“Man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights,” asserts GOP’s guiding document
No Longer Free: New Mexico photographers Elaine and Jon Huguenin were fined more than $6,000 for politely refusing to shoot photos at a lesbian commitment ceremony, due to their Christian faith. The suit against them was filed under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law. The Huguenins appealed the decision but ultimately lost in the New Mexico Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to one day hear a case that will help decide whether “gay rights” supersedes Americans’ freedom of conscience on homosexual “marriage.” The next president could pick as many as four SCOTUS justices.
The following are extended excerpts of the newly minted 2016 Republican Party Platform, with a focus on the social issues and religious freedom (emphasis ours):
We the People
We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation. …
In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable rights of its citizens. These constitutional rights are not negotiable for any American. We affirm that all legislation, regulation, and official actions must conform to the Constitution’s original meaning as understood at the time the language was adopted.
Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
A Nation of “My Truths”: Barna Research Group graphic shows high percentages of Americans (including Christians) who believe in subjective morality. See full Barna story on the new, “self-fulfillment morality” HERE. Click to enlarge.
If you are familiar with the story of Noah’s Ark beyond a Sunday School flannel graph, you’ll likely recall that the times in which Noah lived were described as days of exceptional evil across the earth. This saddened the heart of God. Many observers think that we are living in days of global evil again. I am not sure if we are in similar times, but there’s no doubt that the mass killing of Muslims and Christians all across the globe from civil wars and radical Islam saddens God’s heart.
In parts of the Bible, similar times of exceptional evil are described as times in which “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” or according to themselves. Morality was in the eye of the beholder. Nothing was off limits anymore because it was up to each person’s heart, no matter how confused or depraved, to determine. How else can one explain the insanity of Lot’s offering his own daughters up to crazed men in Sodom under the guise of good manners and cultural norms?
In this backdrop, a new study from the Barna Research Group may concern many while also explaining much of the evil in America. Entitled, “The End of Absolutes: America’s New Moral Code” Barna’s research finds that the vast majority of Americans (80 percent) express concern about our nation’s moral condition. Every demographic shares this concern, with 89 percent of elders, 87 percent of baby-boomers, 75 percent of Gen-X’ers and 74 percent of Millennials expressing concerns about America’s moral condition. Although 90 percent of Christians express concern over our moral decline, even 67 percent of adults of no faith say they have concerns about America’s values.
Folks, I generally avoid using the term “sodomites”**–it too easily plays into the hands of anti-Christians–but who am I to make a politically correct edit on the late Joe Sobran, one of the greatest conservative writers of modern times? This essay by Sobran is even more applicable today than when he penned it in 2003, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s creation of a newfangled “right” to homosexuality-based “marriage.”
I particularly like Sobran’s passage on liberalism:
But liberalism itself is a continual digression. Nobody can divine its next trend. Even its most profound critics, including John Henry Newman, have been unable to anticipate its particular fads. It may, or may not, embrace pedophilia next. On what principle can any perversion be ruled out?
Such is the nature of God-defying, sin-as-a-civil-right modern “progressivism.” And now the Sexual Left–having legally destroyed the meaning of marriage with the eager help of the U.S. Supreme Court–has moved on to “mainstreaming” and mandating accommodation for: (trans)gender rebels–think men with fake boobs and a penis invading female restrooms; sadomasochism; men becoming human “dogs”; and “polyamory” (anti-fidelity).
As for pedophilia, that lobby is still gearing up–mimicking the successful, manipulative tactics of the “gay liberation” movement by portraying themselves as the aggrieved “victims” of an inconvenient “orientation.” (See this “support group” for “Minor Attracted Persons,” or MAPs.) Of course, we know who the real victims are.
If only more conservatives who possessed the moral clarity of Joe Sobran! –– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
** P.S. I will grant that “Sodomite”–linked to the abominable act that demanded God’s horrific punishment–is more accurate than “homosexual,” a 19th-Century semantic invention that itself has been declared anathema by today’s LGBTQ activists. (They prefer “gay” for men and women–which we put in quotes because it’s essentially self-serving propaganda.) Homosexual (as a noun)–though used clinically at first–came to imply a special personhood to de facto homo-sexual sinners, i.e., an innate or at least inherent–even proud!–self-identity based on his or her inclination toward same-sex deviance. Logical (and biblical) thinkers must never acquiesce to such a false identity–unless we also are prepared to label and confirm people as (inherent or inborn) liars, “pornos,” gossipers, drunks, etc., according to their besetting sinful thoughts and behaviors.
In addition to allowing men in female restrooms, Target backs radical LGBT “Equality Act”; boasts 100% perfect score on HRC’s rigged “Corporate Equality Index”
Folks, today I sent the following letter to Target using their online Contact Form. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
TAKE ACTION: Contact Target at 800-440-0680 or using their Online Contact Form; and sign the AFA “Boycott Target” petition if you plan to join the boycott. If you do, make a point of going into your local Target store or calling the manager to explain why you and your family will no longer shop there.
TARGET: 100% Pro-Homosexual-Transgender Agenda: Target boasts online of its “perfect” ranking on HRC’s rigged “Corporate Equality Index.” The biased LGBT “Index” punishes corporations for giving to pro-family causes–and rewards them for funding “gay” and “transgender” groups and events. This graphic is taken directly from the Target website.
Why My Family Won’t Be Shopping at Target Stores Anymore
May 2, 2016
By Peter LaBarbera
WARNING: offensive descriptions of horrifying transsexual “sex reassignment surgeries”
My family and I are joining the Target boycott and will no longer shop at your stores. It is preposterous that all Target stores now allow men to use female restrooms—a sex predator’s dream. Girls have the basic right not to have their private spaces invaded by men, for ANY reason.
My family has done a LOT of shopping at Target over the years, but no more. One of my five children even worked at Target–but now I will not allow my two teenage kids to apply for a job there given Target’s leftist, politically correct corporate policies. Target has chosen to be contemptuous of common sense and Americans who are motivated by faith, decency and traditional morality. So we in turn choose to no longer support Target with our consumer dollars.
Video captures the upside-down “New York values” of media stars pushing the “gay” (and transgender) revolution on America
“Mom, is it legal for a man to marry a woman?” Kelly Ripa’s son, Joaquin, shown in a 2014 Twitter photo on his 11th birthday. Following the legalization of “gay marriage” in New York in 2011, a younger Joaquin was so over-exposed to homosexual friends of his famous mom getting “married” that he had to ask her if a man marrying a woman was illegal.
By Peter LaBarbera
Kelly Ripa is in the news is for something that is–from an eternal Truth perspective–far less significant and newsworthy than the heart-breaking story below. Because this story involves the moral and spiritual confusion of a boy raised in a politically correct world gone mad–imbibing a level of cultural decadence unimaginable only a few decades ago:
“New York Values”? To get a feel for how utterly out-of-touch New York City-based media are with the average American, check out this May 2015 speech by Kelly Ripa, co-host of the ABC morning show “Live with Kelly and Michael [Strahan].” In the video, Ripa is accepting an award from GLAAD, the homosexual media pressure organization formerly known as the “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.”
“A few years ago, our youngest son, Joaquin, asked me if it was illegal for me to be married to Mark [her husband]–because all of our friends at that time who were getting married were same-sex couples. And it dawned on him…that a heterosexual couple getting married might actually be illegal.”
This speech captures the zeitgeist of big-city liberalism and the New York City-dominated media’s radical pro-“gay” embrace better than almost anything I have seen. Ripa praises her good friend and open homosexual Anderson Cooper of CNN, and is hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court would make same-sex “marriage” the law of the land–which it effectively did with its nature-defying Obergefell v. Hodges ruling shortly after this event, on June 26, 2015.
Ripa’s comments on homosexual “marriage” begin at the 4:00 mark, and those specifically about her son Joaquin’s marriage confusion at 5:15:
TRUMP THEN AND NOW: In this 2000 interview with the homosexual magazine The Advocate, businessman Donald Trump supported adding homosexuality to the Civil Rights Act–a stance that allowed him to cast himself as more pro-“gay” than the leading Democratic presidential contender at the time, Sen. Bill Bradley. [Click HERE to read the entire Advocate interview.] The media have mostly ignored asking direct questions about the homosexual activist agenda in the GOP campaign.
By Peter LaBarbera
[Note: this article was update March 1, 2016]
Warning: Contains a brief description and graphic of (horrifying) transsexual surgeries that the LGBT Lobby is pushing to be funded by the taxpayers
Have you noticed that homosexual “marriage,” the nutty “transgender” issue–think big-boned men in gaudy dresses and pumps invading girls’ restrooms–and morality in general have been largely ignored in the Republican primary campaign?
This is no accident: a combination of the dominant media’s secular-Left bias; “establishment” Republicans working to keep those pesky social issues off the table; America’s disobedient drift away from God and biblical Truth; and creeping libertarianism and feminism have combined to push moral issues out of the debate in this crucial 2016.
The problem is, when issues are shunned by the media and in an extended electoral contests it becomes difficult to build and grow support for the Truth position on these issues. The LGBT Lobby knows this intuitively, which is why they labor to BAN opposition and shut down critical voices in the media (see GLAAD’s“Commentator Accountability Project” listing of this writer for showing “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community”).
The minions of Big Gay Inc understand that if tens of millions of Americans were actually introduced through media to men and women who have successfully left homosexuality behind—people like DJ Foster, Greg Quinlanand Janet Boynes–it would dramatically undermine the LGBT media-narrative that people are inherently (born) “gay.”
Seeing homosexuality as a Changeable-Behavior issue would in turn help everyday people understand that unlike ethnic “minorities,” people practicing homosexuality can leave that category because it is not permanent (e.g., like skin color). Thus, accommodating people with “rights” based on their supposedly immutable “sexual orientation” is not “civil rights” and in fact directly leads to conflicts between “gay rights” and religious liberty. (See this excellent piece by Peter Spriggdissecting Justice Anthony Kennedy’s unfounded claim that homosexuality is “immutable,” in his Obergefell ruling “nationalizing” homosexual “marriage.”)
Here are some questions and moral themes I’d like to see pursued in debates or political discussions:
1) Trump and Adultery? Suppose in that now-infamous initial Fox News GOP presidential debate, instead of asking Donald Trump a question about his alleged meanness toward Rosie O’Donnell, Fox’s Megyn Kelly had asked Trump about his self-admitted adulteries with married women and having a very public affair while he was married? Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) rightly tweeted to Trump:
“You brag about many affairs w/ married women. Have you repented? To harmed children & spouses? Do you think it matters?”
Does Adultery Matter? Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R-NE) Jan. 24, tweet to Donald Trump.
(Note how conservative neo-feminist Kelly opted for the “anti-women” angle over the moral—call it “anti-God”–angle; to read this writer’s in-depth report on Fox News’ pro-homosexual bias, click HERE.)
2) Rubio on Abortion vs. Rubio on Homosexual Agenda? How about a question to Marco Rubio about reports that his campaign staff held regular meetings with Log Cabin Republicans—a homosexual activist group that is trying to rebrand the GOP as a “gay”-affirming party? Why is Rubio so principled in his opposition to abortion (he said it’s not even political for him) yet much more nuanced on homosexualism? [See pro-family warrior Bryan Fischer rebut Rubio’s assertion that homosexuals are born that way.]
3) Trump’s Radical Pro-“Gay” Past? While many questions have focused on Trump’s support for Planned Parenthood (the non-abortion aspects of the business), no attention—from the media or other Republicans—has been given to his support back in 2000 for adding homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) to the Civil Rights Act. In other words, Trump was for the current LGBT “Equality Act” (which we’re calling the “Criminalizing Christianity Act”) before there even was an Equality Act. Would Trump–who opposes homosexual “marriage” and backs the First Amendment Defense Act— support the Equality Act or veto it today? Does Trump still believe that homosexuality is a criterion for “civil rights” and how would that affect the rights of others to disagree with homosexual “marriage,” celebrations, pro-LGBT school lessons, etc.?
[Editor’s Note: after this article was published, LifeSiteNews reported that in 2012 the Donald Trump Foundation donated $20,000 to the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and $10,000 to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis. GLSEN pushes for the acceptance of homosexual, bisexual and gender-confused identities and behaviors to K-12 students–including “Gay-Straight Alliances,” de facto LGBT propaganda clubs, in schools. The LifeSite article relies on original AFTAH reportage exposing GLSEN’s agenda promoting homosexuality to young children. See our posts HERE, HERE (“Fistgate”), HERE and HERE (Kevin Jennings).]
Rubio Aide Supports Radically Redefining Marriage: Rubio campaign aide Rich Beeson signed on to an amicus brief for the Supreme Court Obergefellcase supporting the legalization of “marriage” based on homosexuality. Graphic: AFTAH; photo by Fox News.
Folks, Sen. Marco Rubio is known as a social conservative, so this revelation of a top campaign staffer (Rich Beeson) signing on to a Republican PRO-homosexual-“marriage” friend-of-the-court brief–for the Obergefell SCOTUS case nationalizing “gay marriage”–is a big deal.
In the next few weeks AFTAH will be reporting facts about the remaining candidates in the Republican (and Democratic) primaries. [See our report on Trump’s past radical pro-homosexual advocacy HERE.] We are non-partisan and do not endorse any candidate–nor do we refrain from pointing out pro-homosexual advocacy wherever we find it. (AFTAH does not carry water for Republicans: this writer once caught a lot of GOP flak for co-authoring a report for Concerned Women for America about President George W. Bush’s “Homosexual Agenda.”) As I have said many times, God does not make a special provision for Republican homosexualism compared to the Democratic variety.
Moreover, GOP establishment big shots are pushing the Party to ditch social issues–and include the homosexual activist “Log Cabin Republicans” in the Party’s “big tent.” As you can read below, Rubio staffers have met regularly with Log Cabin Republican staffers, and the head of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference; 202-347-9388) just allowed Log Cabin Republicans to serve as a sponsor for next year’s gathering. The following is an excerpt from our friends at LifeSiteNews (which relies heavily on The Baptist Message, which broke the story). — Peter LaBarbera, AFTTAH
Marco Rubio’s deputy campaign manager is a gay ‘marriage’ activist
CHARLESTON, South Carolina, February 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A pivotal member of Marco Rubio’s campaign actively encouraged the Supreme Court to impose gay “marriage” on the entire nation by judicial fiat.
Senator Rubio’s deputy campaign manager, Rich Beeson, signed a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to redefine marriage in last summer’s Obergefell v. Hodges case.
The amicus curiae brief, which was signed by 300 Republican operatives whose names spill over 24 pages, argued that having the court discover a nationwide right to same-sex “marriage” served “conservative values.”
Shoebat slams LaBarbera as “filthy pig” for denouncing his holy-war approach toward homosexualism
“[W]e do not have the right to take the law into our hands and attack homosexual men and women. And if you have God’s heart of love and you want to see them saved and transformed, why would you want to beat them up?”–Dr. Michael Brown
Dear AFTAH Readers,
I support my friend and Christian leader Dr. Mike Brown in exposing the reckless rhetoric of Christian Ted Shoebatfor condoning anti-homosexual violence. For my entire professional career in the pro-family and conservative movements, I have eschewed violence and real hatred against people caught up in homosexuality–and I’m not going to change now.
Recently, Shoebat viciously attacked yours truly as as a “filthy pig” because I–like Dr. Brown, Matt Barber and Linda Harvey and many other pro-family leaders–criticized his “holy war” approach toward the homosexual agenda. (See video below captured by the pro-homosexual organization People For the American Way’s “Right Wing Watch.“) [See the new Shoebat video criticized by Brown HERE; more on this controversy will follow.]
Some of my friends in the movement opposed to Big Gay Inc have opined that Shoebat sounds more like a fundamentalist Muslim than a Christian with his irresponsible rhetoric. Jihadist, Sharia-loving Islamists–not faithful Christians–advocate stoning homosexuals and pushing them off of tall buildings. Shouldn’t we emulate our Savior, Jesus Christ, who said to the Pharisees who were about to stone a woman they caught in adultery:
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8; see Matthew Henry commentary HERE)
And to the woman shown mercy the Lord said:
“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
We must, as Dr. Brown often says, Resist the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda, while Reaching Out to homosexuals with the Gospel and love of Christ. Having said that, I am not like one of those namby-pamby evangelicals or “cafeteria Catholics” who seeks an accommodation with homosexualism. Shoebat below derisively references “Chick-fil-A Christians”–but AFTAH was almost alone in challenging Chick-fil-A C.O.O. Dan Cathy’s regrettable 2014 capitulation to Political Correctness when he decided to “step back from the gay marriage debate.” This effectively sold out the many thousands of Christians who stood in line at CfA restaurants on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” in 2012 to defend Cathy’s right to speak out for Truth in the Public Square. But more importantly, Cathy sold out his God. Not coincidentally, one of the people who advised Cathy to retreat on marriage was Shane Windmeyer, a homosexual activist (the founder of Campus Pride) whom Cathy had befriended.
Loving sinners biblically should not abet a sin movement, and going silent on homosexualism does just that.
In contrast, Mike Brown is not seeking the world’s favor. He ably works to achieve the right balance of loving homosexual and gender-confused strugglers while bravely challenging the LGBTQ-IAAM (“It’s All About Me”) sin lobby. Shoebat’s rhetoric not only justifies thuggery against homosexuals and does harm to the Gospel, as Mike states. It also makes it easier for “gay” radicals and their allies to advance legislation like the Criminalizing Christianity Act (aka LGBT “Equality Act”)–thus inadvertently helping them to extinguish the voice of believers in the culture. All in the name of “stopping anti-gay violence and hate.” — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
Mike Brown writes:
No, Theodore Shoebat, Jesus Would Not Have Killed Gays
In a very troubling video, Theodore Shoebat, son of former Muslim Walid Shoebat, has claimed that if “sodomites” had walked into the temple of Jerusalem, Jesus would have killed them.
This is absolutely outrageous, totally unscriptural and downright dangerous.
Mr. Shoebat, I urge you to repent.
To be perfectly clear, I agree with Theodore that homosexual practice is detestable in God’s sight (as stated plainly in the Scriptures); I totally oppose same-sex “marriage”; and I firmly believe that homosexual activism is the principle threat to our freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience.
I also share Theodore’s abhorrence of the abusive acts of homosexual predators, just as I abhor the abusive acts of heterosexual predators.
At the same time, I categorically reject his encouragement of violent acts against homosexual men and women, and I renounce his statement that Jesus would have killed homosexuals who walked into the temple.