Lost_Hwy's Blog

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

In all, Palin is a liar. She stated in her speech that she "would stand up to lobbyists," yet she hired lobbyists, costing 11 million. One million went to rockfish research, for crying out loud! She sided with McCain when she stated "no earmarks," yet her history of earmarks are well-documented.

People want change. Lying Republicans are no change from what we've endured for the last eight years from Mr. Bush.

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

In all, Palin is a liar. She stated in her speech that she "would stand up to lobbyists," yet she hired lobbyists, costing 11 million. One million went to rockfish research, for crying out loud! She sided with McCain when she stated "no earmarks," yet her history of earmarks are well-documented.

People want change. Lying Republicans are no change from what we've endured for the last eight years from Mr. Bush.

For all the boneheads that consider Global Warming a farce, or a lie concocted by the Dems, or an Al Gore conspiracy to soak tax dollars to fix something that dosen't exist, the North Pole is now an island surrounded by water caused by the melting ice.

Anything else you don't care about because you probably won't see the effects in your lifetime? I know, I know, the heck with the next few generations, it won't affect you.......

Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick for VP, better hurry back to Alaska or she'll miss her court date for using her position for personal reasons..............LOL!

Mrs. Palin is currently under investigation, which in my opinion makes her a typical Republican! Where's this "change" McCain keeps talking about???

All McCain did was, out of sheer desperation, pick a female as his running mate to cater to the voters who were upset that Obama (another lying politician) didn't pick Hillary. Period.

I also think McCain is losing it. He bashes Obama for not having enough experience, then picks Palin, who has no experience whatsoever!

If I were Palin's husband, I'd be keeping a close eye on McCain. Palin is a hottie for sure, and McCain has this reputation for being a lecherous old man. Just ask his ex........

And is Palin, with only two years in office, ready to assume the presidency if McCain passes away? I don't think so!

I think I'll be staying home on election day watching the Gilligan's Island Marathon.........

When John McCain was asked how many homes he owned, he didn't know. The fact is he owns seven homes, valued at 13 million dollars. Was he too embarassed to admit this in light of all the foreclosures, with people struggling to keep ONE HOME? Or is Alzheimer's setting in here?

And why in the hell does he have seven homes in the first place? Hmmmm, could there be a few other mistresses in his life???

I'd ask McCain how he plans on ending the war, but I'm afraid his reply would be "What War?"

Academy Award winning actor Jon Voight, well known for his humanitarian work, wrote the following about Senator Obama;

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Senator Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

I admit I was temporarily fooled by this up and coming "hope for the future" Obama, until his true colors were exposed involving Rev. Wright. There's no way you can be a member of his congregation, and not know what he was really like. Obama is widely considered a "God-like figure" and some sort of rock star, and that's how the Democratic Congress wants to portray him in their effort to gain the young vote. Hopefully those of us who have been around for a while will be able to teach the young voters right from wrong.  I wonder how these young voters feel about our Democratic Congress going on vacation, and completely ignoring the people and their desire to get something done about these gas prices. Nancy Pelosi said she will not call Congress back from their vacations to fix the problem. These are our laughingly our servants that we voted into office! And I have to disagree with Voight's opinion of John McCain, yet he's right on the money about Obama. McCain is a Bush-clone who wants to give even more tax breaks to the major oil companies, instead of closing the loopholes that allow them record profits. And how many years did he say we'd be in Iraq? One hundred???

Obama is NOT the "quick fix" to what Bush has done to this country. Hard to believe this is the best the Dems can offer......

Either way, we're screwed.......

JOHN EDWARDS, for his affair with a campaign worker while his wife battled incurable cancer. I can almost hear Edwards telling his mistress "don't worry about getting caught, she'll be dead soon."

What a great guy, and a fine politician........

Jose Ernesto Medellin is scheduled to be executed by the state of Texas on Tuesday, Aug 5 2008, a date that is, in the estimation of many, not a moment too soon. According to his own confession, and the testimony of others, Medellin and several others brutally gang-raped, beat, then strangled (first with a belt, then with the girls' own shoelaces) 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Peña as the two were walking home on the evening of June 24, 1993. Medellin, et al., further brutalized the girls' bodies after their death "to make sure they were really dead," later bragging to friends.

Without a doubt, these murders constitute two of the most horrible crimes in recent memory. Yet despite the evil inherent in Medellin's actions, and the conviction and death sentence imposed by a jury of his peers, a faction clamors for justice to be hamstrung in favor of an "internationalist" legal standard inconsistent with our domestic rule of law. Central to its argument is the shaky claim that a nonbinding ruling by an international court, existing as part of the United Nations Charter, should somehow trump decisions by Gov. Rick Perry, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. On Friday the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Medellin's latest petition on grounds it was not filed in a timely manner. The background in this case shows how weak and indefensible the "internationalist" argument really is.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires that foreign nationals be given access to their respective consulates within three days of being charged with a crime. Despite living in the United States since the age of 3, Medellin is a Mexican national. Roughly three hours after his arrest, and before the state of Texas was required to notify the Mexican Consulate of his detention, Medellin signed a Miranda waiver and provided a detailed written confession of his crimes. At that time, he was not told of his right to notify the Mexican Consulate of his detention, but was given a court-appointed attorney and was granted the same protections as every other criminal defendant in Texas.

Despite having ample opportunity to do so, Medellin never asserted any rights under the Vienna Convention, either at the guilt or penalty phase of his trial, and was subsequently convicted by a jury of his peers, and sentenced to death.

At his appeal, Medellin never raised his Vienna Convention claim, and his conviction was affirmed. Only in a claim filed in state trial court for post-conviction relief did Medellin decide to raise the Vienna Convention issue.

Notably, the trial court found that Medellin's claim was procedurally defective because he had not raised it at trial, and because he "failed to show that any non-notification of the Mexican authorities impacted ... the validity of his conviction or punishment." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this ruling, as did a federal district court.

Meanwhile, the Mexican government sued the United States in the International Court of Justice, and the ICJ issued a ruling in 2004 requiring that the United States "review and reconsider" Medellin's conviction. Even after reviewing the ICJ decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Medellin's conviction.

In light of the ICJ decision and a Bush administration memo attempting to force Texas to comply, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was asked to reconsider its previous ruling, but denied Medellin's habeas petition again, sending Medellin's case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with the state of Texas in a 6-3 vote. In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that ICJ decisions are not legally binding for any U.S. state, that the ICJ's mandate did not impose individual rights on Medellin that would trump the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' decision that he failed to timely raise the Vienna Convention issue, and that the president had no authority, absent congressional action, to force the state of Texas to comply with the ICJ's decision.

Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often seen as a lover of international law over congressional policy, sided with the majority in the case.

Not to be outdone, and evidently in an attempt to show its relevance and that it was really, really serious before, the ICJ has now issued an order that the United States halt Medellin's execution. Gov. Perry has wisely decided, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion, that the state of Texas will once again ignore the ICJ's demands, even though individuals, through this newspaper, have advocated that he act differently.

Any good that has transpired in this case is twofold. First, justice will finally be served on an individual whom society has determined deserves to pay the ultimate punishment for his horrible crimes. Second, both federal and Texas sovereignty will have prevailed over the banal musings of an international court seeking to impose its will, and arguably its moral compass, on nonconsenting sovereign governments.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rightfully is left to interpret Texas' own criminal procedure, just as it would do in any other case.

But this case remains frightening, because those espousing the "internationalist" perspective seem all too willing to thwart justice, destroy sovereign rights and otherwise thumb their noses at the proper (and unabashedly domestic) rule of law, so that the United States can somehow make friends in the international legal community. This movement is counter to the constitutional principles upon which this country was founded, and must be stopped. Indeed, to place the laws of the state of Texas up for review by any and every international body that wants to opine certainly would be contrary to the system of independent federalism governing our legislative and judicial systems.

Instead, and in the words of Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman: "The world court don't mean diddly. This business belongs in the state of Texas ... the rest of them can go to hell."

Kudos to Gov. Perry and Texas, for ignoring Mr. Bush's absurd memo (hard to believe how he sucks up to Mexico sometimes) and the ICJ.

I was in total shock when the members of Congress took a recess, while the people pleaded with them to stay until something was done about gas prices. They were too busy making their vacation plans, while thumbing their noses at those who voted them into office. Maybe they shouldn't be so confident in thinking they will keep their seats in government! I hope the people will remember how thoughtless and uncaring these worthless individuals were this November. It seems they were too caught up in placing blame in lieu of doing anything constructive, while choosing what swimwear they should take to Hawaii this year.

By the people and for the people? Yeah....RIGHT!

Andy Dick was arrested Wednesday after a 17-year-old accused him of pulling down her tank top.

The former co-star of the TV sitcom "NewsRadio" was released from a detention center after posting $5,000 bail. Calls to his representatives seeking comment were not immediately returned.

Police were called to the Buffalo Wild Wings in Murrieta, California, at about 1:13 a.m. to investigate a report of "an intoxicated male" urinating outside the bar and causing a disturbance, according to a police statement.

When they arrived, a 17-year-old girl told police that she was outside when Dick left the bar, walked up, "grabbed her tank top and bra and pulled them down and exposed her breasts," the statement said.

Friends escorted Dick to a truck, which officers stopped at a nearby Sam's Club, police said.

Dick was identified by the teenager and a witness, police said.

Marijuana and the drug Xanax were found his pants pockets during a search and he appeared "extremely intoxicated," police said.

Dick, 42, was booked at Southwest Detention Center in French Valley, California, on suspicion of felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Dick has a reputation for crude behavior. He has been reported to have exposed himself to audiences at least twice. He was forcibly removed from the set of the show "Jimmy Kimmel Live" last year after he repeatedly touched guest Ivanka Trump without her permission.

Also last year, Dick was cited in Columbus, Ohio, for urinating on the sidewalk. A comedy club owner in the city said the actor also made inappropriate comments while onstage, groped patrons, took women into the men's room and urinated on the floor and on at least one person.

In 1999, Dick was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana after driving his car into a telephone pole in Hollywood, California. He pleaded guilty but the charges were dismissed after he went into a diversion program.

Charges against Dick have been dropped too many times. Yet another indication that celebrities receive preferential treatment from our beloved justice system. Put this trash behind bars!

The following story identifies Andrea Curry-Demus as a female who has a previous history of attempting to steal infants, and now she allegedly murdered someone to steal her unborn child;

Authorities identified 18-year-old Kia Johnson as the woman found tied up with her uterus cut open inside a Pennsylvania apartment, the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's office said Sunday.

The medical examiner says the body found in a Pennsylvania apartment is that of Kia Johnson.

Authorities used dental records to confirm the woman's identity.

Johnson's partially eviscerated body was found at the apartment of a Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, woman who arrived at a hospital with a newborn infant earlier in the week.

A placenta was found at the scene, the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, medical examiner said.

Johnson's body "was in a state of moderate decomposition" and the woman had been dead for about two days, Medical Examiner Karl Williams said in a written statement.

Johnson's hands and feet were bound by duct tape. The cause of death remains undetermined, Williams said.

Drugs were found at the scene, and authorities are awaiting toxicology results to determine whether the woman was sedated, he said. It's unclear whether the woman was alive when the infant was taken, he added.

The body was found Friday at an apartment belonging to a woman with a history of attempting to steal newborns, according to court records obtained by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Andrea Curry-Demus, 38, is charged with endangering the welfare of a child, a felony, and dealing in infant children, a misdemeanor. Court records show that she was arraigned on the felony charge Friday and is next set to appear in court on Thursday. She is being held at the Allegheny County Jail, WTAE reported.

According to a criminal complaint, Curry-Demus was taken by ambulance to a local hospital Wednesday with the baby, claiming it was hers. Tests at the hospital proved that she was not the mother, and police were notified.

Curry-Demus told Grande she had suffered a miscarriage in June and "did not want her mother to get upset."

In the complaint, Detective Rich Grande said Curry-Demus told him she purchased the baby from a woman named Tina for $1,000. Morton said fingerprint testing had ruled out a woman named Tina Carter, one of two other pregnant black women who have been reported missing in the area.

The baby is in good condition, a hospital spokeswoman said, and will be released to child welfare workers when he is ready.

Reporters visiting Curry-Demus' apartment earlier Friday had noticed flies and smelled an odor from the sidewalk below, WTAE said. Police Chief Ophelia Coleman said the body was not found earlier because Curry-Demus' sister led them to another apartment.

Friends and relatives said Curry-Demus had told them she was pregnant for months, even having a baby shower.

"I went to the baby shower and her wedding," Ivee Blunt said. "I had no idea something like this could happen. I'm totally shocked. And she was so nice and kind. It's just unbelievable."

But Stephanie Epps, Curry-Demus' sister-in-law, said Curry-Demus would never allow her to touch her stomach.

"Pregnant women do things like that," she said. "They're happy because they're pregnant. But she would never do none of that."

As she was led out of the Wilkinsburg Police Department, Curry-Demus told reporters, "I didn't do nothing," according to WTAE.

According to court records obtained by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Curry-Demus became pregnant at 12 and miscarried four months later. She had a second miscarriage in 1990, when she was 21, the paper said.

Only a few months after the second miscarriage, Curry-Demus befriended a woman who had just given birth but later attacked her with a knife and tried to steal the baby, the paper said, citing the court records.

The woman's husband intervened, and she fled, the newspaper reported.

The next day, she went to a hospital and befriended a woman who had brought her 3-week-old daughter to the hospital to be treated for meningitis, the Tribune-Review said.

When the woman went home for the night, Curry-Demus left the hospital with the baby. It was found at her home, unharmed, the following day.

In 1991, according to the records, she pleaded guilty to various charges stemming from both incidents and was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison, the newspaper reported.

She was paroled in August 1998 and ordered to serve 10 years of probation, the paper said.

Curry-Demus was examined by psychiatrists at the Allegheny County Jail before her sentencing and was diagnosed with severe depression, personality disorders and auditory hallucinations, the newspaper reported, citing court records.

She told doctors she spent a lot of time thinking about her miscarriages and "kept hearing babies cry," the Tribune-Review said.

Earlier this year, a Kansas woman was sentenced to death in the 2004 killing of a Missouri woman whose baby was cut from her womb.

Lisa Montgomery was convicted in October in the death of Bobbie Jo Stinnett, 23, who was found strangled in her Skidmore, Missouri, home. Stinnett's womb was cut open, and her unborn child was missing. Montgomery was found days later at home in Kansas, where she was attempting to pass the baby off as her own.

Why this woman wasn't behind bars is a travesty of justice. Seven years in prison, and nothing has been learned. If Curry-Demus has indeed committed murder, and placed the health of an unborn infant at risk, then hopefully justice will finally be served and she will receive the death penalty for this heinous crime.

Again, gays twist and turn God's words around to fit their agenda. Again, they insist they are Christians, and living Christian lives. They insist on "shoving their lifestyles down our throats."

Here's another insight for those who feel they deserve "rights" for a lifestyle of choice;

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

1. They are made that way.

2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.

4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said …

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

1. The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

2. The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

3. Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).” 9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan loved David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11

However, “David's love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can't help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis

The gay community will insist that we are all sinners, yet another excuse for them to live in sin. True Christians will repent their sins and ask for God's forgiveness. They don't insist on their "right" to live the rest of their lives in sin.

Again, gays twist and turn God's words around to fit their agenda. Again, they insist they are Christians, and living Christian lives. They insist on "shoving their lifestyles down our throats."

Here's another insight for those who feel they deserve "rights" for a lifestyle of choice;

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

1. They are made that way.

2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.

4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said …

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

1. The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

2. The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

3. Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).” 9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan loved David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11

However, “David's love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can't help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis

The gay community will insist that we are all sinners, yet another excuse for them to live in sin. True Christians will repent their sins and ask for God's forgiveness. They don't insist on their "right" to live the rest of their lives in sin.

For those who feel I'm "obsessed" with the subject, you have had your say and I'll have mine. I feel a rebuttal is in order, no matter how much you may dislike it. Your argument that those who are opposed to the gay agenda are "homophobic," "obsessed," or just merely "gay-bashing" is a lame attempt at hiding the truth, which gays will always try to hide. The truth just dosen't support their agenda.

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

For those who feel I'm "obsessed" with the subject, you have had your say and I'll have mine. I feel a rebuttal is in order, no matter how much you may dislike it. Your argument that those who are opposed to the gay agenda are "homophobic," "obsessed," or just merely "gay-bashing" is a lame attempt at hiding the truth, which gays will always try to hide. The truth just dosen't support their agenda.

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated wit