Jim Finnegan

This is Part Two of AFTAH’s interview with Jim Finnegan [click HERE to listen; listen to Part One HERE]. He is joined on air by Americans For Truth Board Member John McCartney. This was pre-recorded and aired Feb. 25, 2012. Finnegan, McCartney and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera discuss Catholic Church doctrine opposing all legislative affirmations of homosexual behavior and (positive) identity — and how this basic teaching has been undermined and violated by senior church leaders.

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

2-25-12, Jim Finnegan & John McCartney, Part Two

Pro-life/pro-family advocate Jim Finnegan has fought long and hard in Illinois for "Choose Life" specialty license plates, which would raise funds for adoption. Democratic politicians, influenced by pro-abortion lobbyists, have stalled the plates for years.

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview [listen HERE] with Jim Finnegan, a longtime pro-life and pro-family Catholic advocate in the Chicago area who is active with Defend Marriage Illinois. Finnegan is also leading the campaign for “Choose Life” specialty license plates in Illinois – thwarted for years by liberal Democrats. This interview was pre-recorded and aired February 18, 2012. Finnegan and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera discuss the radical group Gay Liberation Network’s ongoing attacks on Cardinal Francis George, due to George’s and the Catholic Church’s opposition to homosexual “marriage” and homosexual acts.

LaBarbera describes the GLN’s hateful protest Feb. 12, 2012, directly in front of Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral, with signs mocking George as “Archbigot.” He also notes GLN’s refusal to condemn a pro-homosexual brick attack against a Christian school hosting AFTAH’s October 2011 banquet — and says that if he had refused to condemn such an assault on a homosexual group he would legitimately be called a “hater.” (See AFTAH report on GLN’s record of hate HERE.) Both men discuss a newly introduced “same-sex marriage” bill [more info HERE] introduced by three openly homosexual Illinois legislators — and how House Speaker Mike Madigan (himself a “Catholic”) has blocked pro-family bills in Springfield while allowing pro-homosexual bills to be considered.

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

2-18-12, Jim Finnegan, Part One

Prof. Ken Howell

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview with Professor Ken Howell, Senior Fellow at the School of Catholic Thought of the John Paul II Newman Center, which resides at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).  Prof. Howell was fired (and the reinstated) by the University of Illinois (Champaign) last year for teaching the Catholic “Natural Moral Law” understanding of homosexuality. This interview was pre-recorded and aired Nov. 5, 2011. Howell explains the circumstances surrounding his firing, and how he ended up at UIC (but not actually teaching for UIC).

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

11-5-11, Ken Howell, Part One

Pro-homosexual "marriage" activist attacks TFP banner that proclaimed marriage as it truly is: between a man and a woman. TFP members shouted "Aggressor!" as the assailant did his dirty deed. Later, a TFP member was hit in the head by a beer bottle thrown from a car passing by.

Folks, we’ve seen this nasty brand of homosexual bullying and intolerance so often that we’re no longer shocked by it. Watch the TFP Student Action video as peaceful TFP members shout “Aggressor!” as this troubled man walks up and destroys their banner, in Fairport, New York. Imagine if a bunch of pro-family activists did this to a pro-”gay banner” banner! (CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN would be lining up to tell the story.) TFP is a Catholic group that has done yeoman’s work standing up for real marriage across the nation. Watch the TFP Student Action video at their website HERE. – Peter LaBarbera,. www.aftah.org

______________________________

Video: Pro-Homosexual Advocate Destroys Traditional Marriage Banner in New York

Contact: Contact: John Ritchie, American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 717-495-5427

FAIRPORT, N.Y., June 6, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — Volunteers with the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) were assaulted while peacefully demonstrating for traditional marriage in Fairport, New York, on June 2.

As young TFP volunteers stood at the corner of Main Street and Church Street with signs, a pro-homosexualist hurled himself against the group’s thirteen foot long banner inscribed with “God’s Marriage = 1 Man & 1 Woman.” The banner, held by three volunteers, was knocked down and violently torn to pieces.

Watch video footage of the attack HERE.

The assailant also threatened to destroy the group’s cameras used to document their campaigns for moral values. “I’ll smash your camera,” he said.

Approaching another TFP volunteer who was holding a sign that read “Honk for Traditional Marriage,” the aggressor said: “Are you going to give me your sign, or do I need to rip it up too!?”

In a separate incident at the same demonstration, another supporter of “gay marriage” threw a beer bottle at TFP volunteer Michael Shibler from a moving vehicle. The glass bottle hit him on the forehead, causing it to swell and bleed. Local police are investigating both incidents.

“These bully tactics do not even slightly dampen my resolve to continue promoting the truth about marriage in charity. Our cause is noble and we will win,” said Shibler.

“Some say that same-sex ‘marriage’ doesn’t harm or affect anybody. Well, I think my throbbing forehead is a good example of how it does harm people. Anti-family proponents would like to completely silence my first amendment right to free speech,” he said. “While demanding tolerance for what they call ‘diversity,’ they are utterly intolerant of opposing viewpoints.”

TFP, a Catholic organization, was distributing flyers titled “10 Reasons Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.” It calls on New Yorkers to firmly and peacefully resist the advance of the so-called gay-rights movement.

Christian Newswire release: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8927017115.html

It’s hard not to despise the liberal media when they behave like NBC’s Matt Lauer did in this Oct. 11, 2010 Today Show segment – scolding interviewing Republican New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, who went off the Politically Correct reservation while speaking at an Orthodox Jewish gathering. Sorry to break it to you, Matt, but most parents would not bring their children to a “Gay Pride” parade — especially if they knew what actually goes on there. (Over the years I have witnessed open nudity at several homosexual “pride” parade, and a sickening homosexual sex act that was allowed to go on in the street right in front of a row of cops at a Chicago “pride” parade.)

And no, Matt, homosexuality is not equal to normalcy. (I wish a few politicians had the guts to say so, even when the liberal PC Enforcers like Lauer come after them.) I wonder: what drives straight liberals like Lauer and Jon Stewart to be so obsessed with promoting homosexuality? The modern American liberal has a religious-like devotion to normalizing sexual perversion — why? Since when did Affirming Homosexuality become so sacrosanct? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show. 

10-2-10, Col. Dick Black, All

Dr. Kenneth Howell will continue to teach at the University of Illinois.

We are relieved that Prof. Kenneth Howell has been reinstated at the University of Illinois, but serious questions remain about the U. of I.’s secular bias against people of faith and in favor of aggressive homosexual activism. There needs to be an independent, outside investigation into how this travesty happened at a taxpayer-funded university — and the department heads and administrators who put political correctness above academic freedom and basic fairness should pay a price. If the larger problem persists of celebrating homosexuality at the expense of others’ fundamental rights, there will be many more Kenneth Howells in Illinois and across the nation.    – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

The following is a LifeSiteNews article about Prof. Howell’s reinstatement:

By Kathleen Gilbert

URBANA, Illinois, July 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Kenneth Howell, the professor barred from teaching after a student complained about his explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality, in a class on Catholicism, has been reinstated by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).

News spread rapidly of the censure earlier this month of Dr. Howell, whose scheduled classes next fall had been cancelled based on one student’s complaint that an email from the professor to students in the class explaining how homosexuality is incompatible with the natural moral law amounted to “hate speech.”

The university was soon deluged with opposition from within UIUC and beyond. Even the school’s Atheists, Agnostics, & Freethinkers group expressed outrage at the professor’s silencing. Howell, who had taught “Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought” at the university’s Department of Religion since 2001, had also taught at the school’s diocesan-run Newman Center for 12 years.

According to a UIUC statement sent to LifeSiteNews.com, the school “will continue Kenneth Howell’s adjunct appointment for the fall semester, and has offered him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism.”

However, the statement itself focuses on the school’s decision to pay the salary of instructors teaching Catholic studies courses. St. John’s Catholic Newman Center had previously funded the instructors.

“The university values its relationship with the Newman Center and plans to continue offering courses in Catholic studies,” stated the school. UIUC also indicated that a university committee would continue investigating the matter.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney who represented Howell in the case expressed cautious gratitude at the reversal. ADF had sent a letter to the University demanding that the school reverse the decision, or else face legal action.

“We are extremely pleased that the university has asked for Dr. Howell to return to the classroom,” ADF attorney David French told LifeSiteNews.com in an email Thursday afternoon, calling the move “a great victory for academic freedom, for Dr. Howell, and — crucially — for the students of the University of Illinois.” 

“The university is continuing its committee proceedings related to Dr. Howell’s case, and we’ll be carefully monitoring these proceedings to make sure that his rights are protected now and in the future,” he said.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an  mp3 file.  Left click once on this link to play (more instructions at bottom) : 7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All

In this interview (Part One of two), which aired Saturday, July 17, 2010, AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera talks in studio with John McCartney and Wayne Lela – two Chicago men who have a unique “ministry” of going to local Chicago colleges and universities and educating students about homosexuality and “gay” activism. They do this from a pro-natural-family perspective that most young people rarely hear. For that they have been harassed by liberal professors — among other trials — but they persevered and have now gained entry on to all the Chicago-area public colleges, which cannot legally engage in viewpoint discrimination.

In the interview, McCartney discusses the way “brainwashing” works on this issue — censoring negative information about homosexuality while demonizing opponents of the “gay” agenda. Lela (who as an agnostic is not a member of the so-called “Religious Right”) formed a group called HOME, Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment. McCartney is a retired English teacher and committed Catholic living in Chicago who has long served both the pro-life and pro-family causes. Both men will be attending AFTAH’s upcoming Truth Academy Aug 5-7, to be held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.

In this (Part One) interview, the two discuss the reactions of students to their work — and how Chicagoland newspapers seem to be cutting back on printing letters-to-the-editor that are critical of homosexuality — which would be consistent with the increasingly censorious posture of Chicago’s major media, which generally are very pro-”gay.” Lela and McCartney deserve our commendation. There are millions upon millions of people who affirm the truth that homosexual behavior is wrong, destructive, unnatural and changeable. But there are precious few like these two men who actually contend for this truth in the public square — and especially with students who, as they say, are “brainwashed” by the non-stop pro-homosexual propaganda in the media and popular culture.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an  mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All

Gay Liberation Network's Bob Schwartz supports the University of Illinois' firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell. Imagine how different his reaction would be if it were a "gay" professor fired for explaining "gay rights" to his students.

I received the following note yesterday from Bob Schwartz, a leader of the Gay Liberation Network in Chicago. Schwartz is a self-described Trotskyite (communist) and is the fellow who bragged that he worked to get AFTAH’s website labeled as a “hate site” by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:55:16 -0400
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Kenneth Howell
Here are AFTAH’s two stories on Howell’s firing:

Just a note to advise you that I asked the new U of I president to support the termination of antigay bigot “natural law” [Prof. Kenneth] Howell.

Bob Schwartz

Here is my reply to Schwartz:

From: [Peter LaBarbera} americansfortruth@comcast.net to [Schwartz]
Date: July 13, 2010
Subject: Re: Kenneth Howell

Bob…If this happened to a homosexual prof who affirmed gay rights to his students (in a class about the GLBT Movement), you and GLN would be crying “discrimination!” to the media and holding protest vigils at U of I. But I’ve come to expect such hypocrisy from you guys. “Tolerance for me but not for thee.”…

Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Here are two AFTAH articles on the University of Illinois-Howell termination scandal:

• U. of Illinois’ President Hogan Says Kenneth Howell Firing Under Review
• The E-Mail that Got Dr. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ”treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do – teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).

From: Margaret Hemenway [mailto: ------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:17 PM
To: ‘rgjewell@gcc.edu‘ [Grove City College President Richard Jewell]
Subject: RE: Professor Throckmorton

Sir, as we begin to review materials mailed to us from colleges soliciting applications for admission from my bright and accomplished 16-year-old daughter, we regret that we are now leery of considering your campus, Grove City, after hearing about Professor Throckmorton’s open advocacy of homosexuality.  All three of our children are enrolled and flourishing academically in Catholic schools, and part of the reason we chose religious schooling is that we wanted them to avoid the inappropriate and misleading homosexual propaganda that our youngest experienced in first grade–in D.C. public school–when subjected to a “gay marriage” lesson plan without parental notification or approval and in contravention of our religious beliefs (and contrary to much lip service to the concept of “parental rights”).

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment.  It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins?  Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission?  We would look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

The Hemenways
17 E. Maple St.
Alexandria, VA  22301

____________________________

Press Release, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality 

AFTAH to Protest Obama Speech in Chicago, Says President Has No Mandate to Push Radical Homosexual Agenda  

June 15, 2009; contact: Angela: 847-722-5330

CHICAGO, Illinois – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) will be protesting President Obama during his speech here today, with the message that Obama has no mandate from the election to advance the radical, pro-homosexual agenda that his “gay” and transsexual activist allies are demanding of him.

AFTAH will be present Monday morning at the Hyatt Regency Chicago (151 E. Wacker Dr.) as Obama delivers a speech to the American Medical Association –– with a banner proclaiming: “Barack Obama: “Radically Pro-Abortion. Radically Pro-Homosexual.” Americans For Truth is also organizing a Chicago press conference Wednesday, June 17, featuring national pro-family leaders speaking out against Obama’s bigoted “gay” activist political appointments and his wider GLBT agenda.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera issued the following statement Monday on Obama’s pro-homosexuality appointments and policies, even as self-styled “queer” activists gripe that he is not moving ahead fast enough on their shared agenda:

“President Obama has as much of a mandate for his radical homosexual agenda –– which includes repealing the popular Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and homosexualizing the U.S. military –– as he does for implementing his campaign promise of enacting the extreme ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ (FOCA), which would eviscerate pro-life reform laws nationwide.

“Obama is in a bind. His homosexual supporters are calling for quicker action on their GLBT agenda, but if he satisfies their demands he risks appearing as the far-left liberal he is rather than the moderate he claimed to be in the campaign. Few Obama voters are aware of his reckless promise to the Homosexual Lobby to help repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) –– which was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton with wide Democratic support. (DOMA protects states from being forced to recognize the same-sex “marriages” from other states like Massachusetts.)

“Nor is it common knowledge that Obama pledged to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in military –– despite a survey showing that a majority of servicemen oppose such a change and many would not re-enlist if open homosexuality were allowed.

“Lastly, while Obama boasts in his official Gay Pride Month proclamation of his ‘openly LGBT’ appointments, two of those appointees have touched off deep resentment in the faith community. Catholic leaders are demanding the replacement of homosexual activist Harry Knox on Obama’s Faith Advisory Council due to Knox’s bigoted comments against the pope and the Catholic Church. (Knox called Pope Benedict a “discredited leader” and the Knights of Columbus his “foot soldiers” in a “discredited army of oppression.” Turning the Bible upside-down, Knox describes his homosexuality is an “unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful.”)
 
“And pro-family leaders are urging Obama to withdraw the appointment of Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Education Department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Jennings has a history of anti-Christian bigotry –– he once said ‘[F**k] ‘em’ and ‘Drop dead!’ to the ‘religious right’ during a speech in a church –– and GLSEN has repeatedly exposed youth to dangerous adult homosexual practices.

“Putting Kevin Jennings in charge of ‘Safe Schools’ is like appointing David Duke to head up a federal panel on Racial Reconciliation. Jennings and Knox must go.”

This book is a must for any social conservative’s library. (Order it HERE.) I’ve known Dale for over a decade, and few in the pro-family movement have demonstrated the diligence, courage, dedication and intelligence that she has in answering the various propaganda myths and lies emanating from the radical feminists and their homosexual and gender-confused (“transgender”) allies. Here is a typically sensible quote from One Man, One Woman (p. 217):

It’s true that human beings can be weak, selfish, and sinful, and not every married couple will be good parents. But a male/female married couple nonetheless has built into it all the things children need for healthy development: a mother and a father to fulfill parenting roles and to model gender identity; a vowed bond of permanent commitment between two persons with sexual complementarity; and freedom from the stigma and distractions that accompany “experimental” family forms.

As you can see from the book’s outline below, there are several chapters on the cause and development of “SSA” — Same-Sex Attraction (Disorder), as some call it. I doubt I will agree with everything presented in those chapters, but I’ve always known Dale to make her case thoughtfully, so it will be engaging. You can order Dale’s book HERE. It’s a few dollars cheaper on Amazon. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

This outline is taken from the Sophia Institute Press website, where there is also an essay from Dale titled, “Why I Spent Ten Years Writing This Book, and Why You Need to Read It.”

Contents

Introduction: Clarion Call at Cairo

Part I: The Politics of Sex and Marriage

1. The Political Struggle Over the Definition of Marriage
2. The Ideology of the Sexual Left
3. The Debate Over Same-Sex Attraction

Part II: Understanding Same-Sex Attraction

4. How Sexual Attraction Develops
5. Same-Sex Attraction in Men
6. Same-Sex Attraction in Women
7. SSA Treatment and Change

Part III: Marriage and Intimate Relationships

8. The Definition and Purpose of Marriage
9. Why Redefining Marriage Will Harm Persons with SSA
10. Why Redefining Marriage Will Harm Society

Part IV: The Effects on Children

11. Same-Sex Parenting Places Children at Risk
12. Dangerous Lies: The Politicization of Research

Part V: Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

13. Same-Sex Marriage and the Slippery Slope
14. The Threat to Religious Freedom
15. The Threat to Public Schools

Conclusion: What Must Be Done?
Biographical Note: Dale O’Leary

___________________

LaBarbera response to “Kyle”:

Kyle …

…I don’t know where my feelings of lust, etc., came from.  So should I join the Lust Pride Movement and rationalize the embrace of that sin. (I’ll call myself a “Luster,” which is analogous to you calling yourself “gay.”) Grow up, Kyle. This is the cop out of the century –– and then you go on to support “gay marriage” –– an incredible blasphemy against God, who created man and woman for each other.  You are responsible for your behavior –– period. Sodomy and all homosexual acts are deeply sinful, the Bible teaches (see Romans 1), so what does it mean to say your “orientation” is “gay”?  Repent and believe Jesus Christ as so many FORMER “gays” – now born again of God — have done. (See Steve Bennett’s wonderful story at www.sbministries.org.)  Are you born again? Do you deny Jesus Christ has the power to help you heal or at least help you remain out of homosexual sin?  There is NO way a faithful Christian can embrace homosexuality.  You are deeply deluded, but there is hope in the Lord, and He WILL forgive you if you humble yourself and seek him like a child, and repent and accept Jesus’ death on the cross as the penalty for your sin. I suggest you start by reading the Gospel of John.

God bless you –– and try reading the Bible to apprehend who God is, so you can conform yourself to His holiness (a never-ending process) –– rather than seeking to conform God to YOUR image of what YOU think He should be, and what YOU think He should accept. All the best on your journey: www.biblegateway.com.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth
www.aftah.org

——————————————————————————–

Letter from “Kyle” to Americans For Truth:

From: Kyle
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:22 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Gay Rights and Religion

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

——————————————————————————–

I\’m a gay Catholic (yes, it is possible). The Church teaches that for something to be a sin, the person doing the action must fully know what they are doing is wrong and then freely choose to do the action anyway, yet the Catechism teaches that being gay is not a choice. Therefore according to the church being gay is not a sin. If that\’s true, then why do they campaign against it so much? Do they not realize that God made me just as He made you and your family and everyone else you know? And one more thing. I firmly believe that the gay marriage ban in several states is unconstitutional and should be repealed, as there are nearly 1,200 rights that are only guaranteed through marriage. Since gay marriage is illegal in almost every state, the laws banning it are unconstitutional! I can\’t wait for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of our community. And quite honestly, if you have a problem with my arguments, please either respond to me or post it on your webpage.

If the GOP or any party wants to reach minority and religious voters, it might consider the defeat of “gay rights” in Hamtramck, Mich. Here, Muslims and Catholics gather for meeting to defeat the Detroit suburb’s “sexual oriention/gender identity” law. The multi-ethnic coalition rejected the homosexual measure by 55-45 percent — even though 87 percent of Hamtramck citizens voted for Barack Obama. (Did they know Obama favors enacting a federal version of the “gay/transgender” law?)

Election Results from Hamtramck, Michigan:

President

Obama: 4,945
McCain: 708

Obama wins with 87% of vote

Hamtramck “Gay Rights” Ordinance

YES: 2,333
NO: 2,903

Pro-family coalition defeats “gay” agenda by 55-45%

Dear AFTAH Readers,
Pro-family initiatives swept to victory Tuesday in all five ballot initiatives opposing the homosexual activist agenda: the three marriage-defense amendments in California, Florida and Arizona; a ballot measure in Arkansas banning adoption by unmarried couples; and the grassroots, pro-family rejection of a Hamtramck, Mich. homosexual/transgender ordinance, as reported below.

Said Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan: “California voted overwhelmingly Democratic and at the same time voted to constitutionally protect one-man, one-woman marriage, with minority voters overwhelmingly supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.  In Hamtramck, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, residents voted nearly 90 percent for Barak Obama, while rejecting a so-called “gay rights” ordinance by a 10-point margin.

“As the Republican Party’s braintrust starts casting about for issues consistent with their party’s values that appeal to minorities and Democrats, perhaps they’ll choose to embrace — rather than keep running away from — the issue of stopping the threat that the homosexual activists’ political agenda poses to marriage, traditional family values and religious freedom,” Glenn said.

___________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tues., Nov. 4, 2008

CONTACT:   Gary Glenn through www.afamichigan.org

Hamtramck voters reject “gay rights” ordinance

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — A statewide family values organization Tuesday congratulated a multicultural coalition of Hamtramck citizens on their successful campaign to reject a so-called “gay rights” ordinance that would have established special “protected class” status on the basis of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Voters rejected the ordinance by a vote of 2,903 to 2,333, a 55-to-45 percent margin of victory identical to the percentage by which Hamtramck voters approved Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004.

Gary Glenn, Midland, co-author of that amendment and president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said Hamtramck voters “once again defeated homosexual activists ‘special rights’ agenda by soundly rejecting this discriminatory ordinance.”

“AFA-Michigan congratulates the diverse and multicultural citizens coalition that stood in defense of traditional family values, religious freedom, and the privacy rights of women and children,” Glenn said.

He noted the campaign was highlighted by a rally at which three Catholic priests and six Muslim imams spoke out against the proposed ordinance.

“We salute Father Andy Wesley for his courage and leadership in being the first to stand against this discriminatory ordinance at a time when the city’s political establishment and news media were intent on demonizing and caricaturing anyone who dared oppose homosexual activists’ fraudulent ‘rights’ agenda,” Glenn said. “In the end, voters had the last word, standing with Fr. Wesley and repudiating the mayor and city council and the local newspaper.”

Glenn said in other jurisdictions that have adopted such ordinances, the language has been used to penalize and discriminate against Catholic Charities, the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, and other groups and individuals who refuse to endorse homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.  Such ordinances have also been used to allow men who dress as women to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms in schools and shopping centes and other public buildings.

AFA-Michigan last summer drafted the citizens petition required to force the ordinance onto the ballot and recruited Wesley and others to launch the successful petition drive which did so.  The group’s national affiliate, the American Family Association, donated $5,000 to the local citizens committee that opposed the ordinance, Hamtramck Citizens Voting No to Special Rights Discrimination.

The organization later exposed to the media Hamtramck city officials’ attempt to confuse voters by wording the ballot question in such a way that opponents of the ordinance would have been forced to vote ‘yes.’  As a result, officials were forced by the secretary of state’s office to reverse the ballot question’s wording.

Glenn also said the defeat of the ordinance would not have been possible without the efforts of campaign manager Jay McNally, a Catholic activist who commuted from Ypsilanti to manage the winning campaign, and the Thomas More Law Center, which provided legal counsel to the campaign and a regular speaker at campaign rallies, attorney Brian Rooney.

# # #

http://www.hamtramck.org/family/

Click on photo to enlarge. Opposition to homosexuality- and gender-confusion-based “sexual orientation” laws is something that all committed religious people can agree on — because these laws invariably oppress religious people’s freedom to live out their beliefs. At right is multi-religious, multi-ethnic rally held Oct. 12 in Hamtramck, Michigan against a proposed “gender identity”-inclusive homosexual law.

Press Release
Contacts: Jay McNally: 734 717-1174; Fr. Andrew Wesley: 313 892-1310;
Akm Rahman: 313 293-7343; e-mail:  HamtramckFamily@gmail.com

Dear Readers,

It always strikes me as odd to see homosexual activists aligning themselves with American Muslims, who oppose homosexual practice as sinful in accordance with the religion, like faithful Christians and Bible-believing Jews. These photos from a rally in Hamtramck, Michigan reflect the appropriate political/sociological equation against homosexual activism: religious people (and moral people who are irreligious) cannot abide “rights” based on same-sex misbehavior (sin). In fact, as we’re seeing in California (where Christian doctors will now be forced to perform artificial inseminations for lesbians) and across the nation, the very outworking of government-enforced homosexuality-based “rights” is to oppress religious freedom.

Americans will have to decide whether creating aberrant-sex- and gender-confusion-based “rights” — including “same-sex marriage” and its cowardly cousin, “civil unions” — is worth trampling on the historic religious and First Amendment freedoms that have defined the American republic since its beginning.  –Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here is the Hamtramck Citizens Opposing “Special Rights” press release put out before the rally; under that is an article on the coalition’s website explaining the coalition’s position:

__________________________________________________

Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Hamtramck Gay-rights Ordinance at campaign rally

HAMTRAMCK (Oct. 10) – Nearly a dozen religious leaders in the City of Hamtramck and a nationally prominent lawyer will speak at a campaign kick-off rally for the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination.

The rally will be held Sunday, Oct. 12th, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 9632 Conant St. Admission is free.

The speakers will all urge a NO vote on the Nov. 4 referendum concerning the city’s new ordinance that provides special protection to people based on sexual identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
The ordinance provides no new rights for anyone except for homosexuals, as all other rights are covered by state and federal law.

Speakers will explain – in Arabic, Bengali, English and Polish — why the controversial ordinance is a threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

The keynote speaker will be Brian Rooney, attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and legal expert on discriminatory “gay rights” legislation.

Below is a list of speakers scheduled…

Government officials:

•      Abdul Algazali, City Councilman.

Religious leaders (the imams represent various ethnic communities – Yemeni, Bosnian and Bengali}:

•      Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.

•      Najim A. Quddus, imam of the Al Islah Islamic Center in Hamtramck.

•      Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.

•      Rev. Dharmananda Bikkhu, Budhist monk and founder of the International Peace Community in Hamtramck.

•      Showrob Chudhury, secretary of the Hindu community in Hamtramck.

•      Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.

•      Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.

•      Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.

•      Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.

•      Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque

Community leaders:

Several community leaders will also speak, including Akm Rahman, community leader and co-chair of Hamtramck Citizens Voting No.

•      Kamal Rahman, community activist.

•      Roberts Zwolak, former city councilman and city clerk.

•      Gregory Kirchner, businessman and Polish community leader.

•      Mohammed Delaware Hussein, community leader. …

The group’s Web site is www.hamtramck.org/family.

==== 30 ===

———————————————-

Below is an article on the website of Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination:

Why Hamtramck’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” ordinance a
threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

In the 2004 election, 55 percent of Hamtramck voters voted in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution, helping preserve one-man, one-woman marriage for future generations of children.

But in June 2008, by a 6-to-1 vote of its politically correct city council, Hamtramck is now among the handful of cities in Michigan whose local ordinances – in conflict with federal and state law – treat homosexual behavior and cross-dressing as the moral, social, and legal equivalents of immutable characteristics such as race, color, and sex.

Obviously, many Hamtramck residents reject that comparison — based on religious, medical, and philosophical concerns.

For example, a compassionate society that rationally discourages smoking because of the clearly identified health consequences should not irrationally enact laws giving special protection to homosexual behavior that has been scientifically associated with a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, eating disorders, life-threatening disease — AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — and premature death by up to 20 years.

The Vatican expressed similar concerns in a 1992 letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church – authored by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI – regarding legislation to “Tmake discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal,” which according to Ratzinger, “may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.”

“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.  “’Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”

“Including ‘homosexual orientation’ among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate,” Ratzinger wrote, “can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights…(and)…to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”

The American Family Association of Michigan strongly agrees.  However, the practical effects of such legislation extend beyond medical or religious concerns.

Proving to have exactly the opposite effect of their supposed intent, so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances have a track record of being used to discriminate against individuals and organizations who don’t support homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Detective Richard Stern, a fifteen-year veteran and president of the Ann Arbor police officers union, was fired after the chairman of the city’s “rights commission” formally accused him of violating that city’s “sexual orientation” ordinance.  Stern’s offense?  On behalf of his union, in a public forum for police chief candidates, he “was accused of saying that one of the candidates had a gay-rights agenda,” according to Between the Lines, a Detroit homosexual advocacy newsmagazine.

“Stern’s comments were clearly in violation of a human rights ordinance that includes sexual orientation,” the newsmagazine commented, making clear that homosexual activists believe so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances outweigh our Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights.  Stern’s union disagreed, charging in a lawsuit that he was “illegally and discriminatorily” discharged by the city.

Also in Ann Arbor, the city council – once again specifically citing its discriminatory “sexual orientation” ordinance — banned donations to the United Way through city employees’ payroll deduction plan.  Why?  Because the United Way financially supported local Boy Scout troops, which appropriately refuse to allow adult males who engage in homosexual behavior to take 13-year old boys on overnight camping trips.

“A council majority believes its own anti-discrimination ordinance prohibits it from supporting Boy Scouts in any fashion, including using staff time and city computers for payroll deductions that go through the United Way to the Boy Scouts,” the Ann Arbor News reported.

In an Ann Arbor News commentary supporting the city council’s action, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said the Boy Scouts’ stand made them comparable to “white supremacist groups.”

Similarly, the homosexual activist group Triangle Foundation threatened to sue the city of Detroit, demanding that city officials cut all funding of local Boy Scout troops, deny the Scouts access to public parks and facilities, and prohibit sponsorship of Scout activities by the police and fire departments, the Detroit News reported.  The Scouts’ refusal to allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters, Triangle charged, “is in direct violation of the City Charter and Human Rights Ordinance…(that) expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

In Philadelphia, under authority of its “sexual orientation” ordinance, the city is currently evicting the local Boy Scout council from offices it has occupied in a city park for nearly 80 years.

In Chicago, Cook County officials refused to hire the Salvation Army to deliver services to low-income residents, saying “the county’s ordinance banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians bars it from contracting with the Salvation Army,” a traditional Christian denomination whose religious doctrine teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Under Massachusetts’ “sexual orientation” law, Catholic Charities was given an ultimatum: either agree to process adoptions of children to homosexual couples in violation of the church’s moral opposition to such adoptions, or abandon its century-old adoption referral service altogether.  To its credit, Catholic Charities chose the latter.

The “sexual orientation” language now included in the Hamtramck ordinance is disturbing even beyond its proven discriminatory effects in other cities.

The Oakland Press reported in March 2005: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies.  ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class.  He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”
Not content with adding the discriminatory “sexual orientation” language to city law, homosexual activists and their political allies succeeded in adding the words “gender identity” as well.

Simply put, “gender identity” refers to delusional men who claim to believe they’re really females stuck in a man’s body and insist on wearing a dress and high heels to work.

This “gender identity” language is so radical in its potential effects that even openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., refuses to include it in his federal “gay rights” legislation.

Rep. Frank said: “There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress.  I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Don’t take Barney’s word for it?  Consider the case of “Naomi Snyder,” a Lansing man who applied through the mail – using a female name – for membership at a women’s health club.  His membership approved, he showed up in person, and being obviously a man, was refused entry to the women’s locker room and shower.  According to Between the Lines, the Michigan ACLU threatened to sue for “discrimination,” but Lansing voters in a 1996 ballot vote had wisely rejected adding “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” to their local civil rights ordinance; thus, there was no legal basis for the threatened suit.  But in Hamtramck, now, there would be.

Thankfully, Hamtramck residents who want to protect the privacy of women and girls and prevent discrimination against people of faith and community groups such as the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and the United Way can by law conduct a petition drive to force this issue onto the ballot for a vote of the people.  On behalf of our supporters who reside in the city, the American Family Association of Michigan stands ready to assist in any way we can.

According to some militant homo-fundamentalists in San Diego, supporting the preservation of marriage as solely between a man and a woman constitutes “hate.” Acting on that absurd and bigoted notion, “queer” activists in San Diego are planning a protest against hotel owner Doug Manchester, to be held Friday, July 18 (1:00-2:00 PM) at Manchester’s San Diego Grand Hyatt Hotel. Manchester, to his credit, gave $125,000 to the California Marriage Protection Amendment effort. A strong Catholic, he is worried that “gay marriage” in the state will lead to lawsuits against religious schools that teach that real marriage is between a man and a woman — i.e., that the counterfeit homosexual variety is wrong.

Folks, can you see the escalating anti-religious harassment that follows the progression of the homosexual activist movement? To affirm their “rights” and contorted brand of “equality” (which is actually radical egalitarianism), they need to tear down Judeo-Christian tradition and culture. Now is the time for all marriage supporters and defenders of sexual sanity to frequent hotels and businesses owned by pro-family marriage defenders like Doug Manchester. Unilateral Christian disarmament in this “culture war” will lead to state-sanctioned oppression of people of faith — it’s that simple.

Here’s the link to Doug Manchester’s Grand Hyatt Hotel, and that to his other hotel in San Diego: the Grand Del Mar. — Peter LaBarbera