Lively calls SPLC’s labeling of pro-family organizations as “Hate Groups” a “tactic of psychological manipulation”
Folks, I had a wonderful discussion with Scott Lively and Pastor John Kirkwood last evening–even though it was cut short by a tornado warning. Here is the Livestream video, which runs about an hour and seven minutes. In the video, Scott Lively of DefendTheFamily.com is at left, John Kirkwood, pastor of Grace Gospel Fellowship Church is center, and yours truly is at right. Go to the 23-minute mark in the video where Lively describes the five stages of the incremental homosexual activist advance in societies: 1) Tolerance; 2) Acceptance; 3) Celebration; 4) “Forced participation in gay culture”; and 5) Punishment of dissenters. Go to around the 34-minute mark for a discussion on the spurious leftist charge of “hate” against pro-family Christians who oppose the LGBT agenda. Thanks to Grace Gospel for hosting our event and to all who came out on a rainy Tuesday night to educate themselves on the rise of “gay” power and what it means for liberty in America.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
Hated for Speaking Truth: Pro-family advocate Scott is being sued by leftists for for “crimes against humanity” for educating and advising Ugandans on how to fight the aggressive and intolerant homosexual activist lobby.
Americans For Truth and Grace Gospel Fellowship Church, pastored by my good friend John Kirkwood, are hosting pro-family leader Scott Lively tonight to discuss the post-Obergefell landscape and the Left’s harassment lawsuit against Lively for “Crimes Against Humanity.” The presentation will also be Livestreamed. Here is the info:
Who: Scott Lively, Defend The Family International, author, “Pink Swastika”
Where: Grace Gospel Fellowship Church, Bensenville, IL, Rt. 83 just north of I-290. Red church building. 4 North 220 (Frontage Rd.), Bensenville, IL 60106.
What: Scott Lively, John Kirkwood, Peter LaBarbera discussing the realities of post-SCOTUS-Obergefell–and also the vile leftist “SMUG” (Sexual Minorities Uganda) lawsuit charging Scott with “Crimes Against Humanity” for his advocacy of biblical morality in Uganda.
Cost:Free. Light refreshments and snacks will be served. We will take up a collection for Scott’s group and AFTAH.
If you can’t come, the event will be Livestreamed online here: http://livestream.com/inthearena/scotusfallout. And please pray for Scott as he and wife Anne face this potentially devastating SMUG lawsuit. Scott is a hero for all he’s done over many years fighting Big Homosexuality Inc, but also for not quitting in the face of the worst persecution any pro-family leader has endured since Anita Bryant (I don’t think that is an exaggeration).
The LGBTQ Left’s “Lawfare” strategy against Christian pro-family advocates is sinister and doesn’t get near the media attention it deserves (hello, Fox News!). Scott will lay out the frightening implications for all of us tonight.
I look forward to seeing some of you at Grace Gospel tonight! –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Folks, I got BANNED from a left-wing “Sexual Freedom Summit,” which just concluded in the Washington, DC. suburb of Alexandria. I had paid my $224 to attend the Aug. 13-16 conference–I wanted to see what radical LGBT activists have in store for America post-Obergefell. I bought a plane ticket to D.C. Then on Aug. 11–three days before my scheduled flight–I suddenly received the email notice notice from the event sponsors (Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance): “You are not welcome at this event. If you do try to attend, we will have you removed by hotel security.” Here is a copy of the e-message:
BANNED – Above is the notice sent by the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Summit banning AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera from attending, and returning his $224 registration fee.
I did receive the promised refund for the $224 registration fee and thankfully, was able to get a full refund on my plane ticket. But this incident reveals that while homosexual and transgender activists talk a good game about “pride,” they do not want the public to know of their radical agenda behind the “soft” euphemisms like “marriage equality’ and “sexual freedom”–which they use they use with the media’s eager help to market their immoral behaviors. As you can see from these links, two of the agenda items on the Sexual Left are “polyamory”–multiple-partner sexual unions–and transforming Christianity to embrace sexual perversion. More coming on this story. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
Question and answer fit homosexual activist narrative; Kelly’s and Fox News’ pro-”gay” evolution continues
Fox News’ Pro-Homosexual Bias: America’s Survival’s 90-page report on the “conservative”-leaning network’s pro-”gay” bias, authored by Peter LaBarbera. Photo on cover is of Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly posing for a photo at the — annual fund-raiser of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. To download a PDF copy of the report, go HERE. For an HTML version, go HERE. See a transcript of the debate HERE. See the video of LaBarbera discussing the report with Michael Voris below.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Fox News and urge the network to stop promoting homosexual “marriage” and the rest of the LGBT agenda (as Megyn Kelly, Dana Perino and other on-air personalities are doing). Call 888-369-4762 or use their Online Contact Form. Or e-mail Fox News at firstname.lastname@example.org. Download a PDF of the author’s in-depth 2013 report on Fox News’ pro-”gay” bias HERE.
In a nation that professes to be “under God” but is teetering on the edge of moral collapse, perhaps it was inevitable that–in the most watched U.S. primary political debate ever–the opportunity for candidates to defend marriage between a man and a woman would get short shrift.
Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly, one of the three debate moderators at the Fox-sponsored Republican presidential primary debate August 6, may be known as a tiger for her tough questioning of guests, but when it came to her team’s debate question on homosexual “marriage,” she was a pussycat for the LGBT Lobby, asking a hypothetical that evoked sympathy for the homosexual cause. Sadly, this has become a trend with Kelly and Fox News, which, as this writer has documented (see report HERE or at right), increasingly has a pro-”gay” bias.
According to a Pew Research study in 2013, Fox News ran more stories that were biased towards homosexual “marriage” rather than against it (see Page 2). And Fox News also funds the advocacy-oriented National and Lesbian Journalists Association (NLGJA) every year; Kelly and other Fox journalists have attended NLGJA fund-raisers in support of the homosexual organization.
In the days leading up to Thursday’s prime time debate in Cleveland, Fox News anchors had been telling us how hard they were laboring to prepare penetrating, specific questions that would prevent their GOP targets from being evasive.
Electoral politics led by media pundits is pretty much a “biblical morality-free zone”–at least on the issue of homosexuality–as journalists obsess over the political “horse-race” rather than right versus wrong. Many journalists and even some conservatives have become cheerleaders for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) cause, while others simply bow to the prevailing political correctness.
So I was prepared for the worst as I sat down Thursday night to watch the main Fox News GOP debate, and, well…here is an excerpt of the key prime time exchange on same-sex “marriage,” posed to Ohio Gov. John Kasich by Kelly:
KELLY: Governor Kasich, if you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same-sex marriage?
KASICH: Well, look, I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I’ve also said the court has ruled —
KELLY: How would you — how would you explain it to a child?
KASICH: Wait, Megyn, the court has ruled, and I said we’ll accept it. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or can’t love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them.
Who knew that the toughest question that the Fox News brain trust could come up with on homosexual “marriage” could have been penned by the Media Department of the Human Rights Campaign?! Some LGBT activists and liberals must have been checking their TV remotes to make sure they weren’t watching MSNBC.
It was telling that the Fox team directed its “gay’-sympathetic query not to a strong social conservative candidate like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Dr. Ben Carson–who likely would have vigorously defended traditional marriage and religious freedom, and assailed the SCOTUS Obergefell ruling—but to “moderate” Kasich, who pathetically boasted about attending a friend’s “marriage” ceremony based on a sexual sin. Coincidentally (or not), Ohio’s U.S. Senator, Rob Portman, a Republican, changed his position in 2013 and backed homosexual “marriage” to support his homosexual son–a theme echoed in Kelly’s debate query to Gov. Kasich.
Now, it goes without saying that parents should love their children unconditionally–Kasich got that part right. But the governor offered no reasons behind his stated opposition to homosexual “marriage”–typical of GOP politicians who avoid discussing immoral homosexual behavior like the plague.
A close friend of mine shared my observation about Fox News’ strange priorities, and astutely noted regarding Kasich’s weak answer:
Kasich’s three-part answer, which resulted from a carefully planted question by Megyn Kelly, could have been drafted by the Human Rights Campaign:
“I’m old-fashioned….” This makes natural marriage merely a matter of personal preference, one that could be eclipsed by time and reason. Anytime a pol starts this way, he is selling out a traditionalist moral stance. Right up there with “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but….”
“Love everybody” – If you don’t go along with the fiction of a brideless or groomless “wedding,” you don’t love people.
Attended a “gay” wedding – See how tolerant I am, as opposed to all those bigots who voted for the 31 state constitutional amendments protecting natural marriage?
No wonder liberal praise has been pouring in for the Fox News debate moderators (and Kasich)–although the moderators’ aggressive questioning of Donald Trump has drawn most of the commentary and public criticism.
To be fair (and balanced), Kelly followed up her Kasich question with one from Facebook sent in by a social conservative. It dealt with people’s religious freedom NOT to support same-sex “marriage,” and was directed to libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, who hardly hit it out of the park. (See questions and answers in “gay marriage” debate excerpt at bottom.)
But the damage had already been done by the Fox News star’s emotion-laden question and Kasich’s rambling, Chamberlain-esque response, in which he simultaneously extolled his own Christian faith and his willingness to attend a blasphemous, homosexuality-based “wedding.” The one-two punch of Kelly’s “gay”-sympathetic hypothetical and Kasich’s guilt-ridden reply perfect illustrates how conservatives and Christians have lost on homosexuality-based “marriage.”
Megyn Kelly: growing ally of “gays”
Not Always Fair & Balanced (or Unafraid): Fox News’ Republican debate moderators (left to right): Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier. Each has demonstrated pro-homosexual bias in their reporting or actions in recent years. In 2011, Kelly berated Dr. Keith Ablow for suggesting that parents need to guard their children from media celebrations of “transman” “Chaz” (Chastity) Bono. In January of this year, Baier, a Catholic, cancelled a scheduled speaking appearance at a meeting held by the Catholic organization Legatus following criticism from an online homosexual activist of the organization as “anti-gay.” Baier said he did so at the request of his employer, Fox News. See a YouTube of Kelly’s unprofessional interview with Dr. Ablow below, or read about it in pages 25-30 of the author’s Fox News-”gay” biased report.
First, representing the media—which is easily the most powerful force driving the “gay” revolution–is Kelly, a professed Catholic, the prime-time star of Fox News who seems to be a “conservative feminist.” In a rather creepy 2010 interview with perverted shock-jock Howard Stern, Kelly declined to label herself and said she is conservative on some issues and liberal on others.
As this writer has documented in a 90-page America’s Survival report on Fox News’ pro-homosexual bias—Kelly is increasingly public as an LGBT “ally” who uses her considerable TV power to defend gay/transgender positions. In 2011, she grilled psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow and recklessly accused him of “adding to the hate” for daring to question whether female-to-male “transman” “Chaz” (formerly Chastity) Bono is an appropriate TV role-model for kids (who might want to imitate Bono’s transgenderism). Homosexual activists heaped praise upon Kelly for her agenda-driven interview berating Dr. Ablow. [Read about it on pages 25-30 in my Fox News-pro-homosexual-bias report, or watch a YouTube of the interview below.]
It deserves mentioning that Megyn Kelly and Fox News–unlike more liberal media networks–still give voice to Christian conservatives. She welcomes Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on as a frequent guest of her prime time show “The Kelly File”–even as Perkins has been targeted by intolerant, pro-LGBT leftists who demand that he be banned from TV talk shows due to his supposed “anti-gay hate.” Kelly was invited as a speaker at FRC’s upcoming annual “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, D.C., but she is not now on the list of scheduled presenters.
Nevertheless, Kelly’s sympathies on homosexual and transgender issues are not hard to discern. Recently, she took on the role of straight ally/“protector”* of Guy Benson, a newly “out” young, homosexual conservative and political editor of Townhall.com. In Benson’s “coming out” interview with Kelly [see YouTube below], she describes Benson as “very brave” for revealing his homosexuality on national TV, and says her show is a “safe space” for Benson amidst (mostly “progressive”) criticism of him. In a subsequent June interview with Benson–who himself is a Fox News Contributor–after the Supreme Court imposed homosexual “marriage” on the entire nation, Kelly seemed quite taken with the youthful Benson, who applauded the SCOTUS ruling and described himself as “someone who’s gay and Christian.” [See Dr. Michael Brown's column dealing with the "gay Christian" controversy.]
The Answer Is No: …if “gay” means positively and proudly homosexual. Dr. Michael Brown ably answers the lies of “gay Christianity” in his book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love & Truth to Questions About Homosexuality.” He similarly responds with “love & truth” to homosexual activist Matthew Vines’ self-serving “40 Questions” below. Buy the book: Readers can purchase Brown’s book–while supporting AFTAH’s ministry–by purchasing ” for $17 postpaid. Two-Book Discount: You can also add Michael Brown’s in-depth book, “Something Queer Happened to America”–and receive both books postpaid for $29. Pay securely online or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.
“I cannot see our [Heavenly] Father responding positively to the threat of, ‘Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.’ [Answer # 9]
“What is explicitly affirmed over and again in the Bible is that God requires holiness of all His people and that the only outlet for sexual intimacy is in the confines of marriage, which…can only be the union of a man and woman. This is as explicit as anything in the Word. [#25]
“…the Word never says that an inherently sinful act somehow becomes sanctified by repeating it with the same person. [#27)]
“…your [Matthew Vines'] emphasis is all wrong. In fact, it’s the common theme through your questions, namely, ‘Surely God wouldn’t want me to live without sex and intimacy, therefore I must reinterpret the Bible in that light.’” [#39] — Dr. Michael Brown, author of Can You Be Gay and Christian?
My prolific author friend Dr. Michael Brown–whose book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” is available for purchase from AFTAH at right–does a terrific job below answering homosexual “Christian” activist Matthew Vines’ 40 tendentious questions. As Brown notes, Vines’ line of questioning is built on false premises and spurious analogies. For example, Vines repeats the tired homosexual talking point comparing infertile straight couples to same-sex partners (see Brown’s response to Questions 30 and 31).
I would like Michael to try a “do-over” on #12: it is bizarre and, indeed, blasphemous for young Vines (misapplying Galatians 5–which mentions “sexual immorality”) to associate unnatural, sexual-sin-based “relationships” with Holy Spirit-led “goodness” and “self-control,” etc. I understand what Michael is saying, but I would not compare these disordered relationships with normal unions between husband and wife–including marriages that are not Christian.
Vines’ questions themselves are a study in the error of homosexuality-positive “Christianity”: can you see the intense self-focus in them, as Vines does his biblical “exegesis” backwards:–starting with his politically correct premise (committed homosexual relationship are fine) and trying to rationalize it as somehow being compatible with Scripture? He utterly fails. It is no wonder that Vines will not publicly appear in the same debate forum with Dr. Brown or Prof. Rob Gagnon. By the way, Dr. Brown received AFTAH’s “American Truth-Teller Award” in 2014; we commend him for his diligence and faithfulness in defending Truth. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; Like the AFTAH Facebook Page
Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian Matthew Vines
I am answering the 40 questions put forward by “gay Christian” advocate Matthew Vines, after which I will put two simple questions to Matthew (and his allies). What is absolutely stunning, though, is that in these 40 questions, he failed to ask the only one that really matters, namely, “What does the Bible say about homosexual practice?” The reason for that is self-evident, namely, it is impossible to make a case for homosexual relationships using the Word of God alone.
That’s why, for the last decade (and until this moment), I have offered to debate the issue of the Bible and homosexual practice with any qualified representative of the “gay Christian” position, yet I have had no takers. (Matthew and I did engage in a brief debate hosted by Moody radio, but as is well known, Matthew agreed to do the broadcast before realizing he would be debating me, after which he felt it would be worse publicity to drop out rather than do the show. Those interested can watch the debate here. (For a relevant follow-up article, go here.) I also address many of the questions Matthew raises in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, but for the benefit of those who don’t have the book, and so as to answer all the questions conveniently in one place, I’ve responded to each of them here.
Before addressing the questions, it’s important to address Matthew’s premise, namely, those of us who uphold Scripture “oppose marriage equality.” Actually, we oppose redefining marriage; as for so-called “marriage equality,” as I have pointed out, advocates of “same-sex marriage” represent just one group clamoring for changes in marriage laws, including polygamists, polyamorists, and adult incestuous couples. That’s why the Marriage Equality Blogspot calls for “Full Marriage Equality,” specifically, “for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” So, from that point of view, Matthew also opposes “marriage equality.”
To answer the 40 questions:
1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice? Sexual orientation is a relatively modern construct, but if you mean is it true that, generally speaking, homosexual men and women did not choose to be attracted to the same sex, the answer would be yes, it is not a conscious choice they made, any more than someone who struggles with angry desires, violent desires, or adulterous desires consciously chose to have those desires.
2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it? Again, using your definition, in the majority of cases, certainly. However, we must not downplay the many successful stories of change through counseling and, more importantly, the possibility of change through the gospel. Cannot Almighty God change a homosexual into a heterosexual if it so pleases Him? Has the church really devoted itself to seeking God to help men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions?
3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have? My first organ teacher, when I was barely 7-years old, was openly gay, and he and his partner would come to our home and have dinner with our family. Over the years, I’ve had good friends who came out of homosexuality (including someone very close to my family), and I interact as often I can in as much depth as I can with those who identify as LGBT.
4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends? None that I know of, but that is not because of my rejection of them. I have never turned away from a person because of their sexual brokenness or sexual desires. If, however, they openly scorned God’s Word and God’s ways, I’m afraid it would be hard for us to be close friends. That being said, I have close friends who are very religious Jews, yet they still believe my faith in Jesus is wrong and I still believe they are lost without Him. In other words, friendship with people (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with determining the truth of God’s Word.
Dodging Debates: Self-described “gay Christian” Matthew Vines refuses to debate Bible scholars and apologists with expert knowledge on Scripture and homosexuality, like Dr. Michael Brown and Prof. Robert Gagnon.
5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality? Many hours, and many more hours reading their stories prayerfully, sometimes having to put down the book I’m reading and get on my knees in prayer, even with tears and a heavy burden. I hurt deeply over the pain they have experienced and I long to see them find wholeness in the Lord.
6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people? Probably so—again, with God, all things are possible—but this too has nothing to do with what God has to say about homosexual practice. It calls for great compassion from the church, but not for rewriting the Bible. Also, unless we get caught up with the spirit of the age, it’s important to realize that “heterosexual marriage” is the only marriage God acknowledges.
7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful? I accept that our Father knows best, that His ways are ways of life, and that if He does not enable someone to enter into a heterosexual relationship then He will give grace to that person to be celibate, just as He gives grace to a believer suffering decades of imprisonment and torture, just as He gives grace to a drug addict to get free from addictions, and just as He gives grace to many heterosexuals to live in lifelong, non-chosen celibacy.
8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long? Less than 10, and not more than 10 years so far, but the term “mandatory celibacy” is misleading, since I’ve walked with heterosexual believers for decades who did not choose celibacy but never met their mate, and they found Jesus to be more than enough to carry them through. Plus, Jesus requires all of us to deny ourselves and take up the cross and follow Him, and He does not promise any of us a spouse. I also have close friends whose spouses divorced them and who believe they cannot remarry as long as their spouse is alive, and they too have survived and even thrived by God’s grace despite years of singleness imposed on them by their convictions.
9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process? This is a heartrending issue that I do not take lightly, but my answer is that anyone who says, “I will kill myself unless I can have sex and be intimate with another human being” is not taking hold of what God has for them. Generally speaking, it’s also true that people who commit suicide are struggling with other emotional issues; otherwise, no matter how acute their problems, they would not take their own lives. Ultimately, though, I cannot see our Father responding positively to the threat of, “Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.”
10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know? Again, I object to the term “mandatory celibacy,” and I believe the term “gay Christian” is misleading and unhelpful, but yes, the single Christians I know who are still same-sex attracted are enjoying the Lord, enjoying healthy friendships, and are really quite vibrant. Others have seen a shift (or complete change) in their attractions, and they are happily married to their heterosexual partner. I’ve been quite close with some of them over the years.
Catholic In Name Only? The American Catholic Lawyers Association accuses Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on the nation, of failing to “uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Kennedy is a Roman Catholic.
July 27, 2015, Fairfield, NJ – The American Catholic Lawyers Association (ACLA) announces its objection to the majority ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sexThe marriage. Sodomy, as the Supreme Court itself observed in Bowers v. Hardwicke, before overruling itself a mere seventeen years later in Lawrence v. Texas, is immoral and perverse conduct that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to protect; and the Constitution is forbidden to transgress those aspects of the divine and natural law binding on all men and all nations. Nor was the Constitution ever intended to take away from the States the right to punish sodomy or to codify the truth of both divine and natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Moreover the Obergefell decision is invalid in that two of the Justices were required by the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, § 455, to recuse themselves because of “impartiality that might reasonably be questioned.” Both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg failed to recuse themselves despite having a public record of advocacy of “same-sex marriage,” with both having conducted “same-sex wedding” ceremonies.
Finally, the American Catholic Lawyers Association protests in the strongest terms the actions of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Because he was the deciding vote, God gave him, as a professing Catholic, the opportunity to uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead, he did the unthinkable and attempted to overturn that truth with false human reasoning.
As a Catholic jurist, especially one protected by the life tenure that ensures judicial independence from popular sentiment, Justice Kennedy was bound to obey a law higher than his false notion of “liberty,” the law that God has inscribed in human nature. Justice Kennedy failed in this sacred duty, violated the oath to God he took upon ascension to his high office, and thereby inflicted incalculable harm on society.
In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003]
Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.
AMERICAN CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. is a federally tax-exempt organization dedicated, since 1991, to defending the rights of Catholics in civil and criminal courts throughout the nation, both state and federal, and in public discourse and debate. Donations to the work of the Association are tax-deductible in accordance with IRS Code § 501(c)(3).
Baylor University removes ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code
Sodomy-Friendly Baylor–More ‘Caring’ than God? The “Christian” university dropped its ban on “homosexual acts” from its sexual conduct code.–because Baylor officials didn’t believe the Bible-based sodomy proscription “reflected Baylor’s caring community.”
It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.
The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian universities immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.
In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”
Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.
In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).
Robert Reilly, author of “Making Gay Okay,” will be keynoting AFTAH’s annual fundraising dinner-banquet Sat., Oct. 17, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.
Folks, Robert Reilly is one of this nation’s clearest thinkers in explaining the essence of the “gay” debate and the revolutionary LGBT activist campaign to normalize homosexuality and gender confusion in our culture. That is why we at Americans For Truth chose him to keynote our annual banquet Saturday, October 17, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Reilly–who has impeccable conservative credentials (see his bio below)–is the author of Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything [order it HERE or on Amazon].
In a recent speaking appearance in Chicago, Reilly agreed with this writer that the pro-family strategy of the last decade or so of focusing on a positive defense of natural marriage and avoiding discussing homosexuality is “the losing strategy. That is how we lost.” Reilly said,
“The entire issue is based on the morality or immorality of sodomy. And once you’re no longer willing to address that issue or if you concede that issue, you have lost, and you’ll get rolled on the religious freedom issue as well.”
We live in bizarre times in which even some who profess to be “conservatives” are making the radical case for “marriage” based on the sexual perversion of homosexuality. Shame on them for debasing conservatism and Christianity all at once. But I am greatly encouraged that Reilly’s clear and reasoned voice of principle is beginning to rebuild the foundation for an aggressive defense of Truth on this vexing issue–without cutting corners–for many decades to come. We greatly look forward to Bob’s presentation October 17: please mark your calendars and tell your friends! This article first appeared in the Catholic World Report June 27. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Justice Kennedy and the other Justices joining him in this decision have violated the principle of non-contradiction and have passed over into insanity
By Robert Reilly
First published June 27, 2015 by Catholic World Report
Let us be clear about what has taken place in the Supreme Court decision extending homosexual marriage to the entire nation. Justice Anthony Kennedy has led the Court in affirming a denial of reality and in enshrining darkness as if it were light, blindness as if it were sight.
In this he has been entirely consistent. In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, he discovered a right to sodomy in the Constitution. Then a year ago, in the U.S. v. Windsor case, he fabricated a right to homosexual marriage that obliterated key sections of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, he has led the decision in removing any remaining provisions in state constitutions or laws that prevent homosexual marriage because he has discovered the right to such “marriages” in the Constitution – specifically in the 14th amendment (which, interestingly, was ratified by states all of which had prohibitions against sodomy).
Each step of the way has required the consideration of the act of sodomy as morally equivalent to heterosexual coitus and, now finally, to the marital act itself. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision has taken the last step in this chain of logic by sanctifying sodomy as a foundation for marriage.
Here’s what is required for one to think this way. The marital act is the highest expression of human sexual powers in that it is by its nature unitive and generative. In Aristotelian language, the full potential of human sexual powers is actually fulfilled – meaning, reached its perfection – in that act. Any sexual behavior that is less than the marital act is by its nature imperfect and a privation of the good of the marital act.
Let us compare it to 20/20 vision in the eye as opposed to blindness. An eye reaches its full potential, i.e. its perfection in 20/20 vision. It cannot see better than that. Anything less than 20/20 vision is a privation of the organ of sight. The further from perfection, the greater the deprivation. Blindness is the ultimate privation of sight. Now if one were to say that blindness is as good as, or equal to, sight, one would be asserting that the privation of a good is equivalent to the good of which it is a privation. This of course would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, which holds that a thing cannot be what it is and also be its opposite.
The Supreme Court has now held something similar: that an essentially non-generative and non-unitive act is equivalent to, or as good as, a unitive and generative act. Thus, sodomy and other homosexual acts are as good as heterosexual marital union. Upon this peculiar theory, Justice Kennedy bases his much vaunted freedom for homosexuals to marry. However, the freedom to marry is teleologically ordered by the ends of marriage, none of which can be met by homosexual behavior. The freedom to marry cannot include an abuse of this freedom, any more than the freedom of speech can include the right to lie. But sodomy is to sex what blindness is to sight. It is not only a privation of the good of sex, and therefore of marriage; it is its negation in that is deliberately non-unitive and non-generative. Justice Kennedy and his confrères have therefore violated the principle of non-contradiction. But, as we have already pointed out, this is not the first time. What can account for this consistency?
I’ve had some experience with people suffering from psychopathic paranoia. One very impressive thing about them is that they are usually of greater than average intelligence, and they operate with impeccable logic. Once you understand the premise upon which they are acting, you can see how perfectly logical their behavior is. The problem is that the premise upon which they are acting is delusional – totally unconnected with reality. That is why they are insane.
Justice Kennedy has also operated with impeccable logic, but his premise is totally disconnected from reality. In a way, his view is more disordered than the paranoid person’s distortion of reality because a paranoid person usually will not deny the principle of non-contradiction. Justice Kennedy and the other Justices joining him in this decision have violated that indispensable principle and, therefore, have passed over into insanity. The problem is that the institution in which the Justices operate is not a psychiatric one and they are not its inmates. But they are behaving as if they were; so perhaps it should be.
It is not only the Constitution and democracy that have been traduced by this decision, but reality itself. For the sake of our own sanity and spiritual survival, we must fully resist the Court’s imposition of darkness as light, of blindness as sight, of sodomy as a marital act.
“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not.”
About the Author
Robert R. Reilly was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy (2002-2006) for the US Secretary of Defense, after which he taught at National Defense University. He was the director of the Voice of America (2001-2002) and served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President (1983-1985). A graduate of Georgetown University and the Claremont Graduate University, his books include The Closing of the Muslim Mind and Making Gay Okay.