New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

Pastor Paul Blair of Reclaim Oklahoma for Christ will be among those preaching against the new federal "hate crimes" law and also against organized homosexuality in a "pray-in" in front of the Human Rights Campaign's DC headquarters. HRC is a homosexual lobby group that seeks to persuade Americans that the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice -- which clearly it does.

Folks, it’s about time that the aberrant-sex activists at Human Rights Campaign (the world’s leading homosexual lobby organization) be on the receiving end of some good, old-fashioned biblical preaching — rather than “preaching” to the rest of us with their false, distorted, pro-homosexuality “gospel.” (HRC President Joe Solmonese cynically describes church sermons against homosexuality as “preaching hatred.”) Click HERE for a taste of HRC’s revisionist propaganda that turns the Bible on its head: e.g., did you know that most of the the Bible verses that condemn homosexual acts, such as Genesis 19 & 19,  actually affirm GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) people?! (Strange how the Bible’s hidden pro-homosexual-relationships message escaped every orthodox expositor for centuries but was finally discovered by those with a vested interest in … legitimizing their unnatural sex- and gender-based “identities.”) — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________

Pastors Will Engage in Civil Disobedience to Protest Inclusion of ‘Sexual Orientation’ in Hate Crimes Law

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 /Christian Newswire/ — On Monday, November 16 at 1:30 PM, the Coalition for Faith and Freedom, an ad hoc group of concerned clergy, will rally in front of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. to test the limits of the expanded federal hate crimes law.

On October 28, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure extending the federal hate crimes statute to include so-called sexual orientation. The ministers believe this will criminalize all criticism of homosexual behavior, including that contained in the Bible.

To test this belief and protest a clear violation of First Amendment freedom of speech and religion, various clergy will preach short sermons and read passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior. Like Dr. Martin Luther King and the Sixties Civil Rights movement, they will engage in civil disobedience to protest injustice.

Those participating in the pray-in will include Vision America Action President Dr. Rick Scarborough, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Bishop E.W. Jackson of STAND America, Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance (a group which has fought gay marriage in the Bay State), Paul Blair and Steve Kern of Reclaim Oklahoma, Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, Brad Cranston of Iowa Baptists for Biblical Values, and Jim Garlow, a leader of the Prop 8 battle in California, which overturned the judicial imposition of gay marriage.

Legal challenges to the unconstitutional law may also be announced at that time. Mat Staver, Esq., founder and president of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty Law School, has been retained as their counsel and will be present at a press conference preceding the event.

Pastor Paul Blair, founder of Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, summed up the sentiments of participants, when he observed: “Pastors have preached the Bible in America for more than 400 years, pointing the people to Jesus Christ and standing against sin. If preaching the Bible is now against the law, then let us be arrested. If not, may every pastor in America know that he can stand strong and proclaim Biblical Truth without fear of persecution or prosecution.”

For more information or to schedule background interviews, contact Misty Allmond at 866-522-5582 or visionamerica1@yahoo.com or Dr. Gary Cass at 866-508-2232 or drgarycass@christianadc.org.

Then there are the targets of more crass homosexual extremism such as Maggie Gallagher, Greg Quinlan, AFTAH, Mike Heath, and pretty much every pro-family leader who still resists the “queer” activist agenda — and even churches that stick to the Word of God on sexual morality or that dare advance the redemptive truth that men and women can overcome homosexuality through Christ.

A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward,  a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:

——————————————————————————–

When PR flacks take over moral messaging

Posted: November 06, 2009, WorldNetDaily.com; 1:00 am Eastern

By Linda Harvey
© 2009

Pro-family forces prevailed on Nov. 3 in the state of Maine to preserve traditional marriage –– for now –– and praise God for that. Yet the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign ceded some precious ground in the process and threw long-time family activists under the bus instead of working with them as they could have.

Christian policy professionals all across the country were aghast after watching the last-minute TV ad by SMM, which said this:

Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.

This is a huge concession to the hopes and aspirations of “gay” activists. Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position. This paves the way for the pseudo-marriage of “domestic partnerships.” The big question is: Why did “conservatives” do this?

Pardon my cynicism, but my background includes two decades in the wonderful world of advertising and public relations, where truth is a sometimes-disposable commodity and almost any position or product can be sold if you have enough media and research dollars.

So immediately I am thinking, “OK, what current or future client are the architects of Stand for Marriage Maine making sure they don’t alienate?” Because the compromised last-minute change in message made no sense.

The ads throughout most of the Maine campaign emphasized the effect on what will be taught to schoolchildren if marriage is legalized for homosexuals. This was a smart, winning strategy that also happens to be true, and school incidents in Massachusetts and California validate that claim. The group Mass Resistance in Massachusetts, headed by long-time pro-family activist Brian Camenker, has been invaluable in researching, tracking and revealing exactly how school-based homosexual advocates shove the lifestyle down the throats of families in that state, a tactic that went on steroids following the homosexual marriage court ruling in 2003. The incidents with the Parker and Withlin families were revealed to the nation primarily through the efforts of Mass Resistance.

In California, a lesbian teacher invited her grade-school class to her “wedding,” providing Exhibit A about the poor judgment empowered when same-sex marriage becomes law –– and this incident was featured in the winning Prop 8 campaign.

But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.

The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.

When that happens, they have won the war.

Wait until the next marriage campaign in Maine and the left pulls that quote out of the historical record. Poor judgment –– and false Christian doctrine, by the way.

Two weeks ago, Brian Camenker joined long-time pro-family warrior Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maine’s Paul Madore at a press conference in Maine. These veteran pro-family professionals revealed what no one had yet talked about: the rotten core of homosexual activism behind the No on 1 effort. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, for example, has a not-so-long-term strategy to legalize every sexual behavior imaginable.

Sexual freedom –– some would say anarchy –– is where this is all headed. Marriage is not the issue: Gaining official permission for “sexual minority” lifestyles is, along with getting the muscle needed to silence the opponents. Marriage law is that muscle.

This information about the real objective needs to be taught to most of the public. After years of silence from the mainstream media about the realities of “gay” life and the true agenda, Americans need to be re-educated on this issue. Despite being flaunted as “pride” in annual homosexual parades all over this country and in Maine as well, most citizens don’t attend those, don’t frequent “gay” bathhouses or porn sites and remain unenlightened about how bold and extreme this movement has become.

But despite the teaching moment that LaBarbera, Madore and Camenker took advantage of, and despite the excellent media coverage their statements received, the Stand for Marriage campaign did not embrace them. In fact, they did everything possible to discourage their efforts, both in public and behind the scenes. Scott Fish of Stand for Marriage told the Maine media he “disavowed” any association with these brave pro-family warriors.

This happened despite the fact that, in its campaign, Stand for Marriage Maine utilized research on school impact provided by some of these very people. No good deed goes unpunished, apparently.

If one looks at the website for Frank Schubert, head public affairs consultant behind the Maine pro-marriage campaign, we read, “One of Mr. Schubert’s strengths is the ability to synthesize complicated public policy issues into understandable messages, helping his clients define the debate on their terms.”

Well, those “terms” ended up as compromised and confused, which doesn’t bode well for the future. Nor, by the way, is the message in line with Scripture. God has no tolerance for damaging, destructive homosexual behavior. This kind of short-term thinking may win a few battles, but will guarantee we lose the war.

________________________________________

Linda Harvey is a radio talk-show host and president of Mission America, a Christian pro-family organization.

Posted by MassResistance October 30, 2009:

MassResistance reports: A Massachusetts man was fired from a national retail corporation because of his traditional beliefs on same-sex marriage.  Peter Vadala was formally dismissed from his job as second deputy manager of the Brookstone store at Boston’s Logan Airport on August 12, 2009, after a supervisor reported him to Human Resources regarding an incident two days earlier. Story continues under video, which was shot by our friends at MassResistance:

As Peter described the incident (see video above), he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage.  When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to “he” but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter’s discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex “marriage.” At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after some further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.

Brookstone’s termination letter to Peter states that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.” It goes on to describe Peter’s actions as constituting “harassment” and that his comments were “inappropriate and unprofessional.” It further accuses him of “imposing” his beliefs upon others. … [continue at MassResistance site]

READ THE REST OF THE STORY on MassResistance’s website

______________________

Heath, who is also Board Chairman of AFTAH, writes on his blog:

Righteousness prevails

There’s lots of disappointed people today.  Not just in Maine, but all across America.  Maine was supposed to become the first state to endorse homosexual marriage on a statewide ballot.  It didn’t happen, thank God.

It was close, but they’ve always been close.  Ever since I helped start the debate about using referendums to stop the queer political movement in 1991 its been close.  We realized then that the politicians would be incapable of halting the slide toward the full legal endorsement of sex outside of marriage.  We believed that the people would do the right thing.

In referendum after referendum over nearly twenty years I fought side-by-side with thousands of fellow Mainers and slowed the propagandists and politicians.  Working behind the scenes gay activists still managed to enact all of their agenda except for marriage.  It was gratifying this year to finally see substantial statewide and national groups step up to face this goliath.  I was, however, horrified by the concession proclaimed by Stand for Marriage this past weekend.  They repeated their endorsement of domestic partnerships and gay rights, going so far as to suggest that more rights to protect homosexuality may be in order.

I pray this election result signals that we have turned the corner, and that we are going to listen to our hearts.  Sexual love is made for a man and a woman to enjoy in the context of a life long commitment.  Surely we don’t want to build a society where our children and grandchildren are encouraged to invent new perversions to avoid boredom?

The path to sanity is well defined.  We don’t need experts to help us define marriage.  We already know it when we see it.  We simply need to see more of a commitment to it in ourselves, and those we love.

Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.  Homosexuality is a sickness.  It’s a sin.

We need to stop putting up with it.  There is nothing civil about hiding the truth from those we love.  And the truth about sex outside of marriage is that it hurts, it’s bad for us.  We need to avoid it.

We need to choose life over sex.  Sex is for life … it creates life.  Sex and life must be connected in our thinking.  We come together sexually in the context of marriage to celebrate creation, the creation of a unique individual human life.  It is perilous to disconnect sex from creation.  It is even more perilous to pretend that pleasurable sex should be associated with acts unspeakable.

In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine’s people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must de-fund the so-called “civil rights teams” [pro-homosexual student groups] and remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act.  It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine’s anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s.

We must not stop fighting until Maine’s laws are once again just, and equal rights are guaranteed to all Maine citizens on the basis of good conduct, not sinful behavior.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must fight this evil.  And we will fight.

We will never surrender.  There is too much at stake.

I agree with my good friend Matt Barber, who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth in addition to his important work at Liberty Counsel. It is not ethical nor good strategy for the “pro-family” movement to promote one evil and public-policy disaster (changeable and sinful behavior as a government-backed “civil right”) to fight another (homosexual “marriage”). Yet that is precisely what the Yes on 1 campaign’s pro-domestic partnership ad called “It’s Possible” did. [Click HERE for AFTAH's election story.] Here again is the text of that misguided Yes on 1 ad used in Maine:

‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’

We who claim to follow God are lacking in integrity if we promote the normalization of homosexuality as part of some (perhaps well-intentioned) utilitarian plan to ostensibly “save” traditional marriage. Indeed, the irony of the ad text above is that progressive concessions on “domestic partnership” and “civil unions” legislation will, in fact, dismantle traditional marriage. Yes on 1 PR consultant Frank Schubert’s compromising spin will pave the way for disaster in the pro-family movement, as it undermines our greatest strength: our commitment to the truth. It’s time to reject Political Correctness and get back to basics in the pro-family movement. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

P.S. Young people won’t buy this political spin anyway: looking for hypocrisy, they will merely say that if “gay domestic partners” truly are worthy of state recognition in the name of civil rights, then why NOT allow them to marry (and why NOT teach children “gay”-affirming lessons in school)?  The debate will only turn around when we succeed in re-explaining to Americans — both young and old — why homosexual behavior is wrong and is NOT anything like a “civil right,” and about how newfangled homosexual “rights” negate our precious First Amendment freedoms.

Read Matt’s statement below and then his additional remarks that follow it:

____________________________________

STATEMENT BY MATT BARBER
Contact:  jmattbarber@comcast.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Nov. 4, 2009

Counterfeit Marriage Rejected in Maine

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted –– hopefully for good this time –– in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists?  I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children –– for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This  is not just about ‘marriage.’  It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera  and Brian Camenker ––  who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room –– homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda –– counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

###

Added comments by Barber for Americans For Truth:

“Here’s is a mere sampling of what God – the sovereign creator of the universe – has to say about deviant homosexual conduct which He calls ‘abominable’:

‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ Leviticus 18:22

‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’ - Romans 1:26-27

“By contrast, here’s what the organized “Yes on 1” campaign had to say about the same topic in an ad [view the ad HERE] they ran up to yesterdays vote:

‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’‘

“It’s simply impossible to reconcile the two. If the Pro-Family movement wishes to survive, we must stop listening to political focus groups and PR , and start listening to the inerrant word of God.”

Add Maine to the List: Homosexual "marriage" activists lost in Maine, while pro-family advocates debate the best tactics to oppose counterfeit "marriage" and all aspects of the homosexual agenda.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Tuesday was a mixed bag for pro-family citizens concerned about the homosexual agenda. Here are the main election stories surrounding homosexuality that we are following:

• “Gay marriage” goes down to defeat in Maine — Congratulations to all who supported the effort to preserve traditional marriage in Maine! Despite a massive effort by outside homosexual activist groups to influence the vote, a homosexual “marriage” bill went down to defeat in Maine through a “People’s Veto” — whereby voters can reject a law by plebiscite. The YES on 1 lead was inching up in the late hours Tuesday and early morning. At 2:00 AM EST, with 87% of the precincts tallied, the Bangor Daily News reported that the “YES” vote to repeal Maine’s new “gay marriage” law was ahead by about 52.75 to 47.25%. In the final days of the campaign, Americans For Truth and MassResistance worked with Maine pro-family stalwart Paul Madore of the Maine Grassroots Coalition to educate citizens on the role of outside radical homosexual groups in the “NO” campaign. Madore ran a print ad featuring Brian Camenker’s popular article, “What Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ has Done to Massachusetts”; it reached 500,000 Mainers. And Madore’s press conference last Wednesday — though curiously disavowed by the pro-traditional-marriage “Yes on 1″ group, Stand For Marriage Maine (SFFM) — received wide media coverage. That, combined with some hard-hitting ads by SFMM targeting the promotion of “homosexual marriage” in Maine schools, may have tipped the balance against the “gay marriage” law.
• “Gay” lobby wins in liberal Kalamazoo, Mich. — A pro-homosexual, pro-”transgender” non-discrimination ballot measure in Kalamazoo, Michigan, has prevailed easily by a 62-38 margin, according to the Kalamazoo News. Homosexual activists celebrated the vote, which was a defeat for a multi-racial, multi-religious coalition opposed to the “special rights” initiative. See this OneNewsNow story featuring American Family Association of Michigan’s Gary Glenn. Kalamazoo is a liberal college town and Glenn tells AFTAH that he estimates that the pro-family forces were outspent by the homosexual side by 10-1.
• GOP sweep in VA; last-minute liberal “bigotry” smear against Ken Cuccinelli for opposing homosexual behavior flops. — Virginia returned to its Republican-dominant ways on Election Day with a GOP sweep of statewide races,

  Ken Cuccinelli, slammed by the Washington Post for speaking truth.

  led by the state’s new Governor-elect, Bob McDonnell. That included a landslide victory for Republican  Ken Cuccinelli for attorney general. Just days before the vote, the Washington Post ran an editorial against the GOP conservative titled “Mr. Cuccinelli’s Bigotry.” The Post and fellow pro-”gay” liberals were astounded at Cuccinelli’s forthright stance against granting “rights” based on homosexuality, as the Post indignantly reported:   “Homosexual acts, said Mr. Cuccinelli, currently a state senator, are ‘intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law-based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. . . . They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents … behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.” The Post stated that “as attorney general, [Cuccinelli] would be an embarrassment to Virginia.” But the state’s voters paid little heed to the newspaper’s pro-”gay” political correctness, and elected Cuccinelli in a landslide.

• Homosexual activists squeak by with win in Washington State: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports regarding Referendum 71, which grants marriage-like benefits to the state’s homosexual couples: “Voters Tuesday were approving Washington’s new ‘everything but marriage’ law that greatly expands the rights of gay couples. In early election returns Referendum 71 was passing 51 percent to 49 percent.”

Debate over tactics

In post-election analysis, we will be contrasting and analyzing the messaging strategies of the NO campaign in Washington State versus the YES campaign in Maine — since both were fought in liberal states. The Washington State campaign focused on educating voters about disordered homosexual relationships, while the Maine effort — led by California Prop 8 strategist Frank Schubert — eschewed talking about homosexuality (except regarding the forced teaching of pro-”gay” lessons in schools) out of fear that such discussions would potentially alienate moderate voters. The Schubert tactic of decoupling homosexual behavior from anti-gay-”marriage” campaigns is also championed by Maggie Gallagher, the country’s most prominent traditional-marriage defender.

To the consternation of conservative pro-family observers who fought against legislation granting rights based on aberrant sexual behavior, Schubert’s Maine PR strategy actually affirmed the  “rights” of the state’s homosexual couples — with a TV ad entitled “It’s Possible” that approvingly cited the “legal protection” that homosexuals couples possess under Maine’s “Domestic Partners” law. Here is the controversial portion of the “It’s Possible” SFFM ad:

“Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.”

This ad and Stand For Marriage Maine’s “marriage-only” strategy touched off criticism among pro-family advocates who adhere to a principled approach of opposing any endorsement of homosexual behavior/relationships — tacit or otherwise — and who take care not to condone (proud) “gay” identity.

Despite the pro-family victory in Maine, electoral and cultural momentum remains with the homosexual activists.  Yesterday’s election results on homosexual ballot measures from Washington to Maine evince a continuation deterioration in support for the pro-family position AGAINST homosexual activist goals, including “same-sex marriage.” Maine is an instructive example of the downward trajectory of the pro-family position (a trend that compels Schubert’s “moderate” strategy, although his critics say his methods exacerbate the downward spiral): the northeastern state went from twice rejecting pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws in similar “People’s Veto” elections — in 1998 and 2001 — to passing both “gay rights” and “domestic partners” laws in the last few years, to finally rejecting homosexual “marriage” by a relatively narrow margin yesterday. Surely Maine’s homosexual activists will be returning with another attempt to enact homosexual “marriage” in the not-too-distant future.

From an article yesterday in the conservative CNSNews.com, “Obama: Homosexual Relationships ‘Just as Real and Admirable’ as Heterosexual Marriage”:

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama delivered an unprecedented message to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night. Sounding more like a homosexual activist than a sitting president, Obama went well beyond his expected message of “I’m here with you” on the homosexual agenda.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield,” Obama told an estimated audience of 3,000. “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

Even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was stunned at the breadth of  Obama’s statement, calling it “something quite remarkable.”

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States,” Solmonese said in a post-speech statement. “It’s simply unprecedented.”

But Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, called the president’s remarks “appalling.”

“Barack Obama is … declaring that these relationships are basically equal to the real thing,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com. “I think this is the ultimate Obama audacity play –– for him, just declaring it seems to make it so.”

The president pointedly used the pronoun “we” – not “you” –– throughout much of his speech.

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach,” Obama said at one point….

LaBarbera said Obama’s comments went far beyond using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

“The condescension is glaring,” LaBarbera said. “He’s really putting down millions and millions of faithful, moral-minded citizens and dismissing traditional beliefs with such arrogance, it is almost indescribable. It really is amazing.”

“It’s just hateful rhetoric,” LaBarbera added. “It’s a different kind of hate, to be sure, but it is hate –– he hates our Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Obama’s Expanding Anti-Christian Agenda: Photo of President Obama appearing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s most powerful homosexual lobby group. Obama was the keynote speaker at the group’s annual fundraising dinner. He echoed HRC’s talking points by claiming that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal and natural relationships between a man and a woman.

CHICAGO, Illinois — President Obama used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator, by brazenly declaring before a homosexual activist audience that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal relationships between a man and a woman.

Here is how influential one homosexual activist — Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, whose annual fundraising dinner Obama keynoted tonight — reacted to the president’s unprecedented endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle:

“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  ‘You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued this response:

President Obama has taken his ‘audacity’ to new levels tonight, equating sin-based ‘relationships’ to the normal and natural male-female relationship that finds its best fulfillment in God-ordained, procreative marriage.

During the presidential campaign, Obama once punted on an abortion-related query as to when life begins, saying that was above his “pay grade.” Too bad he didn’t attempt a similar evasion on  homosexuality. The president has gone way over his pay grade on this one. Homosexual practice is a moral issue, settled by the Creator and His clear design of nature since the beginning of time. Obama can no more declare with any authority that abnormal, homosexuality-based relationships are as “admirable” as normal relationships than he can proclaim that each day will now have 30 hours instead of 24 to increase American productivity.

The president could not be more wrong. Homosexual relationships are not to be admired, they are to be pitied, as immoral “unions” that can only pretend to copy real marriage. Moreover, when the government treats such aberrant relationships like marriage, it risks placing hundreds of thousands of children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design, through “gay adoption” — another misguided homosexual demand advanced by Obama.

Perhaps the president needs to meet at the White House with some “ex-gays” — former homosexuals who now live in natural, man-woman marriages — people like Steve Bennett, Yvette Schneider, and Alan Chambers — to see the error of his ways.

We have yet to analyze Obama’s entire speech, but his declaration about admiring immoral homosexual relationships alone is the latest in a series of acts of spectacular hubris that have marked his political career. But Obama has a problem: he sold himself to the American electorate as a moderate Christian who believes deeply in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Yet the more he panders and postures to his impatient homosexual allies, the more Obama’s supposed embrace of husband-and-wife marriage becomes a farce — one apparently designed to fool voters who knew next to nothing about his real, radically pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

We don’t blame Obama’s “queer” allies for asking: if you truly believe same-sex relationships are as “real and admirable” as male-female relationships, then why NOT support “gay marriage”? Equal is equal, right? The truth, of course, is that homosexuality-based relationships are anything but equal to the real thing: they cannot produce children; they are based on destructive and changeable behavior that has been condemned by Christianity and other major religious throughout most of civilized human history; and in celebrating their particular sin and attaching it to the noble institution of marriage, they force the teaching of homosexuality and counterfeit “marriage” as normative to schoolchildren in the name of tolerance and equality.

Barack Obama is a man whose “audacity” and pride seem to know no bounds — he even distorts the Bible to justify his “gay” advocacy. In his mind, he knows better than God, or so it would seem. Yet in this respect Obama is not unlike other pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians — mostly Democrats but some Republicans — who take it upon themselves to redefine right and wrong based on their subjective “feelings.” As the prophet Isaiah said long ago, they call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20).

We hope that Obama’s cynical habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the homosexual issue (like other issues) will be his undoing. Now it is time for moral-minded Americans — especially those who voted for Obama  — be they Christian, Muslim or Jew; black, white or brown — to let the White House and Congress know that they will oppose all of the Obama Administration’s legislative efforts to create a bogus “civil right” out of the human wrong of homosexuality.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3: 16-18)

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, in the few years I have known Matt Barber — I met him in 2005 after he was fired by Allstate Insurance Company after writing an article on his own time critical of homosexuality — I have come to see him is an antidote of sorts for the ills besetting the “anti-homosexual-agenda” movement. (Calling it “anti-gay” makes it sound like we’re against people when we really oppose destructive, unnatural and changeable behaviors that for centuries have been prohibited according to Judeo-Christian moral teachings; “gay” self-identity is a very new concept, historically speaking.)

Barber’s contribution to our noble cause should not be underestimated: he is just as unapologetic and aggressive for biblical truth as hell-bent activists like Kevin Jennings and HRC’s Joe Solmonese are for their evil agendas. That’s why coming to see him at AFTAH’s banquet on Saturday, October 24 will be so good for your soul. Each of us needs to have our batteries recharged to fight the anti-Christian Left — and there is no force, short of Muslim extremists perhaps, that poses a greater threat to our God-given American liberties than the homosexual/transsexual activist juggernaut.

Matt will pump you up to fight on for God, family and country and help put things in perspective about why we must resist the nefarious “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) lobby — or lose our nation and its precious freedoms as we know them.

STUDENT/PASTOR DISCOUNT:  I am so convinced that Matt will spur you on to do good deeds for the Kingdom that I have cut the price in half for pastors and teenage students to attend: from $50 to $25 per person. Would you please prayerfully consider sponsoring your pastor or teenage students (and their friends) for $25 to hear Matt’s talk? If you cannot muster up the $25, then e-mail AFTAH and we’ll find a way to get that person there — because I do not want anyone to miss this uplifting presentation for lack of money. You can call 910-308-7619 or write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

In a world of insane political correctness and perversion- and gender-confusion-based “rights,” our young people and spiritual leaders NEED to hear Barber’s bold defense of truth.

If it is true that religious America is filled with “evangellyfish” and “Catholic cop-outs” who are marked by their timidity in the public square and disdain for the “culture wars,” then Matt is just the shark we need to tear down their bogus excuses and restore a vision of courageous Christian citizenship in this blessed nation. He doesn’t try to be “nicer than Jesus,” as many Christians do today who cannot bear to apply God’s “tough love” standard to this Sin Movement euphemistically known as “gay civil rights.” Instead, Matt just stands fearlessly on the truth that flows from the Bible — backed by reason — and fights as hard for it today as he did in the ring as a professional heavyweight boxer who went undefeated before bowing out due to an injury. (Click HERE to watch Matt’s knock-out fights on YouTube.)

If you fall into one of these categories, then hearing Matt’s tough but true message on Oct. 24 is just what you need:

• Are you overly defensive about fighting in the “culture war” or think that it gets in the way of Christians “ministering to the gay community”?
• Do you shy away from cultural confrontation and think it’s more “Christ-like” for believers to stay out of the messy Culture Wars?
• Do you have doubts about the rightness of our cause or whether God’s word remains valid in today’s “gay”-affirming culture? Are you sometimes embarrassed or resentful about the Bible’s strong prohibition against homosexual sin, or find yourself questioning God’s word even as you accept the flawed presumptions of homosexual apologists?
• Are you nervous about being called “intolerant” or hateful if you stand up for real marriage and against the many demands of the GLBT movement?
• Do you feel homosexuals largely have no choice about their “orientation” so why shouldn’t they have (homosexuality-based) “civil rights” like other minorities?
• Do you feel we’ve already lost this battle so what’s the point of fighting on? That “same-sex marriage” is inevitable? Or that the Culture War is futile because the “end times” are upon us and Bible predicts immorality will continue to grow anyway?
• Are you beaten down by the persistence and power of ungodly forces in our culture? Are you so sick of this issue you just don’t want to deal with it anymore?
• Do you think protecting the word “marriage” is the best we can hope for when it comes to stopping the GLBT movement?
• Do you feel like “gays and lesbians” are largely victims in our culture — including at the hands of “rigid,” pharisaical Christians — and that the Church should move away from its “obsession” with this issue and on to more pressing matters like Global Warming?
• Are you largely ignorant of the size, financial resources and clout of the GLBT movement? Would your attitude toward the Culture War change if you saw how outgunned pro-family forces are in this battle?
• Do you have trouble answering this question from the other side: “How does my gay marriage affect your marriage?”

Now be honest: most of us struggle with at least one of those questions, and many justify inaction using similar lines of thinking.

Matt Barber’s inspiring story is the answer to such Christian confusion and defeatism. He is the personification of that very non-obscure verse in the Book of Romans (8:28): “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” He could never have predicted what his Heavenly Father had in store for him when he was fired by Allstate in a heavy-handed act of anti-religious bigotry. (If you doubt that, apply the “gay-Christian” substitution test: can you imagine a Fortune 500 corporation abruptly firing a homosexual employee who was privately championing “gay pride” on the web? Exactly.)

Matt and his wife faced financial ruin and a sudden dead-end to his solid career path thanks to Allstate’s liberal intolerance. However, through God’s amazing grace and provision, he now rhetorically battles the very same Homosexual Activist Lobby that cost him his job. (The homosexual group Human Rights Campaign, which played a key role in Matt’s demise at Allstate, is welcoming President Obama as keynote speaker at its fund-raising dinner Saturday night.) And frankly, Matt is amazed that so many fellow Christians are now bowing out of the “culture war” on the “gay” issue despite the clear and present danger that organized homosexuality poses to our children and to our First Amendment liberties — at at time when our political enemies are boasting that they are on the precipice of total victory!

God wouldn’t have us quit the battle for Truth in a free society and concede to a powerful special interest lobby that despises and twists His Inerrant Word to rationalize their particular besetting sin (one He calls “detestable”). We must defend the Truth no matter what comes — as Matt has — because God wins in the end, and His truth will set men free.

_________________________________

Read these Matt Barber columns:

Matt Barber Answers Charge that Christians Focus Too Much on Homosexuality

Matt Barber: Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!

Also relevant:

Dr. Michael Brown Corrects Andrew Marin and Emergent Evangelicals on their ‘Celebration of Ambiguity’ on Homosexuality

SPECIAL STUDENT/PASTOR RATE:  Sponsor a student or a pastor to go to the AFTAH banquet for half the usual ticket price: just $25/person. Young people swimming in the pop culture’s pro-”gay” swamp and our spiritual leaders need to hear Matt’s inspiring message!  Please designate their school or church affiliation.  Call 910-308-7619 for more info. Sign up at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.

Please save the evening of Saturday, October 24 to attend Americans For Truth’s banquet. Our featured speaker is Matt Barber, culture warrior for Liberty Counsel. Matt is quite a guy, to say the least. He’s gone from being a professional heavyweight boxer, to being fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article — on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality, to his current position as one of America’s leading defenders of natural marriage and family. AFTAH got rave reviews for its last banquet; you won’t want to miss this one! The event will be held outside Chicago, at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. Tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online by clicking the “Online Banquet Signup” link at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/, or mail your check (designate: “banquet”) to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.  Write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net, or call 910-308-7619 for additional information. Please spread the word and we hope to see you there on Oct. 24th!

Note: you can read some of Matt’s columns by plugging “Matt Barber” in the AFTAH “Search” button on the upper right corner of this website. We suggest you start with this important piece: “Matt Barber Answers Charge that Christians Focus Too Much on Homosexuality.” Matt’s will be signing copies of his new book, “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War,” at the banquet. Here’s what some top conservative leaders are saying about the book:

 “Our country is at a crossroads. Now, more than ever, we need strong voices to stem the tide of liberalism that is washing away America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Matt Barber is one of those voices…” – Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

“… Matt Barber is fighting back. The Right Hook is a must read for anyone who seeks to preserve America’s Godly heritage.” – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

“We are thankful that God picked Matt Barber out of the boxing ring and placed him in the national ring to go head to head with the adversaries of our country.” – Tim and Beverly LaHaye

“Matt Barber needs to be heard by every American … the kind of leader people should follow.” – Congressman Tom Delay

______________________________________________

Help AFTAH Stand for Truth against the “Gay” Lies!

Help us fight the well-funded, powerful Homosexual Lobby with your tax-deductible donation at http://americansfortruth.com/donate/.  You can mail your gift to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.  Thank you! — www.aftah.org

P.S.  We understand that the Christian-bashing, Marxist radicals over at Gay Liberation Network will be protesting IFI’s banquet. Now we know IFI must be doing something right.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, Dr. Michael Brown gave an excellent presentation at AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture last week. We hope to post a YouTube on Dr. Brown’s succinct and compelling response to my question on the “Big Three” hostile questions thrown at Christians who defend the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual conduct:

1. “But Jesus Christ never said anything about homosexuality”;
2. “Why should we believe the Old Testament says about homosexuality when it also bans wearing polyester and eating shellfish?”; and
3. “You Christians are so judgmental.”

Dr. Brown, a world renowned biblical scholar, hit it out of the park. He also challenged what he calls the “celebration of ambiguity”in describing neo-evangelicals’ and the “Emergent Church’s” evasive and equivocating — and unbiblical — positioning on the issue of homosexuality.

Brown specifically challenged Chicago evangelical Andrew Marin (right), founder of the Marin Foundation and author of “Love Is Not an Orientation.” Brown praised Marin for wanting to reach out to homosexuals and the portions of the book in which Marin relays personal stories of homosexuals he has encountered who have been hurt by the Church. But he was highly critical of Marin’s misuse of Scripture in interpreting verses dealing with homosexuality.

Brown said of the Emergent Church — which is much more accepting of homosexual identity, uses the controversial term ”gay Christian,” and generally scolds Christians for actively condemning homosexuality and the “gay” political/cultural agenda: “Their cure is worse than the sickness …. [they] have shown more solidarity with [homosexual] people than with God.”

“How are we helping anyone when we make the clear unclear … the unambiguous ambiguous? … How is that love?” Brown asked, calling on Christians to share the full truth of the Gospel in love. After first noting that Christians need to repent for neglecting to lovingly share God’s salvation plan with people caught up in homosexuality, Brown warned against believers falling into a “soulish sympathy” for homosexuals that overrides Biblical truth and their Christian conscience. [AFTAH will be offering a DVD of Brown's talk; write americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.]

“There is a fundamental denial of the power of the Gospel,” Brown said, noting that a key requirement of being a disciple of Christ is to “deny yourself.”

Brown — who strongly urged Christians to humble themselves and repent for not offering the grace and love of Christ to homosexual friends and acquaintances — will be writing a review of Marin’s book for AFTAH. We will also transcribe Brown’s important critique of Emergent philosophy in a future post.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read Marin’s book yet, but have been deeply troubled by his chameleon-like approach to ministry and his watered-down Gospel as it relates to the issue of homosexuality. Marin — a self-described former “bible-bangin’ homophobe” who moved to Chicago’s homosexual “Boystown” community to reach homosexuals after three of his friends “came out” to him as “gay” – turned on me last year after we both appeared on a Moody Radio broadcast in Chicago.

After our mutual appearance on Moody’s WMBI Radio, I posted a sympathetic Moody commentary about it by WMBI’s Julie Roys. After we republished Roys’ piece, Andrew and his wife pleaded with me to take it off AFTAH’s website to accommodate their covert-like approach to ministry (an approach that has earned him criticism and distrust from both homosexual activists like Michaelangelo Signorile and biblically faithful Christians). After I rejected his appeal, Marin did an online interview on ExGayWatch, a homosexual activist website, to supposedly “clear the record” and distance himself and his work from Americans For Truth.

Marin’s turnaround came just days after he praised me enthusiastically on Moody Radio for “[taking] the bullet for all of us” in opposing the homosexual activist movement. Predictably, ExGayWatch used Marin’s interview as an opportunity to bash my alleged “shameless self-promotion.” I was appalled that Marin would use a blatantly anti-biblical website — one bitterly hostile to the truth that Jesus Christ can help homosexuals leave the lifestyle – to undermine a fellow Christian believer.

(I have worked with Andrew before: in 2006 he once almost appeared at a press conference that I organized as executive director of Illinois Family Institute — comprised of local pro-family leaders confronting the “Gay Games,” which were being held in Chicago. Marin supported IFI’s efforts — which included a Gospel outreach to Gay Games participants – but he pulled out as a speaker at the press conference, fearing that his public stance would hurt his ministry.)

Below is Marin’s startling post on the ”gay”-affirming site, ExGayWatch. I say “startling” because Marin — who regularly works with Moody Bible Institute and is promoted through sympathetic Moody Radio interviews – now seems intent on muddying up the Bible’s clear truth: that homosexual practice is sinful yet changeable through Christ. Dr. Brown noted the exact same tendency in Marin’s book, which he critiqued at AFTAH’s talk.

Needless to say, Christians like Marin who equivocate on biblical truth will be championed by the same homosexual activists who viciously (and erroneously) denounce AFTAH and groups like us as “hateful.”

The highly “ambiguous” Marin “Is Homosexuality a Sin?” piece below is actually a long comment posted on the same ExGayWatch thread that contains his self-serving online interview with homosexual activist David Roberts. To be honest, I was so disturbed by Marin’s actions that I could not bring myself to listen to his XGW interview, but now that he’s “out of the closet,” as it were, with his “Love is an orientation” approach toward homosexuality, it’s time to review his comments and correct the record ourselves. We will respond point-by-point to Marins’ take on what transpired with WMBI and his dubious exegesis of Scripture.

I do not believe — or at least I hope — that the equivocating Andrew Marin, who seems ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (at least as applied to homosexuality),  represents Moody Bible Institute’s approach towards the homosexual issue. Moody has faithfully served the Lord for decades. And I regret that despite Julie Roys’ hopeful commentary, we must now openly oppose Marin’s habit of downplaying the sin of homosexuality — forgiveness for which is part of the great transforming work of Christ!

Dr. Brown is absolutely right: there is a great need for ministry-minded Christians to lovingly share the Gospel with practicing homosexuals, but they should never resort to publicly obfuscating or denying biblical Truth to carry out that mission. Please pray for Andrew Marin – that he will return to the truth on this issue, including the parts that are politically incorrect. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

_____________________________

DL Moody once preached:

That’s the trouble with the sinners in Chicago.  They’ve turned against God, broken His commandments, trampled His law under their feet, and their sins hang upon them; until they show signs of repentance their sin will remain.  But the moment they see their iniquity and come to God, forgiveness will be given them and their iniquity will be taken out of their way.  Said a person to me the other day, “It is my sin that stands between me and Christ.” “It isn’t,” I replied, “it’s your own will.” That’s what stands between the sinner and forgiveness.  Christ will take all your iniquities away if you will. Men are so proud that they won’t acknowledge and confess before God.  Don’t you see on the face of it, if your boy won’t repent you cannot forgive him, and how is God going to forgive a sinner if he don’t repent? If He was allowing an unrepentant sinner into His Kingdom, there would be war in Heaven in twenty-four hours.  You cannot live in a house with a boy who steals everything he can lay his hands on.  You would have to banish him from your house.

__________________________________

Andrew Marin’s Post on ExGayWatch

Andrew Marin’s comment posted on the homosexual activist website “ExGayWatch,” on April 24th, 2008:

Hello Everyone,

I am part of the subject of this post [referring to his online interview] and I wanted to say a few things. First, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given by David to explain what happened. I also appreciate everyone’s comments, and I want to let all of you know that I want to be as open and transparent as I can possibly be.

With that in mind I would like to address Bob’s concerns one by one because I am not trying to hide anything from anyone. I want to be honest about my life, my experiences and my organization – and so here are detailed answers for each of the concerns that were raised.

1. To explain my verbiage of “love” and “not judging” and how that influences our “educational work”:

As I said on the interview, my view of love is lived out through the following definition – love is a tangible and measurable expression of unconditional behaviors that no matter who you are, what you say or what you do I have your back 110% and will never leave or give up on your salvation/belief in God. I believe that the word love has become a trivial word coming from the Christian community to gays and lesbains because too often Christian expressions of love has become conditional. My goal is to unconditionally be apart of, and involved in people’s lives to overcome that negative perception and truth of what “love” has become. The Father is unconditional; Jesus is unconditional; and so to do I want to follow that example whether or not there is any “change” because at the end of the day only God can allow someone into heaven. So why not seek validation from the One who can bring eternal validation. Humanly opinions have no bearing on heavenly judgment, and therefore my wish is to take those humanly judgments away and focus on our Lord and let Him do as He sees fit for each of our lives. Therefore our entire educational work is based off of this premise.

2. Is homosexuality a sin?

Does anyone else ever wonder why when it comes to the most divisive topic in the church today that most questions revolve around one word, yes or no answers? I started to think about that, and I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides ask those same yes or no questions at the beginning so they can then label you and place you on their side, or the opponent’s side. This is nothing more than an expression of an “us vs. them” mindset. Building bridges cannot happen through an us vs. them mindset. Therefore, is homosexuality a sin?

I have three clear answers:

1. Romans 3:23 – we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

2. James 2:10 – in God’s eyes, if you have committed one sin you have committed them all

3. Matthew 7:1-2 – the measure you use to judge others will also be used to judge you

Theologically I believe that sin has been propitiated to us all through the Original Sin, and we are all born sinful into a sinful world. My position is that it is time to elevate the conversation past what is always fought about and shift our mind-frames to belief and communication with the Creator. If we can focus on a tangible expression of love, belief and a humbled understanding of ourselves, and each other’s point of view as valid to their experience – in our lives and our sexuality (from both sides) –then we can advance the worship and dialogue past negative debates and onto more important eternal issues. I strongly believe that we are all on the same plain constantly learning and growing in our lives and faith trying to figure this life out. The unique juxtaposition is that we will never figure it out and have to live by that same faith to continue on another day, in what many times is a non-felt security by God. We know He’s there and yet there are times, especially during the extremes of when things are great and when things are horrible, that we don’t feel Him. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I feel as though it is my job to tangibly reach out to the GLBT community and apologize for what has happened in the past – and then help both sides to move forward to bring faith and spiritual reconciliation to a community evangelical Christians have traditionally only fought against.

3. Where do I stand of civil rights issues such as marriage equality?

I let the politicians handle the politics. I head a religious organization that is solely focused on religion and spirituality and to a bridge being built between time-tested opposing communities. I believe that politics does not have to enter into every conversation. I understand that many of the “religious right” have placed themselves in the middle of political debates and agendas, as well as many on the “left” have done the same. I will do neither. I have been put here for spiritual things, and that is my only focus. When our government decides either way, I will so live by those laws and not argue, disagree or fight in either direction. My world is not of this world because of what is to come.

4. “If I love gays, why do I oppose gay rights?”

I have never commented on gay rights so I am not sure where that statement is coming from – this is the first time. Just because I was connected by a third party to LaBarbera does not mean I agree or disagree. Others can continue to fight over politics, I just wish to focus on being as best of a representation I can to the one true God.

5. “In a Reader interview I flunked both tests”

The link to the Reader article is
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/andrewmarin/

and if so inclined, please read it in its entirety. I believe that all quotes need further context, but becuase this issue was brought up here is a direct quote from that article:

The Marin Foundation takes no official position on gay marriage or gay adoption, although Marin praised one of his gay students who took in foster children from a third world country with his partner. And he says there’s no reason gays shouldn’t serve in the military. But these familiar debates are, for Marin, “nitpicking,” so mired in the realm of politics and worldly power that they detract from his broader spiritual mission. “I’m not political,” he insists. “I’m religious.”

6. There are other denominations that affirms the GLBT community so why do you need a “ministry”?

First, The Marin Foundation is not a ministry. We are an organization that is not connected to a church or denomination. We work with 9 different denominations in fact, including Episcopal and UCC churches. We are here because there are many people in the GLBT community who are frightened of church – the building, the dogma, the stigma that comes with the name. As a non-profit organization we are not a church, and therefore a safe place for people to come to talk, be validated as a child of God, listened to and not have to feel like they are being preached to or tied down to one thing or the other. Many people in the GLBT community who participate in our organization say that is the reason they go to us and not a church. Also, the Episcopal and UCC are traditionally liturgical in their approach. We have found that there are many GLBT people who were raised in evangelical homes and wish for that same environment. The Marin Foundation is one of the ways to return into spiritual things that are more comfortable for them then attending a church of any particular denomination. My denomination is the belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit who love me as their child.

7. Bob [Schwartz, of the hard-left Gay Liberation Network] called me an “unabashed homophobe” and that I am a “velvet-gloved hammer of antigay bigotry and discrimination.”

I in deed was, for the first 19 years of my life a homophobe. There was no two-ways about it. But to call me that now, with so many people in the GLBT community who love and respect me and the work that I do through The Marin Foundation who has helped so many GLBT people who have been really hurt by religion, is off base. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and after I read Bob’s post I had an epiphany this morning.

“I need to release the burden of having to feel like I have to convince people who don’t like me, of the things that I know are true in my life whether they agree or not.”

This might seem like old hat to all of you reading that, but my problem is that I take way too much too personally. So when I am insulted it really hurts my soul. I’m not a hardened season veteran of this issue that insults don’t hurt. I don’t have people call me names everyday of my life, so it stings when it does happen. Maybe it’s because I’m younger than most who are already involved, maybe I am naive? I don’t know. But regardless of where it comes from the reason I felt that I needed to write all of these issues down was to clear my conscious of being saddened by what Bob said.

I believe now, that I have covered all of his major points. I am very open to peaceful discussion and I look forward to continuing this very important dialogue.

Thank you very much.

[Marin posts again in the discussion on ExGayWatch; you can also listen to his interview in which he opposes AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera; go to: http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/04/labarberas-shameless-self-promotion-may-damage-a-real-ministry/]

Lively writes:

Masculine Christianity

By Scott Lively, DefendTheFamily.com Alert

Scripture teaches in Genesis that when God created man in His image, He created us male and female. The implication is that God’s character spans the full spectrum of masculine and feminine qualities. This attribute is also revealed in the person of Jesus, born as a male, but manifesting both masculinity and femininity in His actions. When exhibiting feminine qualities, Jesus was more nurturing and relationship-oriented than any woman. When exhibiting masculinity, Jesus was more forceful and results-oriented than any man.

Unfortunately, the modern American church, along with the majority of its leaders, has rejected masculinity in favor of an effeminate Christianity. Too many (though by no means all) of today’s pastors, priests, deacons and elders shrink timidly from the challenge of the world, more interested in decorating the interior of their church buildings than in doing cultural and political battle with the enemies of God. Ravening lions rage unchecked throughout the land, while church leaders hold potlucks and retreats.

Where is the masculine Jesus of the Bible in the life of today’s church? The Jesus who threw down the tables of the moneychangers and drove them out of the temple with a whip? The Jesus who faced down and tamed the Gerasene demoniac? The Jesus who, to their faces, excoriated the cultural and political leaders of the day as a “brood of vipers ” and “whitewashed sepulchers full of dead men ‘ s bones?” This masculine Jesus has been ejected from the American church. In His place is a false and emasculated Christ, as submissive and fearful of controversy as the men who now lead His flock.

Brethren, this is not an attack on femininity. If anything, the church should be commended for its appreciation for and fulfillment of the feminine aspects of its role. The vital compassion-based ministries — feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and soothing the broken-hearted — are prospering today. These ministries are very much a reflection of the feminine side of Christ’s complete personality.

Instead, this is vigorous rebuke to both women and men within the church who reject the masculine side of Christianity and have thus abandoned those outside our “church families,” leaving them to fend for themselves against the forces of evil in the world. This is a rebuke to male church leaders, who channel their masculine competitiveness into sports contests in church gymnasiums instead of contending for influence over the community outside the church walls. This is a rebuke to those pastors’ wives who keep their shepherd husbands safely close to the flock when they should be sometimes out hunting the bears and wolves.

Masculine Christianity fights to champion what is right and to defeat evil. It is the applied force for good against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. It is an embodiment of the spirit of conquest in which the Great Commission was given. It is the unyielding determination to prevail against all odds and at any cost to achieve a righteous goal — even unto death on a cross. Masculine Christianity is the engine of revival: prophetic, expansionist, uncompromising.

In biblical history, the greatest heroes of the faith exemplified masculine Christianity. Abraham did not sit idly by when his nephew Lot was captured by the four kings. He armed his servants and went out to rescue him by force. Moses faced down Pharaoh in a series of aggressive confrontations. David fearlessly challenged and defeated Goliath and then cut off his head as a trophy of battle. God blessed these righteous men and backed their righteous deeds with His power.

Josiah is honored in Scripture as one of the most righteous of all the kings for banishing the “perverted persons” from the land and destroying the foreign idols. Joshua and Caleb were the only men of their generation allowed to enter the promised land because, out of all the Israelite spies sent into Canaan, they alone called for immediate invasion of Canaan when the others backed away out of fear. John the Baptist, who boldly and publicly rebuked Herod for his sexual immorality, was praised by Jesus Himself. Jesus said that among men there was none greater than John.

Extra-biblical history is also replete with examples of masculine Christianity. The period of the American Revolution is one in which God-fearing men took up the sword to overthrow an unrighteous oppressor. The great missionary and reform movements are additional examples of masculine Christianity at work.

The defining characteristic of each of these examples is the conquest of evil by God’s people  — mostly men. Masculinity is by no means the exclusive domain of men, but it naturally has greater appeal to men in the same way that feminine ministries of the church appeal more to women. Indeed, this explains why the majority of church members today are women or married couples in which the husband attends church at the request of the wife. Where are the men of this generation? Though some are in church, they are significantly outnumbered by women, and they tend to be the least active members of the congregation. Is it any wonder in the light of the de-emphasis of masculinity by the church?

The church and this nation cry out for a revival of masculine Christianity, which is to say that we church leaders need to stop being such, for lack of a better word, sissies when it comes to social and political issues. We need to spend as much time confronting perpetrators as we do comforting victims. We need to do less fretting and more fighting for righteousness. For every motherly, feminine ministry of the church such as a Crisis Pregnancy Center or ex-gay support group, we need a battle-hardened, take-it-to-the-enemy masculine ministry like Operation Rescue (questions of civil disobedience aside). For every God-hating radical in government, academia and media we need a bold, no-nonsense, truth-telling Christian counterpart: trained, equipped and endorsed by the local church.

These are not easy words to hear for those in authority in the church today, but I offer no apology for saying them, because this is the hard truth that all of us must confront. We are on the brink of utter defeat by our cultural adversaries and the church is only now beginning to wake up to the consequences of our erstwhile passivity. We are rapidly nearing a point in time when even a strong call to action, were it to be heard from every one of America’s pulpits, would be insufficient to resolve our nation’s moral crisis. There comes a point of no return in every declining culture.

I imagine us Christians as reclusive householders in an Old Testament walled city. A few of us have stepped out onto the street, confused and dazed, to find our city overrun by enemy soldiers with more coming over the walls. Buildings are burning, the watchmen are falling back under an incredible onslaught, and most of our warriors are still sleeping soundly. We have reached that split-second of decision in which we must choose whether to rush forward into battle on the chance that we can defeat the invaders, or to surrender and look on in resignation as our children are marched off into slavery in a foreign land.

RSVP to aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Here are the event details:

WHO:  Dr. Michael Brown,  director of the Charlotte, NC -based Coalition of Conscience and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina. Dr. Brown, who holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, is the world’s foremost Messianic Jewish apologist. (Messianic Jews are Jews who believe in Jesus Christ (who was Jewish!) as their Messiah.) Brown is the author of 20 books and in 2010 will publish “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” which exposes the extremist teachings of “queer theology.”

WHAT:  AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture: Dr. Brown will be preaching on how faithful Christians are called to both RESIST the radical homosexual activist agenda and REACH OUT in grace and love with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to men and woman practicing homosexuality.

WHEN:  Thursday, Sept. 17, 6:00-9:00 PM.  Casual dinner begins at 6:00, followed by Dr. Brown’s talk from 7:00-9:00.  There will be a time for Q&A after a mid-talk break for refreshments.  A free will donation will be taken to cover the cost of the event. This event will be videotaped and a tape will be offered by AFTAH for purchase.

WHERE:  AFTAH’s office at 25W560 Geneva Rd., in Carol Stream, IL.  We are located on Geneva Rd., just west of Gary Rd.; (Carol Stream is next door to Wheaton in Chicago’s western suburbs.)  Look for the “Kingsland” sign out front and park in the rear.

WHY YOU SHOULD COME (and bring your PASTOR): If you struggle with or wonder about questions like these, this event is a great opportunity for you to strengthen your heart and mind on the issue of the Christian approach towards homosexuality and “gay” activism:

• If as a Christian, I want to lovingly minister to gays and lesbians, shouldn’t I avoid the anti-homosexual-agenda “culture war”?
• As a pastor, how best can I minister to active homosexuals?
• What responsibility do I as a pastor have in helping to resist the homosexual activist agenda and to proclaim biblical truth outside my church doors about homosexuality?
• How does the “GLBT” agenda threaten our religious and First Amendment freedoms?
• How are “queer” theologians undermining and distorting the Word of God? How does the gay theologians’ “Jesus” differ from the biblical Christ?
• Can I still love my “gay” friends or relatives while helping the pro-family movement resist the demands of the  homosexual activist agenda?
• How do I respond to gay activists who compare the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality to “wearing polyester” or eating shellfish? Why should I take what the Old Testament says about homosexuality seriously when it also advocates the stoning of rebellious children, etc.?
• How do I respond to people who tell me that I’m being judgmental if I don’t accept people being gay?
• Shouldn’t Christians stop condemning homosexuality as sin to show their love for the homosexual?
• Can a person be “gay” and a faithful Christian? Is the term “gay Christian” acceptable?
• Why are so many Christians AWOL in the Culture War?
• What have Christians done wrong in opposing the “gay” movement?
• Can homosexuals really change and leave their “gay” lifestyle and identity behind?
• What about the idea that churches should put a “moratorium” on preaching against homosexuality to help reach out to gays with the Gospel?
• My liberal friends tell me that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality: how do I answer that?
• If we’re against promiscuity, shouldn’t we let two people of the same sex who love each other and want to commit themselves to each other at least have their “civil unions” be recognized by the government? Shouldn’t we be FOR (same-sex) monogamy?
• If gays and lesbians didn’t choose their attractions, why is it a sin?
• Are transsexuality and cross-dressing sins in the Bible?
• I am not a Christian: give me some other reasons why I should oppose homosexuality in general, and “gay rights” laws in particular

Other AFTAH articles about Dr. Michael Brown:

• A Model Christian Response to ‘Gay’ Pride: ‘God Has a Better Way’ in Charlotte
• ‘Can You Be Gay and Christian?’ Dr. Michael Brown Invites Homosexual Clergy to Dialogue
• Should Christians Support Same-Sex Unions as a Matter of Justice? Dr. Michael Brown Responds to Jim Wallis
• LISTEN ONLINE: CWA Interviews LaBarbera and Dr. Michael Brown on ‘God Has Better Way’ Outreach
• Higgins Responds to Wayne Besen’s Screed against Dr. Michael Brown
• Dr. Mike Brown’s Debate with HRC’s Harry Knox to Air on Free Webcast May 5th

_____________________________
RSVP for the Dr. Michael Brown dinner-lecture to: aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

________________________

“Homosexualists see nothing wrong in compelling other people’s children to be exposed to implicit and explicit theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality because they believe their theories are facts.” – Laurie Higgins
 

H.R. 2262, “The Safe Schools Improvement Act,” was introduced in May, and in June it was referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. This bill would “amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs.” Anyone who has been paying attention knows that anti-bullying/safe schools curricula are now the central means by which pro-homosexual propaganda is secreted into public schools.

Joining bill sponsor Representative Linda Sánchez (D-CA) are 81 co-sponsors. Seventy-nine are Democrats, one is an independent, and two are Republicans. Co-sponsors from Illinois are Mark Kirk (R-10th District), Danny Davis (D-7th District), Luis Gutierrez (D-4th District), Mike Quigley (D-5th District) and Jan Schakowsky (D-9th District).

Background
A few months ago, a mother from Alameda County, CA called me for help in combating the new K-5 “Safe Schools” curriculum adopted by her local school board and implemented this month. It was this mother who directed me to H.R. 2262 and asked whether the passage of this bill would be accompanied by public money, perhaps even stimulus money.

The “safe schools” curriculum in Alameda,CA, like all other “safe schools” curricula, presents homosexuality, bisexuality, “transgenderism,” and “transsexuality,” (more properly known as gender identity disorder) positively and in ways that suggest that these disordered sexual practices are morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

What makes this situation worse — if that’s possible — is that the school district’s “attorneys say parents would not be allowed to keep their children from taking the courses because the lessons don’t include health or sexual education.” The school board formally announced in May that parents will neither be notified prior to students being exposed to pro-homosexual resources, nor will they be permitted to opt their children out of such presentations. In so doing, these activist ideologues betray their own pedagogical claims that they want parents to be advocates for their children and that they “honor diversity.” They reveal the deceit and Machiavellian machinations they are willing to employ in the service of using public education to advance their social and political vision.

A Massachusetts court came to a similar conclusion regarding parents’ rights — or the lack thereof. Judge Mark Wolf concluded that it is reasonable for K-5 teachers to teach other people’s children to respect homosexuality. He further stated that parents have two choices: either put their children in public schools or don’t. Once children are enrolled in public schools, however, there will be no requirement that schools notify parents prior to the presentation of pro-homosexual resources or offer parents an opt-out option.

We in Illinois should be troubled by this because it’s coming here. Organizations like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which endorsed H.R. 2262, are working feverishly to get pro-homosexual/safe schools curricula in all schools.

What is noteworthy about the efforts of activist “educators” like those in Alameda, CA is that they live and move as if their subversive theories about homosexuality and transgenderism are objective facts — despite the absence of proof:

• Homosexualists (i.e., homosexuals and those who support their moral beliefs and political agenda) arrogate to themselves the right to use public money and public resources (i.e., public education) to advance their subjective beliefs and values because they view their subjective beliefs and values as objectively true.
• Homosexualists believe that their subjective, unproven ontological theories and moral views grant to them rights that supersede parental rights, and therefore, they refuse even to allow parents to opt their own children out of presentations that affirm homosexuality. Homosexualists see nothing wrong in compelling other people’s children to be exposed to implicit and explicit theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality because they believe their theories are facts.
• Homosexualists believe they have the right to censor all resources in public schools that challenge the myth that homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race and the belief that homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts because they see their subjective beliefs and values as facts.
• Homosexualists believe they have the right to conceal from parents when their little ones will be exposed to radical, subversive ideas about homosexuality because homosexualists view their own unproven theories as facts.

This sounds scarily like propaganda to me. Apparently, when activist educators say that it takes an entire village to raise a child, they really mean it takes an entire village of likeminded “agents of change” and boatloads of public money to indoctrinate other people’s children.

If only people of faith would start to treat their own ontological and moral views as objective, universal, eternal, transcendent truths, maybe we could stem the tide of pro-homosexual activism in our public schools.

The California mother who contacted me comes to the issue with an unusual perspective: Kerry Cook is a former lesbian who identified as a “lesbian feminist” for ten years. Not only that but she was an Anti-Discrimination and Managing Diversity professional for the Australian government and a former board member of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in Sydney, Australia. She turned from that life, embraced Christ, a husband, and motherhood.

It is unconscionable that pro-homosexual resources are making their way into our schools when there are so many people of faith who know that these resources promote deeply flawed and destructive ideas. Why are there not more faith leaders and their followers in communities all across this country willing to fight the well-financed, morally corrupt effort to propagandize children with abominable ideas?

Just as the legitimate concept of “civil rights” is cunningly manipulated to change the legal definition of marriage, and the phenomenon of race is exploited to convince the public that homosexuality is an immutable, biologically determined, 100% heritable, morally neutral condition like race, the very real problem of bullying is being exploited to convince the public that pro-homosexual proselytizing belongs in public schools. Don’t buy it.

Schools can address bullying without ever mentioning deviant sexual conduct. For example, no public school administrator would ever recommend an anti-bullying program that affirms polyamory even to end the bullying of those students who identify as polyamorous. As I’ve said before, the good ends of ending bullying do not justify the illegitimate means of using public funds to affirm homosexuality.

Not only are schools pushing pro-homosexual indoctrination under the guise of “anti-bullying” programs, but the hardcore proselytes are fighting tooth and nail to prevent parents from being allowed to opt their children out of these propaganda sessions.

We in Illinois must stop ignoring the educational abuses taking place in publicly funded schools in places like California and Massachusetts. There are activists both within and without our public schools working to bring the same kinds of resources, activities, programs, and policies to Illinois schools. Children are the immediate victims of these abuses, but we should remember that current students are our future culture-makers.

To be good stewards of our money, caretakers of our children, preservers of our culture, and protectors of our rights, we must vigorously and publicly oppose the promotion of ignorance and deceit in public schools.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative (202-225-3121; www.congress.org) immediately to urge him or her to stop this dangerous bill.

Folks, we have been slow to comment on all the Harvey Milk hype in our liberal-dominated popular culture — hype that is driving this push for an outrageous California bill that would effectively force students to celebrate a man famous for … being the first “out and proud” practitioner of homosexuality to win public office. (Oh boy: another marker for America’s Moral Meltdown.) The more one reads about Milk (see Dan Flynn’s excellent City Journal piece HERE) and the real story about his murder at the hands of Dan White (see caption above), the more preposterous becomes the idea of heralding him as a “civil rights” martyr.

For the media, Hollywood and academic establishments, the fix is in on championing Milk as an American hero. For the rest of us (the silent majority), he was a just a man with a sexual problem who achieved a political first in a city — San Francisco — that devolved into a Mecca for others with the same sexual sin problem. Had he not practiced deviant and unhealthy sex, nobody would care about the name Harvey Milk. Incidentally, this epitomizes what is wrong with “gay” history: it’s mostly written by those with a vested interest in normalizing aberrant and immoral sexual lifestyles.

And now, if Arnold wimps out, California children will learn some more skewed history. They will be taught to associate heroism, nobility and justice with a politician who not only crusaded for a misguided cause — state-enfored “rights” based on homosexuality — but who lied to advance that cause and his career. See my friend Randy Thomasson’s Save California website for more background on Milk, and information on how to urge Schwarzenegger (916-445-2841) to do the right thing by vetoing this bill. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from Baptist Press (emphasis added); click HERE to sign up for BP alerts.

_______________________________

‘Harvey Milk Day’ heads to Calif. gov’s desk

Baptist Press, Sep 9, 2009

By Michael Foust

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)–A bill that would encourage California public schools to observe “Harvey Milk Day” and to remember the deceased homosexual leader with “commemorative exercises” passed the state Senate Tuesday and is heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hasn’t taken a position on it.

Schwarzenegger actually vetoed a similar bill last year but is under more pressure this year in light of President Obama recently awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Milk, the nation’s first openly homosexual person elected to public office. Milk was a San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978 by another supervisor. The fact that the biographical movie “Milk” was released last year only adds to the pressure on the governor.

The bill (S.B. 572) would commemorate Milk with what the state calendar calls a day of “significance.” The only other such days are the Day of the Teacher (second Wednesday of May), John Muir Day (April 21) and California Poppy Day (April 6). Harvey Milk Day would be his birthday, May 22.

Schwarzenegger actually referenced the bill on his Twitter account days ago, writing, “Give me your thoughts on the water package, Harvey Milk Day, and the prison reform bill.”

It passed the Senate, 22-14, and the House, 46-28, along party-line votes with Democrats in the majority….

Individual schools and teachers could decide on their own whether to mark the day, although many certainly would. The text of the bill says “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe.” The bill says it would be appropriate to have “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

State Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat and the bill’s sponsor, told The San Francisco Chronicle, “It should be kept in mind that he [Milk] literally gave his life so I and others can serve in public office and that every generation of LGBT Californians can pursue their every hope, dream and aspiration.”

But Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the bill and the president of SaveCalifornia.com, said Milk’s sexual escapades make him unfit to be pushed as a role model. For weeks, Thomasson’s press releases have quoted from “The Mayor of Castro Street,” a popular biography about Milk. Milk was 48 when he died but always had a desire for teen boys and men in their early 20s, the book says. He also advocated having multiple partners, it says….

Thomasson said in a [statement:] “Reputable biographies demonstrate that Milk was a sexual predator of teens, a homosexual sex addict who advocated polygamous relationships, and a public liar who justified his deceit. Harvey Milk was and is a terrible role model for kids, including kindergarteners who would be affected by this very bad bill.”

Close down the gay sex clubs? Homosexual sex is dangerous — the CDC says “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely than other groups to have HIV. And yet homosexual sex clubs flourish across the country. At left is Steamworks, a Chicago homosexual bathhouse where men go for anonymous sex with other men. This is a photo taken at the 2005 “Market Days” street fair, at which Steamworks advertises itself like any other business. Why doesn’t the government move to close down such perversion centers as public health hazards, given the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of male homosexual sex? 

____________________

So much for gay “equality.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have sex with men” (MSM): “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV. This does not mean that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, will take some tough, politically incorrect steps necessary to prevent AIDS — like closing down homosexual bathhouses and gay (male) sex clubs in major cities, and educating teenagers on the hugely disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual sex. The relentless pandering by federal, state and local governments to “gay” activists even as these same agencies fight diseases specifically linked to homosexual sex is one of the greatest public policy follies of our time — indeed, of history itself.

The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

_______________________________

Gay, Bi Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV

CDC reports hard data at National HIV Prevention Conference

By DYANA BAGBY, Washington Blade
Aug. 28, 2009

ATLANTA — Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.

Dr. Amy Lansky of the CDC presented research at the Aug. 24 plenary in which the CDC estimated in the U.S. there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per 100,000 men who have sex with men.

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“They have never converted the numbers into a rate,” said Walt Senterfitt of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project. Senterfitt is an epidemiologist.

“It’s not like this is totally new information. But they are saying now that gay, bisexual and other MSM are 50 times more likely to have AIDS than women and non-gay or bisexual men. This is a new statement. We weren’t able to make that equivalent before. We can now compare apples to apples. We represent the largest proportion.”

The CDC estimates gay and bisexual men make up about four to six percent of the population. When the CDC reports on African-American women, it says black women have an HIV infection rate that is nearly 15 times higher than that of white women. And Hispanics, who make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 17 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, according to the CDC.

According to a 2006 CDC report, 13,230 white MSM were estimated to be newly infected with HIV, followed by African-American MSM at 10,130 and then black heterosexual women at 7,340 new infections. The CDC estimates more than 56,000 Americans become infected each year; throughout the HIV Prevention Conference, the CDC stressed that number represents one person every nine-and-a-half minutes.

“If you ask 10 people in this room,” Senterfitt said at the conference with hundreds of people in attendance, “it’s likely only one person will answer correctly [that white MSM are the hardest hit by HIV].

“I think the CDC is finally trying to put out accurate information so the community can collectively respond — and these numbers help to show that HIV/AIDS never left the gay community.”

Kevin Fenton, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention at the CDC, said in opening remarks at the conference Aug. 23 that “gay and bisexual men account for half of new infections and are at greatest risk.”

But Fenton, who is gay, also noted that just 20 percent of gay and bisexual men report hearing of HIV prevention campaigns.

President Barack Obama’s new Office of National AIDS Policy has the mission of putting HIV/AIDS in the U.S. back on the radar after, as many speakers said at the conference, the country has become complacent about the disease. …. [continued on Blade website]

Click HERE to read the entire article in the “gay” newspaper, Washington Blade