that, among other things, would have allowed men to use the girls’ public showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms. The ordinance even made it possible for business owners to face criminal prosecution for failing to follow the government mandates.

For now, Arkansas’s courage seems to have spread all the way to Arizona, where local officials are rethinking a measure that would unfairly punish businesses and conservatives for their faith. Desperately trying to avoid the clash that stole headlines in other areas, the City of Glendale is putting the brakes on their proposal until they can weigh the fallout. Hopefully, they’ll come to the same conclusion as Starkville and avoid Houston’s mistakes, which led to an intrusive, unprecedented attack on area churches.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The mayor and concerned citizens of Fountain Hills also recently beat back an effort by radical leftists to force an unwanted bathroom bill on that community.

Over in Plano, Texas, community leaders are digging in their heels. While the consequences play out in other towns, Mayor Harry LaRosiliere insists, “The Equal Rights Ordinance states that Plano is against discrimination, bullying, and hatemongering.” Maybe, depending on who the targets are. If they’re Christians — like Atlanta fireman Kelvin Cochran — the bullying isn’t just ignored, but encouraged.

That’s why Texas pastors, who are starting to realize the power they have to galvanize their local communities, are leading the charge. Pastor Rafael Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) dad, is seizing the opportunity to call for more people of faith to become involved in the political arena — whether that’s on the local school board, PTA, city council, or legislature.

“We believe the Plano City Council is attempting to silence people of faith in the workplace,” Pastor Mike Buster told reporters at a rally this week. And they aim to stop it. With just 3,822 signatures, the voters of Plano can either force the City Council to repeal the ordinance or put it on the May ballot. Either way, voters will have the final say. Which is exactly how it should be.

Roots of Florist Suit Now Personal

If you’re wondering what the effect of these special rights ordinances actually is, ask Barronnelle Stutzman. The owner of Washington’s Arlene’s Flowers, a fixture in the community for years, is staring down a lawsuit that could take away — not just her business, but her home and all of her personal assets. This week, a Benton County Court ruled that Stutzman could be personally sued because she politely declined to participate in a same-sex “wedding” order from two longtime customers.

In an almost unprecedented move, AG Bob Ferguson made the attack personal, launching a second legal challenge to hold Barronnelle personally and financially responsible. The move, a bold and aggressive one, wasn’t considered all that viable by some experts, who thought Stutzman would be shielded by the Consumer Protection Act.

Not so, ruled Judge Alex Ekstrom. In a 35-page decision, he said the state could move forward with its campaign to financially destroy the Washington grandmother. “The Court concludes that the legislature intended to allow the attorney general independent unfettered authority to bring this action.” In other words, this judge is suggesting that the state should be able to rob you of your home, livelihood, and anything else of value simply because you hold a different political view than the people in power!

That’s a horrifying precedent, one that flies in the face of our basic liberties. But unfortunately, these liberals are echoing what the Houston mayor said: this is personal. And the Left is willing to take down sportscasters, educators, athletes, small businesses, wedding vendors, firefighters, and anyone else to send the message that they will not tolerate disagreement.

As our friends at ADF said, does that sound like freedom to you? Does it sound like fairness? Americans need to wake up and realize that the Left is playing for keeps — and in the case of these special ordinances, those keeps include everything Christians own.

Glendale Pastors Rise up in Defense of Religious Freedom

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

When five Houston pastors had their sermons subpoenaed after speaking out against an overreaching ordinance that severely threatened religious freedom, clergy across the nation began to recognize what is at stake.

Not only are businesses at risk of being penalized or shut down for holding to their religious beliefs, but the fundamental freedoms of churches and pastors are on the line.

It’s in this context that I’ve been blessed to see church leaders throughout the town of Glendale rise up to speak out against a so-called “non-discrimination” ordinance in their town.

Prior to Christmas, some members of the Glendale City Council made it clear their goal was to pass one of these ordinances before the Super Bowl. Yet after an outcry from the people of Glendale and local pastors, this process has been greatly slowed down.

Pastor John Kelley of Calvary Community Church spoke at a Council meeting in December and urged the Council to not hastily pass the measure, and truly hear from the community.

“The city has historically made decisions quickly that we’ve regretted. I plead with the council to not hurry but to listen. It will have a tremendous impact on people of faith as well as the rest of the citizens,” Pastor Kelley said. “Please, listen to us and seek our voice in this decision.”

Then just this week, more than 50 pastors and church leaders from Glendale showed up at the Council to urge them not to pass one these ordinances.

Senator Flake: You’re Just Wrong

Senator John McCain’s surrogate, Senator Jeff Flake, says opponents of Obama’s Cuba normalization “are just plain wrong.”

But here’s the truth: Senator Flake, you’re just wrong about a lot of things.

You’re wrong about Cuba, and you’ve used this topic to deflect your constituents’ attention away from your support for amnesty.

You’re just plain wrong on the need for amnesty.

You’re also wrong on your support for ENDA — the crown piece of legislation coveted by the radical, left, homosexual lobby. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will force churches and others to employ people who disagree with their belief systems, under excessive punishment. It is intended to directly attack and undermine religious freedom in America.

Gee, Senator Flake, you sure agree with our hard-Left president a lot. In fact, the difference between your positions and those of Barack Obama are getting less and less distinguishable as time goes by.