By succumbing to homosexual activist pressure, the Boy Scouts of America has ensured that a mass exodus of boys will flow from its membership ranks. Already, pro-family conservatives have scheduled a planning meeting to form a wholesome alternative to the Scouts.

By Peter LaBarbera

May 23, 2013 was a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), and another tragic day for an America in decline. The Scouts’ corporate-driven leaders in their folly put sexual morality up for a vote, and when it was all over, the Scouts as we once knew them – a God-fearing, wholesome organization – were finished. Now, truly “morally straight” organizations (to quote the Scout Oath) will rise up to compete with the corrupted BSA, and parents by the hundreds of thousands will migrate with their sons to these trustworthy alternatives.

This was a completely unnecessary capitulation. The equivocating Scouts somehow managed to snatch defeat from their hard-won victory in the Supreme Court in 2000 – which preserved the Scouts’ right to live by their own moral creed. Now they have eviscerated that creed, thus rewarding the very Homosexual Lobby that tormented the BSA since its high court triumph.

Pursuing godliness and virtue is not a democratic exercise but a walk of obedience. Truth is transcendent; it is not decided by polls or votes. (Two men or two women will never truly be “married.”) We all fall short and hence need a Savior, but absolute Truth never changes. God – not man — sets the Standard for proper living. Allowing boys who identify with and, presumably, engage in homosexual behavior is the opposite of virtue — and certainly wasn’t a Scouting value in my father’s and grandfather’s America.

Let’s cut through all the pro-“gay” noise that infests most discussions of this issue. Practicing homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle choice and a sin. It is immoral, against Nature, and changeable – as evidenced by the countless men (like Michael Glatze) and women (like Charlene Cothran) who once proudly considered themselves “gay” but now live in accordance with God’s natural design for their bodies.

Homosexuality is not the basis for healthy self-identity. “Sexual orientation” is an artificial construct because homosexuality is not “who you are,” it’s what you do. And when people make sinful choices bad things happen. (I should add that most homosexuals come from troubled backgrounds, including: dysfunctional parent-child relationships; lack of a father; divorced households; early sexualization; and sexual predator abuse. But these “causes” – while meriting our pity and understanding — do not condone the behavioral choice of embracing a homosexual lifestyle.)

Homosexuality is about as natural, normal and healthy as a tongue piercing. Actually, it’s much riskier: in fact, if this were any other behavior, there would be a full-scale government/corporate mobilization against it (like smoking). Consider these alarming statistics on male homosexuality and HIV from a December 2012 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

“CDC estimates that MSM represent approximately 4 percent of the male population in the United States but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-quarters (78 percent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).”

No honorable organization would confirm boys and young men in an immoral sexual “identity” associated with such disproportionate, massive health risks. Shame on the Boy Scouts, and on their sponsors – most notably, the Mormon and Catholic Churches — for failing to use their considerable leverage with the BSA to stop this “gay” surrender.

In the end, the Scouts behaved a lot like the America they serve – as if it were all (or mostly) about the money, rather than Truth, Honor and Integrity. Effectively blackmailed by CEOs representing corporate giants (e.g., UPS, Intel, AT&T) that had already sold out on homosexuality, the BSA leaders panicked out of fear of losing more Fortune 500 grants.

The Scouts may have preserved their Big Business money, but in the end they lost their soul and their reputation. Ironically, the same cunning homosexual activists who pressured corporations to defund the Scouts now say they have only begun to fight for “progressive” change in the BSA. The homosexual pressure group GLAAD vows to “continue to keep the pressure on [the BSA] and fight for full equality.” (Read: openly homosexual adult Scoutmasters: a very bad idea; I have called on the Boy Scouts to publicly release all of their so-called “perversion files” documenting molestation of boys, going back decades, because parents have a right to know.)

The BSA’s sellout Thursday ensures that homosexual activists and their lawyers ultimately will win. Appeasement never works.

But every “gay” victory is a Pyrrhic victory. The Scouts, now having alienated their most fervent pro-family defenders, will go the way of the Episcopal Church, which infamously approved homosexual bishops (and other nonsense). The Libertine Left cheers the breakdown of America’s Judeo-Christian morality. They boast that homosexuality-based “marriage “ is “inevitable” and relish the diminishment of religious authority in America.

But God is never mocked, and we reap what we sow. Actions have consequences, as the Scouts will soon discover in lost members.

Truth be told, aren’t we as a society a lot like the new, sin-tolerant Scouts? Modern liberalism, like the BSA, pays lip service to God even as it kicks Him to the curb. But we can’t blame it all on the liberals, because libertarians and even self-professed “conservatives” also are getting behind perversion as a “civil  right.” Yes, even FOX News now shills for the love – can we imagine it? – that once dared not speak its name.

In today’s Profane America, homosexualism is gladly promoted to impressionable youth. Meanwhile, churches march in homosexual “pride” parades and bless the oxymoronic absurdity of homosexual “marriage” – which is such an affront to our holy Creator that it should be called “blasphemage.“ Men and women in their pride craft politically correct “gods” in their own image, but in the end sin is sin, and our national character is degraded, one sellout at a time.

——————————————-

Peter LaBarbera, a former Washington Times reporter, is founder and president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Permission to reprint granted provided a link is given to AFTAH.org. Phone: 312-324-3787; e-mail: americansfortruth@gmail.com. Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera.

Logo for Department of Justice homosexual-bisexual-transsexual employees group, “DOJ Pride.”

By Matt Barber

Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.

The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the Left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:

• “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

• “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

• DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
• DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

• “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

• “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

• “DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
• “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that's a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you're a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. He also serves as Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law and co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. Send comments to Matt atjmattbarber@comcast.net. Matt is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Homosexual male pornography often has military themes. This hard-core porn video (nudity covered by AFTAH) is titled, “Military Dorm.” It is sold by the homosexual porn video retailer TLA, which annually has booths at “Gay Pride” events (which are attended by young children).

Folks, we knew this was coming when President Obama and the Democrats pushed through the homosexualization of the U.S. Military. (Actually, Bill Clinton started the process in his first term.) Male-on-male military sexual assaults are escalating. As AFTAH has previously reported, and sickening as it is, one of the realities of homosexualism is that many homosexual men are sexually attracted to macho, “straight acting” men and men in uniform (as opposed to effeminate men). The latter is evidenced by the abundance of male homosexual pornography that has a military (men in uniform) angle. [See "gay" military porn video at right.]

When a society treats sexual perversion and immorality as a “civil right,” terrible things like this happen. ”Progressive” change is fueled by feelings and emotionally potent euphemisms like “fairness” and “equality.” Then reality hits, and the liberals make no connection between their “reforms” and the problems they caused. Americans For Truth will follow this story closely. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; please “Like” AFTAH’s Facebook page. 

_________________________

Excerpted from the Washington Times:

Victims of Sex Assaults in Military are Mostly Men

By Rowan Scarborough, May 200, 2013

More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults.

When the Defense Department released the results of its anonymous sexual abuse survey this month and concluded that 26,000 service members were victims in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, an automatic assumption was that most were women. But roughly 14,000 of the victims were male and 12,000 female, according to a scientific survey sample produced by the Pentagon.

The statistics show that, as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel begins a campaign to stamp out “unwanted sexual contact,” there are two sets of victims that must be addressed.

“It appears that the DOD has serious problems with male-on-male sexual assaults that men are not reporting and the Pentagon doesn’t want to talk about,” Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. She noted that only 2 percent of assailants are women.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Office is tackling the entire problem….

The Pentagon’s 1,400-page annual report came with two basic sets of data: official reports of sex crimes and a scientific survey sample of the 1.4 million active force from which the department extrapolated the number of abuses, regardless of whether they were officially reported.

Data showed 2,949 reports of abuse against a service member last year compared with 1,275 in 2004. The vast majority of victims (88 percent) were female — a statistic that tells the Pentagon that male victims (12 percent) do not come forward at the same rate.

Subjects of investigations are almost always men (90 percent), compared with women (2 percent) — a statistic indicating that male victims are assaulted by other men.

The survey determined that 26,000 service members were victims of sexual assault last year, based on the 6.1 percent of female and 1.2 percent of male respondents who claimed to have suffered such abuse. With an active-duty force of 200,000 women and 1.2 million men, that amounts to roughly 12,000 female victims and 14,000 male victims.

“The [Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Office] continues to focus its attention on women who experience abuse but don’t report it, overlooking the far greater numbers of men who, according to the survey, are experiencing abuse but not reporting it,” said Mrs. Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness.

“If the Pentagon considers the survey results a credible reflection of hidden reality, they must also concede that there are more men than women who are being sexually assaulted,” she said. [continued; read the full Times story HERE]

Conservative and Christian companies like Chick-fil-A could win the support and loyalty of countless millions of American consumers by offering to the Boy Scouts of America to make up for any lost donations from pro-homosexual corporations like UPS. Last year, UPS cut its gifts to the Scouts, ironically in the name of pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Press Release

Contact: 312-324-3787; americansfortruth@gmail.com

May 21, 2013

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement regarding the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) vote this week on allowing openly homosexual members:

“Americans For Truth calls on Christian and conservative philanthropists and patriotic corporations to step up to the plate and publicly pledge to the Boy Scouts to make up financially for any losses in donations the BSA would face by maintaining its existing ‘Morally Straight’ policy.

“Homosexual activists pressured major corporations like UPS to stop giving to the Scouts – ironically, in the name of ‘nondiscrimination.’ This caused BSA leaders to panic and start abandoning their common-sense policy prohibiting openly homosexual Scouts.

“It’s time to end the financial tyranny of morally-compromised corporate liberals. We call on conservatives who have been blessed financially by God to put their money to good use — by neutralizing the Left’s ‘corporate blackmail’ against the beleaguered Scouts.

“The BSA must be saved in spite of its own politically correct leadership. The Scouts are under pressure from large corporate donors and CEOs on their leadership team who themselves have capitulated to the Homosexual Lobby. On Thursday — after national outrage delayed the BSA’s potential pro-homosexual sellout — local Scout Councils from across America will meet in Texas to vote on a ‘compromise’ BSA proposal that would allow openly homosexual Boy Scouts. [See Eagle Scout John Stemberger’s open letter to the BSA delegates urging a “NO” vote.]

“This issue is much bigger than the Scouts. America’s moral foundations are crumbling under the weight of well-financed ‘gay’ pressure groups and a popular culture that displaces ‘reverence’ for God (to quote the Scout Law) with anarchic hedonism. Our boys are vulnerable to well-marketed LGBT cultural advocacy that redefines sexual immorality and deviancy as a ‘civil right.’

“Anyone with a moral backbone understands the dangerous folly of a supposed ‘Morally Straight’ boys organization admitting members who embrace a sexual perversion disproportionately linked to HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases. This is one Pandora’s Box the Scouts must not open.

“Where are the conservative heroes or Christian companies like Chick-fil-A or who will put their money where their beliefs are by bravely stepping forward to fund and save the Scouts?”

Stephen Graham

After a hiatus, AFTAH is back on the air. This podcast [click HERE to listen], recorded May 16, 2013, is Part One of our interview with Mormon pro-family activist Stephen Graham, founder of Standard of Liberty, a group based in Pleasant Grove, Utah. Graham discusses the Mormon Church’s (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) retreat on the homosexualist agenda — especially after the LDS Church was hammered by the pro-”gay” Left for funding and supporting the Prop 8 constitutional amendment to protect marriage in California as one-man, one-woman. At about the 8:18 point on this audio, Graham cuts to the root of the Mormon pullback in resisting the overarching ”gay” agenda (including “same-sex marriage”): a fear that bad publicity will limit the ability of its farflung missionaries to engage potential converts.

Graham describes his disappointment with Mormon Church leaders for failing to stand resolutely against the liberalization of the current Boy Scouts of America (BSA) policy prohibiting openly homosexual Scouts. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, co-host John Kirkwood and Graham agree that had LDS leaders done so — given the Mormons’ huge sway with the Scouts — the potential for BSA capitulation on the homosexual issue would have been greatly diminished. LaBarbera references a Mother Jones article about the LDS Church cuttin back on funding anti-”homosexual marriage” state ballot measures in 2012, and Graham says the MJ article is accurate. The discussion ends with a focus on how the fear of losing corporate funding led to the Scouts’ proposed policy change — and how pro-family companies like Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby should step in and offer to make up any lost corporate grants to the BSA.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

5-16-13, Steve Graham, Part One

AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera speaking at IFI rally against homosexuality-based “marriage.” He is holding a “children’s” book, “King & King,” that promotes same-sex “marriage” to innocent children. The book is about a prince who “marries” another prince, rather than a princess. A man disrupted the speech, yelling out to LaBarbera and demanding to know if he wanted to “round up” homosexuals and put them in camps. Photo: IFI. Click on photos to enlarge.

The following is adapted from a speech I gave Saturday (May 11, 2013) at a rally in Western Springs, Illinois, home district to State Rep. Jim Durkin (R). The rally was one of several sponsored by the Illinois Family Institute to educate citizens on the threat of “same-sex marriage” legislation in Springfield. Despite Democratic super-majorities in both House and Senate, the homosexual “marriage” bill (SB 10} has stalled in the Illinois General Assembly. A coalition of Christians — Black, White and Latino — is leading the charge against SB 10, against a far better funded pro-homosexual opposition in Springfield. IFI is to be commended for holding back the media-backed push for same-sex “marriage” against much-better funded pro-homosexual opponents. Click HERE for their Resource Page on homosexual “marriage.” — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

______________________________

Good afternoon, thank you for coming and thanks to IFI for sponsoring these marriage rallies.

I have a question for you today: do you fear God or do you fear man?  If you fear God, you will shudder at the thought of attaching the noble, life-giving, God-ordained institution of Marriage to a deviant sexual lifestyle – homosexuality – that God Himself condemns as sin.

But if you fear man, you will worry about being Politically Incorrect – or being called a “bigot” or a “homophobe,” simply because you believe Marriage is what it is: a sacred union between a man and a woman.

I stand before you today as one who fears God.  But I also fear for this once-great State of Illinois – that more and more kicks God to the curb.  Yes, the Land of Lincoln has become the Land of Liberals, and liberals are destroying this state, and this Nation.

We’re here today to fight against the secular progressives’ latest social experiment – marriage (so-called), based on homosexuality, which God calls an abomination. Liberals and homosexual activists call this “Marriage Equality,” but we know there’s nothing “equal” about it.  Two men or two women cannot produce children without the assistance of heterosexuality, so enough about “Marriage Equality.”  It’s just not equal.

But it’s not just liberal Democrats promoting this bad idea, it’s liberal Republicans like Pat Brady, who finally stepped down as Chairman of the Illinois GOP. Let’s be clear: when Mr. Brady – a close friend of Representative Jim Durkin – came out for homosexuality-based “marriage” (so-called), he did not just come out against the clear language of the Illinois Republican Platform (which calls for a state constitutional amendment to preserve Marriage as one-man, one-woman).  No, Brady came out against God’s natural plan for Marriage.

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of “Nature and Nature’s God.”  Attaching unnatural and wrong behavior to marriage is an offense against Nature and Nature’s God.  And when you defy Nature, bad things happen.  Listen to this shocking quote from the federal Centers for Disease Control last December: CDC estimates that MSM – that’s “Men who have Sex with Men” – “represent approximately four percent of the male population in the United States, but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-fourths (78 percent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).”

Our government should be warning against the dangers of homosexuality, not trying to call it “marriage.”

But none of that matters to the politicians who want to make Illinois the 12th [now 13th] state to allow homosexuality-based “marriage” (so-called).  Aren’t you tired of politicians who pay lip service to God and then work directly against His will? Who talk about health like Michelle Obama and then advance an agenda that promotes unhealthy behavior and endangers public health?

Just like with abortion, we now see Catholic and Protestant politicians alike who defy the tenets of their own professed faith to pander to the well-funded Homosexual Lobby.  Oh yes, when it’s campaign season, they’re “religious.” But down in Springfield, it’s another matter. Some day these phony-baloney politicians like Mike Madigan will learn the hard way that God is not mocked.

Two princes kiss in the “children’s” picture book, “King & King.” Legalized “gay marriage” makes it easier for activist-minded teachers to promote the acceptance of homosexuality in public schools — even to young kids who don’t know what sex is yet.

The Truth is, a vote for homosexuality-based “marriage” (so-called) is not just a vote against God, and against Nature, it’s also a vote against innocent children – who will be indoctrinated in public schools in the supposed normalcy of two men or two women getting “married.”  The homosexual agenda corrupts the minds and souls of even very young children, with picture books like “King and King” – about a prince that wants to marry another prince instead of a princess!But it gets worse: the reality of so-called “gay marriage” is that it will encourage the teaching of homosexual “sex ed” – that is, teaching homosexual sex acts like rectal sex as if they are normal, because, after all, if homosexuals can get “married” (so-called), how could we “discriminate” against those relationships in teaching sex-ed?  According to the way liberals think, all relationships are “equal” and worthy of marriage, so watch out for what our kids will be taught!

Folks, this is modern liberalism, promoting evil in the name of “civil rights.” And how dare they equate interracial couples with homosexual “marriage.”  Last I heard, interracial couples produce beautiful children and families, which will never result from homosexual [sexual] unions.  I know it’s Politically Incorrect to say so, but Heterosexuality is Right and Homosexuality is Wrong.

Men and women united in the bond of marriage produce children and families, and future generations. What do two men engaged in sodomy (even cloaked in a “civil union”) produce? Nothing. That’s why society has a natural interest in promoting real marriage and no interest in homosexual unions. And society certainly has NO interest in incentivizing through government the creation of more households with children who are intentionally denied a Mom or a Dad. In fact, the opposite.

But in addition to homosexuality-based “marriage” (so-called) being Against God, Against Nature, and Against Children, it is also against our cherished religious and First Amendment freedoms.

Remember what the liberal politicians in Springfield called their “Civil Unions” bill?  Yep, the “Illinois Religious Freedoms Protection and Civil Union Act.”  But what happened after it passed?  The Catholic Church was forced to close down its adoption ministry because Catholic teaching forbids placing children in households that are Mother-less or Father-less by design.

And homosexual activists immediately targeted Christian-owned businesses – for example, Jim and Beth Walder’s bed-and-breakfast in Paxton, Illinois.  The Walders refused to allow a homosexual “civil union” on their own private bed-and-breakfast property – so they were sued under Illinois’ pro-homosexual laws.  Now they face years of litigation to uphold their “civil rights,” and their religious liberty to live according to their moral beliefs.  Thus the Walders join: Christian banquet-hall owners; Christian florists; Christian wedding-cake makers; and Christian photographers who are in danger of losing their First Amendment freedom not to use their talents and hard-earned resources to celebrate homosexual relationships.

Representative Durkin, know this: True freedom and so-called “gay rights,” including “gay marriage” (so called) cannot coexist!

Lastly, homosexuality-base “marriage” (so-called), in addition to being Against God, Against Nature, Against Children, and Against Religious Liberty, is against plain old common sense.  This is America’s Heartland.  We used to be known for our common sense, and honoring the Bible’s wholesome moral code.  But now Chicago is known for its corruption – political and moral – including a massive “Gay Pride” parade every year that exposes innocent children to sexual debauchery.  Why do so many pretend that homosexuality-based “marriage” is merely an issue of “fairness”?  Is our Creator “unfair” because he did not allow two women – or two men – to produce children?  How can a decent and caring society indoctrinate children in the acceptance of perversion when these children don’t even know what sex is yet?

We marvel at God’s wondrous creation, and the beautiful and intricate design of our human bodies. And we know that no man should ever use another man in the place of a woman to achieve sexual gratification, and no woman should ever replace a man with another woman in the sexual act.

We must return to the wisdom of the Republican we all loved, Ronald Reagan – the greatest president to come from Illinois.  It was President Reagan who said:

“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.”

In the name of Almighty God, and of Nature, and protecting children and our precious religious and First Amendment freedoms – and in the name of good old common sense – let us reject this liberal, radically egalitarian social experiment called “same-sex marriage”! God bless you.

John and Anne Paulk — on the cover of Newsweek magazine in 1998. Recently, Paulk renounced the “ex-gay” movement that he once led. Anne, however, has stayed faithful and is now involved with Restored Hope Network, which has risen up in response to Exodus International’s ”gay”-affirming turn away biblical truth. See current photo of John Paulk below.

“Exodus [International] used to focus on how Jesus leads persons out of homosexuality. Now Exodus appears to celebrate those who return to it.” – Andy Comiskey

TAKE ACTION: As you can see from Andy Comiskey’s piece below, Exodus International is no longer a trustworthy “ex-gay” organization for Christians who respect the Bible’s authority. But there is now a biblically-faithful Christian alternative to Exodus: Restored Hope Network (RHN). Although AFTAH supported Exodus for two decades, it has tragically embraced a “gay”-affirming ideology that distorts the wonderful grace of God and, ironically, pushes the defeatist message that most homosexuals cannot change their “sexual orientation.”

I have publicly challenged Exodus President Alan Chambers to find “gay” “sexual orientation” in the Bible; he has not responded. Moreover, Chambers now not only eschews getting involved in ”culture war” over homosexuality — Exodus no longer even takes a stand on the blasphemous notion of homosexuality-based “marriage” — but he also urges other Christians to follow suit.

Although AFTAH would rather focus its attention on the aggressive homosexualist agenda, we cannot ignore the escalating confusion and falsehoods advanced by Exodus International under Chambers’ failed leadership. Recently, Chambers called me a “viper” on Twitter (get the Pharisee allusion?) following yet another episode that exposed his newfound pro-homosexual radicalism. In a shocking development that some are calling “Chambers-gate,” the Exodus leader stunned me and other activists by secretly cc’ing homosexual activist Jeremy Hooper in an email thread that included many pro-family leaders. (Details will be forthcoming; here’s one of Hooper’s pieces on the episode; here’s the piece in left-leaning Salon.com).

At the same time, Chambers secretly cc’d evangelical renegade and Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton — another pro-family-”defector”-turned-pro-homosexual-apologist who, like Alan, is popularizing the dangerous idea that nearly all homosexuals who try cannot change. Talk about denying Jesus’ power (but more on that later).

Talking up “gay Christianity” — another Chambers shift away from truth — is unbiblical, but many believers are unaware of Exodus’ new radical worldview. Americans For Truth urges you to inform your Christian friends about Exodus’ pro-homosexual turn and ask them to support the fledgling Restored Hope Network however they can. Here’s some useful information:

Restored Hope Network website: http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com/

RHN Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/RestoredHopeNetwork

Upcoming RHN Conference (June 21-22, Oklahoma City): http://www.restoredhopenetwork.org/index.php/event/annual-conference/conference-information

Prof. Rob Gagnon’s 2012 in-depth report on Alan Chambers’ unbiblical leadership at Exodus (PDF): “Time for a Change of Leadership at Exodus”

Gagnon follow-up: “Being a ‘Simple-Minded Jesus-Lover’ Is No Excuse for Really Bad Theology” (PDF): click HERE

Andy Comiskey’s Desert Stream Ministries: http://www.desertstream.org/

Below is wonderful response to Exodus VP Randy Thomas’ fawning piece on John Paulk by former homosexual Andy Comiskey, founder of Desert Stream Ministries. We also have reprinted excerpts from the Thomas piece, “John Paulk’s Shocking Secret,” below. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

_______________________

Andy Comiskey writes:

Authentic Drivel

APRIL 26, 2013, by Andrew Comiskey; reprinted from AndrewComiskey.com:

Andy Comiskey

With grief I consider the irony of Exodus’ response to John Paulk’s immersion in gay culture (Exodus Blog, April 22; Paulk presided over Exodus in the nineties). Exodus used to focus on how Jesus leads persons out of homosexuality. Now Exodus appears to celebrate those who return to it.

Exodus VP Randy Thomas just wrote a glowing account of Paulk’s renunciation of his ‘ex-gay’ status. In the spirit of Exodus new ‘radical’ grace message, Thomas ‘agrees with 95%’ of what Paulk confided in him, commends him to us as ‘one pursuing the true meaning of grace’, and describes John as ‘a man without guile.’

Yet Thomas omits the fact that Paulk’s choices violate his vows to his wife and three boys who as teenagers need their father more than ever. Exodus seems more concerned with John’s authentic gay self than with the needs of his wife and kids.

If I were married to a SSA [Same-Sex-Attraction]-struggler tied to Exodus, I would jump out of my skin. Dabbling in idolatry, even if married, now appears to be covered by Exodus’ ‘grace.’ Ironically, Thomas notes that Paulk “got very emotional talking about young people.” Maybe father Paulk could stop grieving for gay teens and attend undividedly to the teens he sired. Maybe he could be encouraged to cry tears of repentance and return to them.

John Paulk today.

Perhaps John grieves for himself more than for anyone else. Such is the narcissism that drives any ‘ex-gay superstar’ as well as the ‘ex-ex-gay’ who cries victim rather than takes responsibility for his own bad choices. The narcissist is usually winsome in his confession; Thomas sure seems taken by Paulk’s. But confession, when not in the service of repentance, remains in the service of sin. What a novel idea: that Exodus or any ministry claiming to be Christian might discern the difference between authentic drivel and a heart turning back to Jesus.

Only repentance will do—the desperate ache for Jesus, and desperation to repair what one has destroyed. Only then can real grace meet real sin and overcome it.

__________________________

Below are excerpts from a blog post by Exodus International Executive VP Randy Thomas on the John Paulk situation — to which Andy Comiskey was responding above.  The full article by Randy  — whom I once considered on the side of pro-family conservatives — is appalling in its obsequiousness to former “ex-gay poster boy” John Paulk – who was hounded “out of the closet” by homosexual activists at Truth Wins Out [see this video], allegedly for making homosexual advances on other men. I know and worked with John Paulk as a “Love Won Out” speaker, and will have more to say about this very sad development.– Peter L.

Since this April 22 post, Thomas has published a two-part interview with Paulk (see links below):

John Paulk’s Shocking Secret

In 2003 John [Paulk] left Focus On The Family and the Love Won Out conference and moved to Portland with his wife Anne and their children. …

Then, last week, an article was published by PQ (Proud Queer) basically saying that John is on his way “back” to the gay community and questioning whether they should accept him. Some, a few … not all, activists act like the religious legalists they abhor by coming up with a laundry list basically stating that John can only be accepted if he does and acts exactly like they think he should.  How weird is it that the church, rightfully in some cases, gets excoriated by these same folks for kicking people out into the street for not publicly espousing the right beliefs and acting the right way and then they turn around and do the same from a different set of rules?

Anyway, after reading the PQ article I messaged John a quick note once again sharing my heart for him and offering to help if I could. This resulted in a phone call and a great conversation….

John got very emotional while we were talking, especially about young people. He seems very committed to combatting shame and condemnation being brought against gay people and especially gay teens because of religious intolerance.

Our conversation lasted about 40 minutes and for the first time in 18 years I completely trusted that everything that came out of his mouth was unhindered and came from a loving, and humbled, heart. I told him that while I related to him more after his gay bar visit in 2000, I could relate to him even more now that he is genuinely questioning past actions and motivations.  While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions he shared on the phone, I can say I agree with about 95 percent of what he shared including renouncing the term “ex-gay.”  I love that he is pursuing the true meaning of God’s grace. I love that he is fiercely protective of his kids. I love that he will not drag his marriage to Anne through the mud even though some seemingly heartless activists demand it…

I don’t think I ever thought of John as being fake. He’s always reminded me of Nathanael, the disciple Jesus described, “in whom there is no guile.” However, listening to John and his apparent newfound depth of honesty made me happy for him…. [go HERE for full article]

Related articles by Randy Thomas:

• John Paulk No Longer Supports the “Ex-Gay” Movement (randythomas.co)
• John Paulk On Recent Comments, Faith, and His Family – Follow Up Interview (randythomas.co)

Linda Harvey wonders why the CDC did not ask about the partners of homosexual teenage boys who admitted to sex with males before age 13.

Folks, my friend, Linda Harvey of Mission America — a Christian expert on the radical homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda targeting youth — is right on in the WND.com piece below about the Boy Scout’s proposed pro-homosexual sellout.

This particular column is a must read because Linda brings forth some vitally important data on HIV and “gay youth.” Please take the time to scan these two CDC (Centers for Disease Control) reports that she cites (Warning: you will have to sift through the CDC’s nauseating political correctness, which precludes them from discouraging homosexual practice itself as part of the recipe for fighting HIV):

CDC Fact Sheet (Dec. 2012): “New HIV infections in the United States”: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/HIV-Infections-2007-2010.pdf

CDC (2011) report on “Sexual Identity…and Health-Risk Behaviors among Students” (see Table 55): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6007.pdf

Lastly, I note “JaneLovesJesus,’” who made the following comment to Linda’s piece on WND:

“This [Boy Scouts of America (BSA) proposing acceptance of homosexual Scouts] is simply the two-step approach to gay leaders in the BSA. Are they are going to allow ‘gay’ youth to participate…let those youth go through the entire program, maybe earning the rank of Eagle, and THEN say, ‘Sorry, you don’t qualify for leadership?’ Nope. Not going to happen. In for a dime, in for a dollar. There is NO compromising with the ‘Gay-stapo.’ Partial acceptance of this lie is FULL cooperation with evil.”

Surely Jane is right: we’ve been down this road of LGBT incrementalism many times before. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH (column is after jump)

Linda Harvey writes:

_____________________________________

Are Boy Scouts Buying ‘Gay Child’ Myth?

WND: Exclusive: Linda Harvey urges parents to stand up for kids, resist assault on decency

Published: April 28, 2013, by WND.com (WorldNetDaily)

The Boy Scout leadership has just done what homosexual pressure groups have tried to do for 20 years. They’ve made respectable the monstrous notion of the “gay” child or teen.

Congratulations on advancing the sexual anarchist agenda and drawing countless numbers of children into sin. What will these leaders say to Jesus when they meet Him?

It’s a lie. No child’s same-sex attraction should be condoned, but instead, caring adults will guide them toward overcoming these feelings while recognizing a red flag signaling abuse or other disorders.

The Scout board, however, by publicly proposing this change for an upcoming vote, betrays the trust of millions of American boys and the media attention profoundly damages boys’ beliefs about responsible manhood. The ideals of the Scouts are a sham without the recognition that growing into an honorable, mature male means embracing masculinity, not femininity, and eagerly anticipating marriage with a woman and fatherhood in that union.

Who are the monsters on this board who would callously foster and feed the deception that any valid orientation exists except God-designed heterosexuality, and that all else is deviance? Neither Christian doctrine, nor epidemiology, nor social science, nor genetic research supports this fiction. The vote in May should not only say “No” but toss these guys out on their deaf ears.

The health risks alone should have stopped this board’s runaway train from railroading corruption into the lives of our sons. Here are the facts they’ve ignored.

For males who have sex with males, or MSM, “The number of new [HIV] infections among the youngest MSM (aged 13-24) increased 22 percent, from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010,” reported the Centers for Disease Control. Could the increase be related to the increasing promotion of homosexual sex to boys?

And if that isn’t sobering enough, another recent Centers for Disease Control study reveals that teens who call themselves homosexual or bisexual report much higher levels of risky behavior compared to heterosexual teens.

The study came from surveys given from 2001 to 2009 in seven states and six major cities. These teens were found to be more likely to engage in seven out of 10 risk behavior categories. Of note to the Boy Scouts might be the finding that these “gay, bisexual and questioning” youth were much more likely to report having had sexual intercourse before age 13, as well as having had more than four sex partners, compared to students who identified as heterosexual.

My question when I read this, but ignored by the researchers, was: Who were the partners in these tragic “sexual intercourse before age 13″ scenarios? The neglect of researchers to ask that obvious, responsible follow-up question is outrageous. This is sexual abuse, either statutory rape or peer-on-peer assault.

So early sexual experience is common among youth who adopt the unnatural “gay” identity, but to depict it as positive is another level of depravity. I reported several years back about books recommended by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. In its reading recommendations, young teens having homosexual sex, sometimes with an adult, were common. And of course, adverse consequences are rare in these stories – no diseases, criminal prosecution of adult predators or emotional trauma. It’s truly a pedophile’s dream, where abused children “choose” to have early sex.

But such stories are now the guidebooks for the new “gay” teen, the troop members our sons will camp out with. Troop should not turn boys away, but deviant notions of sex and gender need to be turned away. And under current policy, they are.

Yet we have this new regressive proposal. Homosexual labels are to be OK for boys, but not adults, one more piece of nonsense. Some Scout leaders will conceal same-sex attractions and yet lead boys who confess these attractions. Won’t some leaders be unable to resist temptation? And predictably, won’t males with these proclivities be drawn in greater numbers than ever to Scout leadership, given the chance to meet willing boys? We would be handing them proximity and access, two basic pedophile/pederast values.

The Boy Scout cover story is that no sexual behavior is allowed in the Scouts, which will, of course, prevent this, as well as an out-and-proud 15 year old from making moves on your still impressionable younger sons. Does anyone realistically trust this will never happen? On the contrary, this policy sets up situations where the likelihood of sexual abuse is extremely high. And the Scout organization is reckless and naive if they don’t see the litigation coming from broken-hearted families whose sons have been victimized either by an older boy or an adult.

Homosexual attraction doesn’t behave by the nice rules constructed by the Boy Scout leaders. Visit a “gay” pride parade to observe what many of these folks consider proud and acceptable behavior in public. The homosexual youth members of your son’s troop may, in all probability, participate in such parades. They may belong to their school’s “gay-straight alliance,” groups that promulgate the myth of inborn homosexual identity, believe any objection to homosexuality is grounded in hate and that Christian conservatives are their enemies.

And let’s not forget the support these homosexually attracted youth will get from the “gay” lobby. The new policy provides a convenient weapon of intimidation to make sure these homosexually identified boys are able to fully “express who they are” within the troop – and nail polish, dangling earrings and make-up are just the beginning. Troop leaders who try to restore order should prepare for legal action.

Let’s all pray these foolish board members do not prevail. Stand up, parents, for all our boys and resist this assault against common sense and decency.

The Boy Scouts’ proposed compromise implies that an openly homosexual boy — embracing a deviant sexual identity – can still be “morally straight” and faithful to God.

The following is excerpted from a column published April 24, 2013 in WND.com (World Net Daily). Jane Chastain is right on, as she usually is. To listen to a radio interview I did yesterday on WVCY America on the Boy Scouts of America’s absurd and treacherous “compromise,” go HERE (and order it HERE). Keep fighting! We can save the Boy Scouts in spite of their corrupt leaders by winning the Scout Council vote in May. – Peter LaBarbera, www.AFTAH.org

__________________________

Boy Scouts Want to ‘Split the Baby’

WND Exclusive: Jane Chastain predicts end of organization if latest proposal on ‘gays’ is passed

By Jane Chastain

King Solomon was considered one of the wisest men in the world. According to the Bible, when two women came before him fighting over a baby, both claiming to be its mother, Solomon ordered that the child be cut in half with a sword. One woman was perfectly satisfied with his decision, but when the other offered to give up the child in order to save him, Solomon knew who the real mother was and gave the child to her.

The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America has proposed a similar arrangement in the effort to satisfy its members, volunteers and donors over the issue of admitting open homosexuals into its ranks.

The proposal, which will be voted on May 24, is to admit homosexual young people into Scouting, while keeping the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from serving as staff or adult leaders. This proposal satisfies no one and, if it goes through, will mean the death of Scouting as we know it.

To pretend that this baby can survive is, at best, self-denial or, at worse, hypocrisy!

The Scout Oath, which members pledge to keep, begins:

“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country …”

Furthermore, a Scout pledges “To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Since all major religions condemn the practice of homosexuality in the strongest terms, it is as impossible for young people who declare themselves to be homosexuals to keep the oath, as it is for atheists, who also are barred from becoming Boy Scouts.

It is true that some liberal denominations or sects within religions have attempted to explain away the prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication and even adultery. They fool no one, least of all the Creator who designed and made us.

So how did the BSA Executive Committee, which crafted this resolution, attempt to square this circle?

The answer is in the whereases, which are part of the proposed amendment:

WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting;

Hello! Homosexuality is a choice. One is not born that way as some claim. If that were the case there would be no former homosexuals. There is no gay gene. Science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, though not for lack of trying. Homosexuality is a practice, not a gender.

How does a young boy decide that he is a homosexual? It is by engaging in this sexual conduct.

It is no secret that surveys taken on gay issues like marriage show that the younger the respondents, the more likely they are to embrace the idea. The surveys taken by the Scouts in the run-up to this vote were no different.

Why? Because, we sat idly by and allowed homosexuality to be mainstreamed, promoted and, in fact, encouraged in our schools along with all manner of sexual activity.

Do the adults who drafted this resolution seriously believe that a young boy who “comes out” and declares himself to be homosexual and is demanding to be admitted to the Boy Scouts just came to that conclusion out of the blue? Seriously, are they really that naive?

A closer examination of the “findings” of the study commissioned by the Executive Committee reveals that the major force behind the push to admit homosexuals is not from its membership or the chartering organizations but from its corporate donors. [continue reading at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/boy-scouts-want-to-split-the-baby/]

Scott Lively

The following release was sent out today by Liberty Counsel:

April 17, 2013

Supreme Court Ejects Foreign Suits from U.S. Courts

The Supreme Court today held that the federal Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cannot be used to challenge foreign conduct in United States courts. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the High Court held that the ATS does not “reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.”

The decision is a severe blow to foreign entities and individuals that have sought to use the ATS – with alarming success in the last three decades – to bring foreign disputes in U.S. courts. Liberty Counsel currently represents Pastor Scott Lively [founder of Abiding Truth Ministries] in one such case brought against him by Sexual Minorities Uganda, which calls itself “SMUG.” In its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, SMUG claims that Mr. Lively violated “international law” when he criticized homosexual conduct while visiting Uganda.

The Supreme Court has now accepted Liberty Counsel’s argument and has made it the law of the land. On the basis of the just-issued decision in Kiobel, Liberty Counsel has again asked the Massachusetts federal court to dismiss SMUG’s lawsuit.

Please pray that today’s decision will soon lead to Mr. Lively’s exoneration and the reaffirmation of the supremacy and portability of the United States Constitution.

Read our News Release for more details and then head over to our [Liberty Counsel] Facebook page to let us know what you think.

Folks, Coach Dave Daubenmire of Pass the Salt Ministries is one of a kind. It was a pleasure to be interviewed by the Coach — a man’s man whose old-fashioned moral frankness may be out of step with today’s culture but is so much more refreshing than the pablum coming from some “Christians” and “conservatives” these days. I love Coach’s point — as politically incorrect as it is true – at around the 22:25 mark regarding what parents fear most. Also note:

• Coach’s comments on TIME magazine’s indecent “gay kiss” cover and what it says about desensitization in the USA (10:30);
• my comments on Larry Kramer and “gay” men who look back “fondly” on their own molestation (27:35); and
• the section on the sinister pro-pedophilia “B4UAct” website (“NAMBLA with a PhD”), which mimics homosexual activist talking points to advance the agenda of the “Minor Attracted People” movement.

Give me just 100 pastors like Coach Daubenmire scattered across America and you wouldn’t recognize this nation! Please support the Coach and his ministry. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

PS. Let me anticipate a homosexual activist criticism of my comments – which of course will be distorted – around the 14:00-15:00 minute mark. I am not “reassured” (14:40) that homosexual men contract so many diseases related to their perversion, in the sense of taking some sort of heartless satisfaction from their suffering. Rather, I am reassured that Nature and the practical realities of the homosexual lifestyle affirm God’s revealed truth about this sin. As I say in the interview, “The real world is backing up what the Bible says about homosexuality.” This should further motivate Christians to lovingly share God’s free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ to people caught up in homosexual behavior. More information follows the interview….

This interview was published by NewsWithViews.TV on Apr 11, 2013. Coach writes:

“Peter LaBarbera of www.AmericansForTruth.org joins Coach Dave for an in-depth discussion of the homosexual agenda and how ‘marriage’ is just their latest assault on traditional values. Listen to this riveting, no-holds-barred discussion.”

To listen on Coach Dave’s YouTube channel, go here: http://youtu.be/aAXYzgdhEvU

AFTAH defends natural marriage at Illinois Republican Party Central Committee meeting Saturday. Pat Brady is the outgoing head of the IL-GOP who angered the Party’s grassroots by outrageously embracing homosexuality-based “marriage.” Click on photo to enlarge.

By Peter LaBarbera

Hey folks, for half the day Saturday I stood inside the Tinley Park Convention Center with about 50 pro-family conservative Republicans — to protest at the quarterly Central Committee meeting against elitist corruption within the Illinois Republican Party. We were united against IL-GOP Chairman Pat Brady, who endorsed the (stalled) “same-sex marriage” bill despite the clear and principled IL-GOP platform stance affirming REAL marriage (see language below). Pro-family stalwart Karen Hayes and I held high an AFTAH banner that read, “Pat Brady Must Go; Marriage: One Man, One Woman,” and distributed an information Alert on “Why the IL-GOP Must Never Abandon its Pro-Natural Marriage Platform.”

It was exhilarating to stand with so many Illinois patriots, yet exhausting and aggravating as we were forced, like disobedient children, to wait three hours for a chance to make our voices heard to the assembled Committeemen. [Click HERE to watch a video of the exiled conservatives featuring activist Bill Kelly.] After the long wait, I and few others were finally allowed to make public comments (for just two minutes per person). But after fewer than 10 people had spoken Brady suddenly ended the session — again silencing the voices — if not the spirits — of some of the hardest-working Republicans in the state. They deserved much better.

As you can read from the Chicago Tribune account below, Brady was not voted out Saturday, but apparently he is being eased out within six weeks. After the meeting, a Central Committeeman told a group of us that “everybody got the message…There wasn’t a vote [on Brady] but there was a vote.” Translation: even GOP VIPs as notoriously out-of-touch with the grassroots as the men and women running Illinois’ Republican Party realize they can’t keep Brady at the helm for long.

And that is the best news I take away from Saturday’s dysfunctional GOP gathering: even in Illinois, where conservatives are as beaten down and disrespected as in few other states, principled Republicans and citizens (many Tea Partiers) are calling out their political “leaders” for abandoning time-tested moral values. And not just Republicans: don’t forget that it is pressure from pro-natural-marriage Democrats that has kept the Democrat-dominated General Assembly in Springfield from voting in counterfeit “gay marriage.”

One of the high points at the Tinley Park meeting occurred when a Republican official was reading from resolutions and actions just enacted by the Republican National Committee (RNC). The final RNC resolution he read was one reaffirming the national Republican Party plank defending natural marriage – and instantaneous and sustained applause erupted in the room. Clearly, supporting marriage as God ordains it — one man, one woman — is a very popular, foundational plank for Republicans. Ditching it would be a mistake of incalculable proportions — like the Party becoming “pro-choice” on abortion.

I met so many wonderful, dedicated people on Saturday — great Republicans whom Pat Brady should have been getting to know and working with rather than pushing for a divisive yet trendy “gay” agenda item popular among liberal Democrats and the media. People like Mickey Straub, the new Mayor of Burr Ridge, IL, who was so moved by the enduring values of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address — God, Liberty, Unity, and Equality — that he drove to 48 of the 50 state capitols in 50 days (he flew to Alaska and Hawaii) to read them aloud publicly. Who among us who love God and respect His moral laws — including the sanctity of life and marriage — would take issue with Straub, who says the root of America’s problems is that we as a nation have strayed from our Creator?

I fear for the future of our divinely-blessed nation for that reason, but I will fight for it and those enduring values until I die. This goes well beyond politics: God is no less defied by Republican-backed sin than Democratic sin. If those of us in this free Republic who love Truth do not defend it with greater vigor and passion than the enemies of Truth, we will not only lose the culture but the freedom to defend the principles that made America great. God bless you. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com

Chicago Tribune reported April 13, 2013

____________________________

Illinois Republicans fail to oust party chairman over gay marriage April 13, 2013|

By Rick Pearson | Tribune reporter

Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady survived a move Saturday to immediately oust him as party chairman over his support for same-sex marriage, but top state GOP leaders approved a succession strategy that could find him replaced within the next six weeks.

The plan for a succession committee was approved as the Illinois Republican State Central Committee met behind closed doors for nearly three hours at the Tinley Park Convention Center while a raucous group of about 50 social conservative and tea party activists were kept away by police. The move appears to provide Brady with an exit strategy to leave the post he has held since August 2009.

“I’m still here,” Brady told reporters after the closed-door meeting. “I think it was a good, productive meeting. We’ll see what happens going forward.”

The succession committee plan was approved by 87 percent of the weighted votes of the GOP state central committee members. The entire membership of the state central committee will sit on the succession panel, which one member said will function as a search committee to choose Brady’s successor.

The panel is to issue its findings within 30 to 45 days, said one panel member who was not authorized to discuss the events behind closed doors and spoke on the condition of anonymity. There is no favored candidate to succeed Brady, the panel member said. No vote was taken Saturday on removing Brady.

Brady created a controversy within the state GOP in January when he endorsed pending legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois. The measure passed the Illinois Senate in February with the support of one Republican.

Supporters of the measure say they are within a dozen votes of the 60 needed for Houseapproval. Two GOP members, Reps. Ed Sullivan Jr. of Mundelein and Ron Sandack of Downers Grove, have said they will vote for it and expect other Republicans to join them.

A month ago, Brady survived an attempt to replace him that was engineered by state Sen. James Oberweis of Sugar Grove and Jerry Clarke of Urbana, two members of the state central committee. An emergency meeting to force Brady out was cancelled due to a lack of votes and lobbying by U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk’s aides in support of the incumbent GOP chairman.

Kirk later became the second Republican in the U.S. Senate to voice support for same-sex marriage.

The same-sex marriage issue has highlighted the longstanding tensions within the state Republican Party between social moderates and conservatives. But the timing of the controversy comes as leaders of the GOP at the state and national level have been looking for outreach initiatives after Republican losses for the White House and in Illinois at the congressional level.

“It’s about addition and not subtraction,” Brady said of the differing viewpoints within the GOP, “and if we come off as mean-spirited or angry or too dogmatic, then we don’t attract people to the party.”

Though Brady has said his endorsement of same-sex marriage was given personally and not as party chairman, Oberweis and others took issue. They complained that Brady should not be countermanding a plank in the state Republican platform that specifies that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman.

Brady had made it clear that he would fight attempts to be ousted. He got the chairmanship at a meeting of the GOP at Republican Day at the Illinois State Fair in August 2009 following the surprise resignation of Andrew McKenna Jr., who later ran a failed bid for the 2010 GOP governor nomination.

In Tinley Park, social conservative activists chanted “we are the party” outside the closed meeting room and banged on meeting room doors, then were later ushered into another area of the convention complex by uniformed Tinley Park police.

Mark Stern, a Republican precinct committeeman from Oak Brook, said Brady has diverted the focus of the GOP and hurt its ability to move beyond minority party status.

“I think Pat has brought this upon ourselves by forcing this issue,” Stern said. “We need to talk about the 80 percent we agree on. He’s focusing on the parts we disagree on and creating a wedge issue for the party and I think it would be more responsible for him to step down and let somebody come in who could unite the party.”

Grassroots Illinois Republicans stand behind AFTAH banner urging the dismissal of IL-GOP Chairman Pat Brady, who shocked the state’s Republicans by coming out for homosexuality-based “marriage.” Dozens of conservative Republicans, including elected officials, were forced to wait three hours as Brady’s future was decided in private at the meeting. When they were finally let back in, comments were limited to only a minute per speaker and then — after a few critical speeches including one by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — the meeting was suddenly cut short by Brady.

______________________

TINLEY PARK, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) delivered the following informational Alert yesterday at the quarterly meeting of the Republican Party of Illinois (IL-GOP) Central Committee. AFTAH, a non-partisan 501(c)3 organization, educates about the implications of homosexual activism to all institutions and all political parties. We’ll have more on Saturday’s bizarrely dysfunctional Central Committee meeting in another post [read Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton's account of it HERE].

______________________

Americans For Truth ** ALERT ** 

Putting Principles First:  Why the IL-GOP Must Never Abandon Its Pro-Natural-Marriage Platform

CONTACT: Peter LaBarbera: americansfortruth@gmail.com                           April 13, 2013

Homosexual “marriage” will accelerate the promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion as ‘normal’ in public schools. In Massachusetts, 2nd graders were required to read this book, “King & King,” about a prince who falls in love with and “marries” another man instead of a princess. Parents in Mass. effectively lost their right to guide their own children’s moral values if they keep them in public schools.

TINLEY PARK, Illinois – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) urges the Republican Party of Illinois to stay true to its own conservative Platform and reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera said that by embracing homosexuality-based “marriage,” IL-GOP Chairman Pat Brady and the state’s most powerful Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk, have recklessly undermined the GOP’s conservative “brand” as a pro-family party and hurt the Party’s outreach prospects — especially among minority voters.

The IL-GOP Platform reads in part:

The family is society’s central building block… Our children need secure and nurturing environments, which are best found within the traditional family. No law should be enacted nor policy implemented without fully contemplating the effect it would have on children and their families…. [T]he ideal, best environment for children is within a two-parent family based on the principle of marriage between one man and one woman.

The Republican Party endorses a constitutional amendment protecting our Defense of Marriage Act and enshrining in constitutional law marriage as it is defined in our “DOMA.”

Our laws should strongly support and celebrate the loving commitment a man and a woman make to each other in marriage….

LaBarbera urged the divisive Brady to step down as IL-GOP chairman and offered the following as among the reasons NOT to undermine the Party’s historic defense of natural marriage:

• If homosexuality-based “marriage” is legalized, religious liberty and freedom of conscience will be further repressed by the state in the name of “gay equality”; this is already happening in Illinois under our “Civil Unions” law. In Paxton, IL, Jim and Beth Walder – owners of a bed-and-breakfast – were forced to go to court to defend their constitutional right to live by their own Christian beliefs (they declined a homosexual  “civil union” ceremony on their own property). Republicans must stand for liberty – yet too often pro-homosexual libertarians are silent on the growing threat to First Amendment freedoms justified in the name of “gay rights.”

• Voters deserve a choice: sadly, the Democrat Party is already the Party of Homosexuality and Abortion-on-Demand. Voters need a pro-family alternative, not more of the same. Besides, becoming a “Democrat-lite” party on social issues won’t work electorally for the GOP. Republicans will never be able to “out-gay” or “out-abortion” the Democrats and, given the choice, most voters motivated by those issues will opt for the real thing.
• Blacks and Latinos support real marriage! – as polls and the recent pro-natural-marriage rally in D.C. demonstrate, minorities overwhelmingly support the preservation of marriage as one man, one woman – i.e., at higher rates than whites. How ironic that just when the GOP is struggling to expand its appeal among minority voters, some Republican elites are embracing counterfeit “gay marriage” – thus FURTHER ALIENATING the very minority voters they need to reach.
• “Gay” Republicans represent a tiny sliver of the electorate – Just a few years ago the oldest and largest “gay Republican” organization, Log Cabin Republicans, boasted a national membership of just 20,000. The fact is, most homosexuals vote Democrat, and conservative-minded homosexuals are already voting for the GOP on economic grounds.
• Legalized homosexual “marriage” will propel and help “normalize” homosexual adoption – thus consigning ever greater numbers of innocent children to be raised in households that are motherless or fatherless by design. In Illinois as in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was effectively forced by government-backed “gay rights” to shut down its successful adoption program because it refused, according to the dictates of its religious teachings, to place children in households that intentionally deny children a mom or a dad.
• Liberal teachers, especially in public schools, will be emboldened to promote homosexual relationships to students in the classroom; homosexual teachers will be given a platform to discuss their “marriages” and thus to model homosexuality as normal, natural and good to students. Guided by the politically correct fiction that all relationships are “equal,” parents will have a harder time stopping the promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion to their children in schools.
• Homosexual “sex ed” will gain ground in Illinois schools. The law is a teacher. Under the radical egalitarian idea that all relationships (and sexual practices?) are “equally valid” and worthy of marriage, “safer gay sex” will be taught non-judgmentally to Illinois students alongside normal, heterosexual sex. Thus, high-risk and unnatural practices like rectal sex will be mainstreamed in our schools in the name of “equality.”  Teaching the superiority of natural and normal sex and (real) marriage between man and woman will be outlawed on the basis that it “discriminations” against homosexuals.
• Businessmen will be forced to recognize and subsidize their employees’ immoral same-sex “marriages”: a version ofthis is already happening under Illinois’ “Civil Unions” law;
• Energized homosexual activists will use a homosexual “marriage” law to pressure citizens to approve of their lifestyle.  They will step up their crusade to stigmatize, demonize and discredit pro-family Christians and moral opponents of homosexuality. Groups like AFTAH that embrace wholesome, godly morality will be vilified as “hateful and bigoted.” And, as we have witnessed in Massachusetts, the push for ever more extreme “LGBT rights” would be propelled by enactment of “same-sex marriage” — including “transgender” activism in schools.
• Since when do Republicans follow the liberal media’s lead on issues of principle?

AFTAH,
PO Box 5522,
Naperville, IL 60567   

americansfortruth@gmail.com

George Harasz (l) and Douglas Wirth (r) are accused of raping two of the nine boys they adopted. The Glastonbury, CT men are “married.” Now three more of the children have come forward charging sexual abuse. Photo courtesy Glastonbury Police Department.

Although these two homosexual men (“married” in Connecticut) are innocent until proven guilty, this case has not received the media coverage that it deserves. It recalls another horrific homosexual adoption/molestation case: Frank Lombard, the North Carolina man and Duke University official who molested his own infant adopted boy and then offered up the five-year-old online for others to rape. Here’s a 2011 YouTube of a local TV news report on the shockingly evil Lombard case.

The following is from the New York Daily News (April 7, 2103) on the Connecticut story:

Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial

By Eric Ortiz, New York Daily News

The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor — a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

But in a surprise turn, the couple’s attorneys pulled them out of the plea in a bid to fully clear their names, according to CBS affiliate WFSB-TV.

If Harasz, 49, and Wirth, 45, had continued with the deal, they would have been given suspended prison sentences and probation, WFSB-TV said.

But more allegations came to light Friday in the explosive case, and prosecutors said they also want to go to trial.

“I think the only proper resolution of this matter is to try it,” said prosecutor David Zagaja, according to the Hartford Courant.

Judge Joan Alexander agreed that a trial would be “in the interest of justice. The facts must be shown and must be shown publicly.”

Harasz and Wirth adopted nine children — three sets of male siblings — beginning in 2000, and ran a home-based dog breeding business called The Puppy Guy.

The couple was arrested in November 2011 following a police and state investigation of sex-abuse allegations. The children were removed from the home.

Police said two boys, ages 5 and 15, accused Harasz of sexually assaulting them. Harasz was initially facing first-degree sexual assault and other charges, while Wirth had been charged with third-degree sexual assault of the 15-year-old boy.

Their arrest warrants claimed the couple not only sexually and physically abused the children, but also forced them to sleep in closets.

Other children in the home told authorities that they weren’t abused, and prosecutors had agreed to a plea deal because they said a lack of forensic evidence would make it difficult to prove all of the allegations.

But now, three other children are claiming they were also abused, although no new criminal charges had been filed Friday, the Hartford Courant reported. One of the victims who spoke during the court hearing said sexual assault began when he was 6.

“They took turns raping me over and over,” he said. “Anyone who would do this to a child is a sick, demented person.”

Supporters of Harasz and Wirth also spoke Friday in defense of the couple. One of their children, Carlos Harasz, said the accusers were lying and that the abuse suffered was under previous foster parents.

Carlos Harasz added that the state Department of Children and Families “took the word of an angry, damaged, disturbed boy and destroyed a family.”

Police have been ordered to investigate the latest accusations, and the parties are set to appear in court again June 5.

With News Wire Services; eortiz@nydailynews.com Read more [including reader comments]: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010#ixzz2QHUuoRgT9999

Michigan RNC Committeeman Dave Agema was charged by fellow Republicans with “hate” for raising the public health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.

This is an important piece by Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins, reprinted from his April 2 “Washington Watch” newsletter. Republican Party politicians (they’re not behaving like statesmen) are on a suicide mission if they think they can stab their most faithful constituents in the back on the homosexual agenda and still come away strong enough to beat the radically pro-”gay” Democrats. (A Democrat will usually beat a “Democrat-lite.”)

You are like me if you’re ready to yell at the TV or radio every time you hear a Republican or some libertarian-leaning pundit assert, with robot-like efficiency, that we need to be “focusing on the issues that really matter.” That’s code for the fiscal issues — rather than social issues like homosexual “marriage,” which I suppose, by extension, “don’t really matter” much to these Republicans.

Seems to me the moral disintegration of America and the preservation of marriage should be at the top of the list of issues that matter. Too bad we don’t have a STRONG pro-family, pro-life, God-fearing conservative party that could give both of our corrupt major parties a run for their money. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

P.S. While I (like Perkins) will not vouch for the accuracy of each of Agema’s citations (e.g., it was not NAMBLA but another pedophile group that invented the sick motto, ”Sex before eight or it’s too late”), it is preposterous to assert that homosexuality is somehow above criticism. Even more absurd is the idea — repeated in this Daily Kos hit piece against FRC — of blaming the well-documented, highly disproportionate disease rates linked to homosexual sex (HIV, syphilis, hepatitis, etc.) on “the stress which comes from having to deal with homophobia and discrimination.” Right, it’s our fault….

______________________________________

From Tony Perkins’ April 2 “Washington Watch”:

RNC Makes Values a Mute Point

“Wishful thinking.” That’s how MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough described the GOP’s supposed shift on same-sex “marriage.” During a segment on yesterday’s show, Scarborough tried to put the media’s spin into perspective. “This rush to marriage equality is–at least among the Republican base–a mirage.” Anyone who believes otherwise, he said, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the political realities in America:

“I wonder how many of these people [who] support it from Washington or New York, or from state capitals across the country, have ever campaigned in western Iowa, have ever campaigned in South Carolina in the Greenville-Spartanburg area, have ever campaigned across north Florida. … What [Republican presidential] candidate can win in western Iowa, can win in the Greenville-Spartanburg area, can win in north Florida if they come out and support gay marriage nationally?”

Unfortunately, it sounds like Joe Scarborough has a better handle on the Republican base than its own leadership. Instead of recognizing a consensus issue when they see it, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is trying to do the Left’s job: sow division in the party by retreating on key planks in the GOP platform. If the RNC wants to replicate the states’ success, it needs to reflect the states’ values. The GOP establishment wants to relegate social conservatives to minority status in the national party, when we’re the majority in most states. And they wonder why their candidates are losing elections!

When leaders like Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema so much as raise questions about the harms of homosexuality, the RNC throws them under the bus faster than you can say “political correctness.” Agema, a staunch Michigan conservative, is taking fire from his own party for a Facebook post that detailed the harms of homosexuality. And while people may not agree with everything in his column, they should agree on his freedom to call for a discussion. But under this new “inclusive” and “welcoming” RNC, simply raising awareness on certain social issues is off-limits. A group of GOP officials is calling on Agema to resign–including state party chairman Bobby Schostak, who claimed that statistics about the consequences of homosexual behavior (consequences which even the Left acknowledges!) are a “form of hate.”

While Agema’s research may be somewhat outdated, FRC’s “Top 10 Myths about Homosexuality” highlights a summary of recent data, which all point to the high rates of physical and mental illness associated with homosexuality. Several of these hazards are echoed by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, which makes a point of posting the risks so that people can discuss them with their doctors. To his credit, Agema isn’t backing down. He insists that we shouldn’t cut off debate about a lifestyle with direct public policy implications.

He’s right. Anyone who’s read about the growing crisis of sexually transmitted infections in America understands that all forms of promiscuity–homosexual and otherwise–are having a major impact on public health. We can’t reverse those trends by burying our head in the sand and throwing money at the epidemic. Ignoring the deeper issues only perpetuates the problem and does a disservice to taxpayers who are literally paying the price for America’s sexual liberalism.

Of course, the irony is that while the RNC is busy self-censoring, the Republicans’ position on marriage isn’t what voters are complaining about. According to a new Gallup survey, only 3% of Republicans criticized the party’s platform on social issues. A far greater number–14 percent–thinks the GOP’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t stand up for its positions. A fact that conservatives like Dave Agema can certainly attest to.

One would expect the world’s most famous “gay” Mecca to be perverse, and it surely is. Photos: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.

Folks, it’s street scenes like this one – in the heart of San Francisco’s “gay” Castro district — that led the city’s suffering citizens to push successfully last year for a qualified ban on public nudity. But as the saying goes, old habits die hard.

I shot these photos on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013, near the corner of Market and Noe streets. (I ventured to the “gay” Mecca to cover the homosexual drag queen group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’s uber-blasphemous “Hunky Jesus” contest, which was cancelled and later rescheduled due to rain.) San Francisco’s prohibition of public nudity – which exempts baudy street festivals like the city’s annual “Folsom Street Fair” – went into effect Feb. 1 and is being challenged in court by nudists.

The ban doesn’t seem to be tightly enforced, as these bare-bottomed man-bunnies were ’hanging around’ for quite awhile in plain view – on Easter Sunday, no less. They were standing outside a venue hosting a “Zombie Christ” dance party/”haunted house” timed to mock Christ and bash Christianity on the most important Christian holiday of the year. AFTAH will have more on that in another post. (Permission granted to use photos provided credit given to “Americans For Truth.org”) – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

More photos after jump…

Same two men from behind: flouting the city’s new qualfied ban on public nudity. San Francisco still allows full frontal nudity at its annual street fairs like the “Folsom Street Fair.”

Announcement for rescheduled “Hunky Jesus” contest put on by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of homosexual men who dress in drag as mock “nuns.”

Poster advertises anti-Christian “Zombie Christ” haunted house. Homosexual activists have been in the vanguard of maligning and mocking Christians and Christianity in the USA.

“Gay” activists have been promoting the acceptance of homosexual relationships — even to young children – for decades. (This is a page from the 1991 “children’s” book, “Daddy’s Roommate.”) For conservatives to now claim that the debate over “same-sex marriage” is NOT about homosexuality is disingenuous and actually helps normalize the sin of homosexual behavior. Sentence at bottom of page reads, “Being gay is just one more kind of love.” (Click to enlarge.)

“Moral judgment undergirds the entire structure of laws and is necessary for the rational structure of any significant statute. The idea that our laws can stand independent of moral foundation is senseless. We do not think that driving under the influence of alcohol is simply risky, in terms of statistics. We believe that it is wrong, in terms of explicit moral judgment.” –Al Mohler

This is an important piece by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and we applaud him for writing it. To say that the struggle to preserve marriage from being homosexualized requires “no judgment about the morality of homosexuality” is pure folly and a recipe for defeat. It is a negation of common sense, like telling pro-lifers not to make the case for the humanity of the unborn in arguing against pro-abortion laws.

By pretending that the homosexual “marriage” debate is not really about homosexuality, well-intended people are actually advancing the godless crusade to normalize immoral same-sex behavior and relationships in society. (A neutral response to sin — or a reluctance to confront it — by religious people who know better actually propels sin forward.) We need to rebuild the moral consensus against homosexual behavior, but you cannot do that by running away from the issue.

Substitute another (less politically correct) sexual misbehavior and this formula make no sense: Imagine if conservatives were to carefully avoid discussing, say, the morality of adultery (or worse, talk about respecting the “needs” of adulterous “couples”); would that not be cheered by sexual anarchists and the “open marriage” crowd?

In other words, to fight one evil (homosexual “marriage”), some of our Best and Brightest are effectively lending aid to another, by undermining the moral/spiritual/practical case against homosexuality — a perversion that just a few decades ago was so widely deplored that it was barely mentioned in polite society. We conservatives and people of faith need to talk more about the immorality and tragic realities of homosexuality, not less. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Reprinted with permission from http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/04/01/bracketing-morality-the-marginalization-of-moral-argument-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/:

_____________________________________

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By Albert Mohler

Monday, April 1, 2013

“Somewhere along the way, standing up for gay marriage went from nervy to trendy.” This was the assessment offered by Frank Bruni, an influential openly-gay columnist for The New York Times. Bruni’s column, published just as the Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments in the two same-sex marriage cases now before it, is a celebration of the fact that, as he sees it, same-sex marriage is soon to be the law of the land, whatever the Court may decide. “The trajectory is undeniable. The trend line is clear. And the choice before the justices is whether to be handmaidens of history, or whether to sit it out.”

Bruni may well be right, given the trajectory and the trend-line he has described. Of course, Bruni, along with his fellow columnists, editors, and reporters for The New York Times will, along with their friends in the larger world of elite media, bear much of the responsibility for this. They are certain that their work is the mission of human liberation from irrational prejudice.

In the most important section of Bruni’s column, he writes: “In an astonishingly brief period of time, this country has experienced a seismic shift in opinion — a profound social and political revolution — when it comes to gay and lesbian people.”

That is a powerful summary of what has happened. Bruni is undoubtedly right, and he has helped to make it so. But there is something missing from Bruni’s analysis, and this is something that he has helped to cause as well. The “seismic shift” on the issue of homosexuality is a profound moral revolution as well.

And yet, what makes this moral revolution so vast in consequences and importance is this: the moral dimension has virtually disappeared from the cultural conversation. This is true, we must note, even among the defenders of heterosexual marriage.

This is not to say that those who now defend the natural and venerable definition of marriage deny the existence of a moral argument, nor to imply that they are anything less than fully in agreement with the historic and scriptural assessment of the Christian church that homosexual acts and relationships are sinful. We must, however, note that the current intellectual environment has forced them to leave the moral issue behind — far behind.

Eric Teetsel, executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, also contributed a column just as the Supreme Court was to hear the same-sex marriage cases last week. Teetsel wrote in defense of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, arguing that society has an interest in defending the historic definition of the marital union as “the first institution of society” and “the society that creates and nurtures the next generation.”

But Teetsel’s column, published in USA Today, also included this statement: “This understanding requires no judgment about the morality of homosexuality.” He went on to argue that many non-marital relationships, including same-sex romantic couples, “are worthy of rights and relationships,” but the state’s interest in marriage is its ability to create and nurture children. But, he insists, this concern “requires no judgment about the morality of homosexuality.”

The same approach is reflected in the very best book defending natural marriage from a natural law perspective. What is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George is a brilliant defense of marriage and a tour de force in terms of intellectual argument. The book is actually an extension of an important article by the three authors that originally appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

In the book, the authors begin with this declaration: “What we have come to call the gay marriage debate is not directly about homosexuality, but about marriage.” That is a truly interesting statement, but it actually points to what these three authors want the argument to be about, not to what the larger culture thinks the argument is about.

Later, the authors make this statement about their argument in defense of marriage. “First, it is not in the end about homosexuality. We do not address the morality of homosexual acts or their heterosexual counterparts. We will show that one can defend the conjugal view of marriage while bracketing this moral question and that the conjugal view can be wholeheartedly embraced without denigrating same-sex attracted people, or ignoring their needs, or assuming that their desires should change.”

The brilliance of this book lies in its careful distinction between two rival views of marriage — the conjugal view, which defines marriage as “a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond” which sustains the world through the creation and nurture of children, and the revisionist view, which defines marriage as “a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity, with no reference to a duty beyond its partners. The conjugal view, based in the function of the family and the nurture of children, points to lifelong fidelity. The revisionist view points to a relationship based on emotional intensity in which the partners remain “as long as they find it.”

This argument is vitally important, even essential, to any conversation about marriage in our modern context, for it points far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage to the prior assaults on conjugal marriage brought by no-fault divorce and the replacement of personal responsibility with mere personal autonomy. Sadly, the revisionist view of marriage is embraced by millions of heterosexual couples, married and unmarried, but it is essential to the very idea of same-sex marriage.

The argument offered by Girgis, Anderson, and George will stand the test of time. It is the very best public argument yet presented from the defenders of marriage. And yet it brackets the question of the morality of homosexuality. The authors are not making a moral argument, presumably dependent upon a religious authority, but a natural law argument accessible to all by common reason.

And yet, their argument is not well received by the proponents of same-sex marriage and it remains to be seen if their argument will gain any traction in the larger culture. In any event, it is an argument stripped of explicit moral concern.

During the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the attorneys defending Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] followed the same lines of argument, strictly avoiding any reference to a moral judgment against homosexuality or homosexual unions.

Why are these authors and attorneys so careful to excise the moral argument? They believe that it is necessary before the Supreme Court, and before the court of public opinion.

The Court’s oral arguments on the DOMA case made the risks of moral argument clear. Justice Elena Kagan, pressing Attorney Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA, asked him if Congress had made a moral judgment in adopting the Defense of Marriage Act. She then read from a House of Representatives report, issued in advance of the vote on DOMA, in which a clear moral argument was made. That report included these sentences:

“Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, [and] moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.”

Keep in mind that both houses of Congress then approved the law by massive votes, and that the Act was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton. All parties knew, and publicly affirmed, that they were making a moral judgment.

But all that is now part of the problem, legally speaking. In his decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker [a homosexual --AFTAH] argued: “The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.” Judge Walker dismissed all moral judgment against homosexual conduct as a matter of merely private moral opinion, presumably drawn from religious sources.

Back in 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down all laws criminalizing homosexual acts. Kennedy argued that moral opposition to homosexuality was not a rational basis for the establishment of a law.

In response, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Kennedy had just eliminated any legal barrier to same-sex marriage. “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution?’”

Those words are now seen as deeply prophetic. The removal of moral disapproval from this legal context set the stage for the inevitable controversy we are now experiencing — and for the removal of morality from the public conversation. If anything, the court of public opinion, driven by those who control the media, entertainment, and the public conversation, is far ahead of the law courts in this respect.

But consider the implications of this bracketing of moral argument. What, other than morality, sustains any laws restricting human sexual behavior?

The legislative debate over the prohibition of polygamy after the Civil War was explicitly moral. Sociological analysis did not drive that movement, morality did. What about all the other laws that restrict sexual acts? Are they also to be cast down by this logic?

Moral judgment undergirds the entire structure of laws and is necessary for the rational structure of any significant statute. The idea that our laws can stand independent of moral foundation is senseless. We do not think that driving under the influence of alcohol is simply risky, in terms of statistics. We believe that it is wrong, in terms of explicit moral judgment.

The point here is not to criticize those who, working within the confines of public reason and prevailing constrictions, do their best — and often brilliantly so — to defend marriage without moral judgment.

But we should note this change in the rules of public debate with more than a passing interest; for the implications of this moral revolution are more vast than anyone can yet foresee. At stake is not only the ability to express moral judgment about homosexuality, but about any sexual behavior. Further, this logic cannot be restricted to public debates about sexuality. This revolution goes far beyond marriage and sex.

Subjected to public ridicule on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” Ryan T. Anderson did his best to argue the case for marriage, avoiding moral judgment on homosexuality. He was unconscionably mistreated and marginalized. In the course of the show Piers Morgan told Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, that he was in danger of being found on the wrong side of history. Anderson retorted: “There is no wrong side of history apart from what the truth is.”

That statement is profoundly true, and it is profoundly moral. Without moral judgment there is no truth, and without truth there is no moral judgment. And there is no wrong side of history, apart from what the truth is.

____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

Frank Bruni, “Marriage and the Supremes,” The New York Times, Sunday, March 24, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/bruni-marriage-and-the-supremes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Eric Teetsel, “Affirm Marriage’s Historic Meaning,” USA Today, Tuesday, March 26, 2013.

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, Robert P. George, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036225?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1594036225&linkCode=xm2&tag=fidelitas-20

TIME magazine covers, blocked for decency’s sake by AFTAH. TIME managing editor Richard Stengel says the homosexual kisses are “beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage.” Click on graphic to enlarge.

From OneNewsNow, the online publication of the American Family Assoction [click HERE to view article on their website]:

Media, Republicans Fueling the Left

Posted by Charlie Butts and Chad Groening (American Family News) – April 04, 2013

A pro-family leader asserts that while “nothing’s inevitable,” the media and now members of the Republican Party are helping promote the homosexual agenda.

The April 8 issue of TIME has two different covers with the same theme. One features two women kissing, and the other shows two men doing the same. “Gay Marriage Already Won. The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up Its Mind – but America Has” is printed in yellow across the two black and white covers.

But Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is “upset” by how the magazine is jumping the gun.

“This is shocking that TIME magazine would do this — basically publishing indecent photos, promoting perversion on the cover of their magazine, where on racks across the country children can see this,” he laments. “This is an in-your-face promotion of homosexual immorality, and I’m very upset that they would go to this length.”

And LaBarbera is especially dismayed that the order to print the photos came from the top.

“The managing editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, said the images published by TIME were — quote — ‘beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage’ — unquote,” the AFTAH president reports. “How can you be more confused? Two people of the same sex kissing symbolizes the love of marriage?”

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, and he asserts that media moguls cannot change that.

LaBarbera adds that the media and the far left are confused, and he submits that the article and cover photos are a sellout to the homosexual lobby, as corporate America supports TIME through its advertising dollars.

Sen. Kirk and “gay marriage”

Meanwhile, the pro-family activist who works to expose the truth about homosexuality is not surprised that Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk has come out in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Kirk said in a post on his blog this week that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. He says what matters in life is who you love, and “government has no place in the middle.”

Kirk previously voted to end the policy that banned homosexuals from serving in the military. He is also a lead co-sponsor of a proposed bill that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and has opposed a constitutional amendment to ban “gay marriage.” So LaBarbera is not exactly surprised by the latest development.

“He was always liberal on social issues, and he was a favorite of the so-called moderates in the Republican Party,” the AFTAH president notes. “But I certainly didn’t expect that he would capitulate this fast. This very simplistic explanation by Senator Kirk fits a man who really … never treated the social issues seriously.”

While Kirk’s decision is not a surprise, LaBarbera points out that it will still benefit the pro-homosexual forces.

“The sad thing about this is it gives fuel to the left’s ‘inevitability’ claim,” he offers. “The left and the media are promoting homosexual marriage like never before — they’re saying it’s unstoppable; it’s inevitable. Of course that’s not true; nothing’s inevitable. But they’re really pushing homosexuality in the Republican Party. Senator Kirk’s defection on this issue only helps the left.”

Following Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-Ohio) lead from last month, Kirk is now the second Republican senator to endorse such unions.

LaBarbera finds it sad that Senator Kirk favored traditional marriage when he ran for office but, like President Barack Obama, changed his position after he took office.

- See more at: http://www.instantanalysis.net/latest-headlines-from-american-family-news/2013/04/04/media,-republicans-fueling-the-left#sthash.IjFN8RW5.dpuf

Pro-family citizens march in Washington, D.C., to uphold marriage as one-man, one-woman. If the Republican Party wants to gain minority voters, perhaps it should strengthen, not weaken, it’s pro-natural-marriage advocacy and speak out against the “gay” activist proposition that compares rights based on homosexuality to real civil rights.

The following is excepted from Accuracy in Media; click HERE for the full story:

More Dishonest Coverage from the Pro-Homosexual Media

By Cliff Kincaid, March 29, 2013

A big news story came out of Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media. As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become.

The March for Marriage went by the Supreme Court before returning to the National Mall location where the rally was held. The group has posted a video of excerpts of the major speeches.

Ken McIntyre of the Heritage Foundation wrote a dispatch, with pictures: “Marching for Marriage—and Children.” John Burger of the Catholic World Report estimated the crowd at 10,000. Based on attendance at several rallies in the nation’s capital, I put the crowd size at about 5,000.

Díaz, the New York state senator, led an all-night vigil for the rally of 32 buses filled with Pentecostal ministers and members of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization.

He was the only Democratic state senator in 2011 to cast a “No” vote on the homosexual marriage bill in New York State and he was the only lawmaker to rise to speak against it. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Díaz said.

The video excerpts are interesting, in that a self-proclaimed homosexual man, Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, was also shown opposing homosexual marriage.

He spoke at a Heritage Foundation event, saying, “I used to be pro-same-sex marriage but the more I thought about it, it occurred to me, this just isn’t right. Marriage is the most successful institution that civilization has produced over the last few millennia, and we shouldn’t mess with it. If we attempt to redefine marriage, we’re going to redefine children in the same way. In fact, I prefer to use the term ‘undefine.’”

His speech at the March for Marriage included the admonition that the Supreme Court should “ignore the media’s relentless, manufactured urgency to institute same-sex marriage.”

That media campaign, as we revealed in a recent column, includes the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), funded by all of the major news organizations. Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show was the host of the March 21 New York fundraiser for the group. [See AFTAH's parallel story on the NLGJA HERE.]

On cue, Jenna Wolfe, NBC Today Show weekend anchor, came out as a lesbian on the air on Wednesday, as the Supreme Court prepared to take up the second of two homosexuals rights cases. She announced that she and her lesbian partner, Stephanie Gosk, an NBC News correspondent, were getting married, and that she, Wolfe, was pregnant. There was no word on the identity of the father.

However, People Magazine, which carries a story about the couple, says Wolfe “underwent artificial insemination with an anonymous donor.” Referring to acceptance of homosexual rights and homosexual marriage, Wolfe told People, “…I don’t want to bring my daughter into a world where I’m not comfortable telling everyone who I am and who her mother is.”

It seems as though the father just doesn’t matter at all. Welcome to the world of “homosexual marriage.” It is just not an issue for the major media.

But the omissions and distortions don’t end there. On the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday night, host Brian Williams claimed that a majority of Americans now support homosexual marriage. But the Reuters Corporation recently released the results of a huge poll finding only 41 percent of America supports it.

The company tried to mask the results by highlighting majority support for benefits for “same-sex couples.” But the story about the poll notes in the fourth paragraph that only 41 percent of people say same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.

This poll is significant for two reasons. One, it was a large poll of 24,455 people. Second, its parent company, Thomson Reuters, signed on to a Supreme Court brief endorsing homosexual marriage.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented, “If 41% was all the support Reuters could scrounge up for same-sex ‘marriage,’ then you know they exhausted every avenue trying to push that number higher—and couldn’t.”  [story continues at AIM.org] ….

“But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Our sin-sick and sin-celebrating world needs Jesus Christ more than ever. The following is adapted from a tract, “The Romans Road,” published by The Tract League. I have adapted the Scriptural citations to the New International Version of the Bible. When you click on the verse, it will take you to that verse in its context, courtesy of Bible Gateway. If you have strayed from God, why not use Easter as a starting point to renew your relationship with Him? God bless you, and have a Blessed Easter! – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

_____________________________

I had a pretty good opinion of myself until a friend invited me to take a walk down the Roman Road. He used just a single book in the Bible to open my eyes to my relationship with God, and I haven’t been the same since.

He warned me that the trip might hurt, and he was right because he started by revealing my real status before God:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…. (Romans 3:23)

Then I learned of sin’s penalty:

For the wages of sin is death… (Romans 6:23a)

He went on to tell me that God loves me so much He offers an alternative called ‘eternal life’:

…but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23b)

Then he showed me how God provided His son Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for my sin. Jesus took my penalty!

But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

I wondered if God would accept me. He assured me with even more good news:

For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13)

My friend showed me what I should do to receive eternal life:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

We prayed together, and I gladly accepted God’s gift of eternal life through Jesus. I asked him if there was anything in the book of Romans that could help me with my new life. He pointed to the beginning of Romans 12:

I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer you bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — His good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12)

He explained that if I gave God first place in my life, other things would work out according to God’s plan for me. I have read a lot of the Bible since that day, and my friend was right! My life has been transformed. I joined a church and was baptized.

Many verses are underlined in my Bible, but I’ll never forget the Romans Road because a close friend used it to show me the way to eternal life.

That’s why I gave this tract to you today — so you too can know the way to eternal life. If you already have walked that road, please pass this on. News this good is meant to be shared.

More Gospel tracts with varying themes are available for bulk purchase at The Tract League website.