“Queer” is an appropriate catch-all term for the myriad of LGBTQ sexual and gender perversions, including extreme transgenderism (even for young children), polyamory and sexual sadism
What used to be called the”gay agenda” is getting ‘queerer’ every day. Confident of victory, homosexual groups like the National LGBTQ Task Force and Human Rights Campaign are aggressively pushing ever more radical agendas in the false name of “equality”–e.g., laws banning pro-heterosexual change therapy and taxpayer funding for grotesque transsexual “sex change” operations
AFTAH will use “LGBTQueer” to designate homosexual-bisexual-transgender-”queer” activist agendas
Recently, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)–the nation’s oldest homosexual activist organization–announced a name change to accommodate the never-ending permutations of out-and-proud “gayness” and gender confusion (our term for transgenderism). Their new name is “National LGBTQ Task Force” with the “Q” standing for “Queer”–a slang term once and sometimes still used against homosexuals that has been “reclaimed” by “gay” and “transgender” activists to defiantly describe their revolutionary movement.
“The new more inclusive name adds bisexual, transgender and queer to lesbian and gay in the form of LGBTQ,” the Task Force said in an October 8 press release. [Watch an accompanying Task Force video HERE.]
We at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) rarely have anything good to say about the Task Force–a far-left organization that maligns defenders of Judeo-Christian morality as “haters” and celebrates all kinds of sex and gender perversions, including “polyamory” (multiple-partner sexual relationships) and sadomasochism. (Every year, the Task Force gives out a “Leather Leadership” award to honor its favorite sexual sadist.) However, in this instance we applaud the Task Force for taking a step toward semantic accuracy.
QUEER INDEED:Above is the new logo of the grassroots leftist “gay” organization formerly known as the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.” The “Q” stands for “Queer.” In addition to promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, the Task Force promotes a “Sexual Freedom” agenda that includes “polyamory” (multiple-partner sexual unions) and sadomasochism.
Henceforth, Americans For Truth will use the descriptor “LGBTQueer” instead of merely “LGBT” or even “LGBTQ” for the homosexual-bisexual-transgender-queer movement. For example, whereas in the past we would have described Human Rights Campaign–whose founder and (former) Board Member Terry Bean was arrested recently for allegedly sodomizing a 15-year-old boy–as an “LGBT lobby group,” we will now describe HRC as an LGBTQueer lobby organization. (For the record: a 65-year-old man sodomizing a 15-year-old boy is well beyond “queer.”)
By writing out “Queer” in the acronym, we mean to accentuate how that word is the best catch-all term to identify a movement that increasingly embraces any and all types of sex- and gender nonconformity (e.g., “genderqueer” as a self-identity; look it up HERE). At the same time, we avoid the sterile acronyms–however long they become–that serve to hide the radicalism and desensitize us to the extreme nature of the expanding LGBTQueer agenda.
Think about it: how often do we think of homosexual activist groups championing “Bisexuality”–the “B” in LGBT–when we hear that politically correct acronym? Most people don’t consider the wisdom of promoting “bisexual” identities as normative to schoolchildren, yet that is certainly a part of the “LG-Bisexual-T” education agenda.
On the other hand, even though the most accurate thing we could do is to write out “Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer,” that is far too cumbersome for daily use. Even the modern Greek-Latin construct “homosexual” is unwieldy, especially when used as a noun, compared to the popular and oversimplistic term “gay.” And while most LGBTQueer activists despise the word “homosexual” as anachronistic and “homophobic” (another manipulative LGBTQueer invention), we at AFTAH have used it because at least the H-word reminds us that we’re talking about sexual misbehavior, not some innocuous “gay” identity.
NO DIVERSITY FOR EX-’QUEERS’: The late Anthony Falzarano, a former homosexual, turned around a defiant homosexual activist protest chant, by saying: “We’re here. We’re EX-queer. Get used to it!” Even as the “gay”/bi/trans movement makes room for all kinds of sexual/gender identities and fetishes under the rubric of ”diversity,” it campaigns viciously against EX-”gays”–even lobbying lawmakers to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy. The new Gay Task Force slogan is “Be you,” but LGBTQueer activists routinely dehumanize former homosexuals rather than accept and affirm their life and identity choices. See the testimony of another successful EX-”gay,” Christopher Doyle, HERE.
Homosexualism and gender rebellion are not about “civil rights” but rather the practice of engaging in, justifying and celebrating immoral and perverse behaviors–which we on the side of Nature and Nature’s God rightly understand are not the basis for inherent, healthy identities. Sinful and confused behavior patterns are changeable–as testified by the many happy and successful ex-”gays” like Christopher Doyle, who give the lie to the LGBTQueer myth that “being gay” is “who you are.”
As the late ex-homosexual activist and my friend Anthony Falzarano used to say, taking liberties with a “Queer Nation” chant:
“We’re here. We’re EX-queer. Get used to it!”
Thus “LGBTQueer” seems to strike the appropriate balance of being easy to use–while highlighting the reality that the aberrant “L,” “G,” “B” and Transgender “T”–and whatever other letters of the alphabet are appropriated by Big Gay Inc to designate some new sexual/gender fad or fetish. They all fall under the rubric of “Queer” behavior, especially by historical Western, Judeo-Christian moral standards. AFTAH will encourage other organizations, leaders and blogs to join us in using and popularizing “LGBTQueer.”
Judge Jeffrey Sutton. Read his decision upholding defense-of-marriage laws HERE.
The following release was put out yesterday by CCV Action, the legislative action arm of Citizens for Community Values. Finally, some good sense and humility out of a federal court on the same-sex “marriage” issue! [Read the full decision HERE.] We reprint Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s words below because they represent such a stark contrast to those of other federal judges who, like so many “progressives” and judicial elitists, relish “making history” on homosexuality-based “marriage” even if it means invalidating millions of votes and disenfranchising millions of American citizens on this critical moral and social issue.
Judge Sutton said:
“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.”
The 2-1 majority decision continues:
“This case ultimately presents two ways to think about change. One is whether the Supreme Court will constitutionalize a new definition of marriage to meet new policy views about the issue. The other is whether the Court will begin to undertake a different form of change—change in the way we as a country optimize the handling of efforts to address requests for new civil liberties.
“If the Court takes the first approach, it may resolve the issue for good and give the plaintiffs and many others relief. But we will never know what might have been. If the Court takes the second approach, is it not possible that the traditional arbiters of change—the people—will meet today’s challenge admirably and settle the issue in a productive way?”
What a concept: let ‘We the People’ have our say on one of the most controversial issues of our time–rather than imposing a “solution” through the dubious application of laws and amendments intended to correct societal racism to reinventing marriage itself.
Congratulations to Phil Burress and CCV–and pro-family advocates in the other states–for all their hard work in defending marriage as what it is: a sacred union between one man and one woman. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court has ruled that the marriage laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee do not violate the federal Constitution. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Judge Deborah Cook, wrote the majority opinion.
Thomas More Law Center promises “game changer” in new “national strategy to defend traditional marriage”
SEXUAL IMMORALITY IS NOT A “CIVIL RIGHT”:Pastor Emery Moss (L.), Pastor Danny Holliday, and Evangelist Janet Boynes (a former lesbian) listen during Thomas More press conference announcing national strategy to defend marriage. Said Holliday: “We all know that the 14th Amendment was made because Black folk were considered as property. Gays have never been considered as property.”
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI held a press conference yesterday to reveal its national legal strategy to combat the slew of recent federal court rulings which have overturned state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
A Game Changer—Thomas More Law Center Reveals National Strategy to Defend Traditional Marriage
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, disclosed that a legal team has been formed to file friend-of-the-court briefs (amicus briefs) on behalf of a Coalition of African-American pastors and Christian leaders. The legal team consists of the Law Center’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, MI.
Thompson explained, “In its briefs, the Law Center reflects the voice of a majority of African-Americans that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial discrimination and that tradition and morality should not be discarded as a basis of the law; as the pro-homosexual judges have done in their opinions.”
Several pastors representing the African-American community spoke at the press conference, including Bishop Samuel Smith, and Pastors Danny Holliday and Emery Moss. Evangelist Janet Boynes, a former lesbian and a member of the group, also spoke. In eloquent and at times fiery words, they all defended the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
AFTAH exclusive: FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN fund conference where mainstream journalists heard highly partisan, pro-”gay” presentations
Recruiting Homosexual Journalists:Fox News’ recruiting table at homosexual journalists (NLGJA) convention, at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel in Chicago. The event featured one-sided presentations by speakers in favor of “gay rights,” with no countervailing advocates of traditional morality. To read Peter LaBarbera’s in-depth 2013 report for America’s Survival, Inc., on the NLGJA’s long record of advocacy and Fox News’ emerging pro-”gay” bias, go HERE. Click on photos to enlarge. Credit: AFTAH.org
By Peter LaBarbera
CHICAGO–As it has year after year, Fox News Channel served as a major sponsor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association (NLGJA), providing a $10,000 grant for its 2014 annual convention, which recently concluded here (August 21-24). The conservative-leaning network also recruited at the homosexual journalists event.
Fox signed on as a “Feature Sponsor” for the convention–which included several one-sided presentations in favor of homosexual and transgender activist goals, and zero speakers advocating against LGBT goals such as the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” I attended a day and a half of the three-day conference, which was held at the swank Palmer House Hilton hotel in the downtown Loop. As in the past, NLGJA organizers allowed me (a critic, and not a homosexual journalist) to attend, but only after paying a “non-member” registration fee ($330/day).
Other media and corporate sponsors of the event included: CNN; CBS; ESPN; Comcast-NBC; Bloomberg; Gannett; Coca-Cola (the largest sponsor at $25,000); JetBlue airlines; Eli Lilly & Co.; Toyota; Nissan and the homosexual lobby organization Human Rights Campaign.
A natural bias?
Proud ‘Gay’ Christianity?Openly homosexual Lutheran (ELCA) Bishop Rev. Dr. Guy Erwin (far left) and former Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson (second from right) pose for photos following their joint presentation at the NLGJA convention. Robinson, who gained international fame as the first openly homosexual bishop of a major Christian denomination, criticized Christians who do not wish to participate in homosexual “weddings.” He said there is something “profane and sacrilegious” about “religious people arguing for the right to discriminate.” No opposing orthodox Christian viewpoint was included on the homosexual journalists association panel.
What I found at the Chicago conference is what I have observed at every other NLGJA convention I have attended in the last two decades: the natural bias that one would expect from an organization whose members view homosexuality personally and mainly through a “civil rights” prism.
The prevailing viewpoint at the conference–surely shared by most secular media professionals these days–is that “gay, lesbian and transgender” journalists are a legitimate sexual (or gender) “minority,” not unlike racial and ethnic minorities, deserving solicitous attention in newsrooms. That would include allowing LGBT journalists to guide coverage on homosexual-bisexual-transgender stories in culture and politics.
Even the NLGJA panel on religion and “gay rights” was bereft of a traditionalist perspective, while the two openly homosexual speakers—former Episcopal Church bishop V. [Vicky] Gene Robinson and new Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) Bishop Rev. Doctor Guy Erwin—were heralded in the program as leaders of “this next wave of the civil rights movement.”
Both Revs. Robinson and Erwin compared opposition to homosexuality and Christian businessmen’s principled refusal to participate in “gay weddings” to racist bigotry (see below).
Perhaps it is asking too much of “mainstream” journalists who consider homosexuality part of their intrinsic identity (“who they are”) to cover LGBT-related issues impartially. Nevertheless, intellectual diversity and ‘opposing’ viewpoint inclusion—the watchwords of this conference and pro-LGBT advocacy in general—were in short supply at the NLGJA convention. That is a peculiar and glaring deficit for a profession that ideally is supposed to cover “both sides” of controversial issues.
To quote the famous Fox News’ slogan: the NLGJA religious panel was hardly “Fair and Balanced” regarding the controversial question of (pro-) “gay Christianity”: who could argue that openly homosexual bishops advocating for rights based on homosexuality is not a divisive issue?
Add Sears to the list of corporations that shamelessly pander to the Homosexual Lobby as part of their marketing plan. Below are comments I made about Sears’ LGBT sellout in my recent radio interview Monday with VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program. We can thank Brian Tashman and the left-wingers at Right Wing Watch for the transcription of my remarks, which they found offensive but which I enthusiastically stand by [more on RWW's selective editing later]:
“There goes Sears,” LaBarbera said. “I watched the video; it’s just so sad and tragic to me. The Bible says ‘there’s a way to seems right to a man but the end of that way is death,’ basically. Attaching the perversion of homosexuality, which God called an abomination, detestable behavior, attaching that to marriage is just ungodly. It’s sad to see corporations celebrating this to get more sales and we’ll see if Sears suffers for this capitulation to the homosexual activist movement.”
In related news, Target joined a legal brief in support of homosexual “marriage,” thus officially joining other corporations like Starbucks adopting this anti-biblical position. Below is the official Sears video of its Chicago “Gay Pride” homosexual “marriage” float. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org:
New government data show homosexuality is far less common than most LGBT activists claimed for decades, and a fraction of what most Americans believe
A Convenient Lie:Homosexual activist Kevin Jennings is just one of many homosexual activists who used the “10 Percent” myth, rooted in Alfred Kinsey’s discredited research, to greatly exaggerate the number of homosexuals in America. Jennings’ book title would be far less compelling if it were “One Teacher in 45,” to better represent the actual number of homosexuals and bisexuals in society.
By Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH Special Report
The first-ever major U.S. Government survey to present “nationally representative data on sexual orientation” finds that only 1.6 percent of Americans identify as “gay” or “lesbian,” while .7 percent identify as “bisexual.” This is about considerably less than the much-ballyhooed, decades-old LGBT claim that 10 percent of society is “gay.”
Almost 98 percent of the 35,557 survey respondents identified themselves as “straight” or “not gay,” according to the survey by the federal National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It also found significant health and behavior disparities between heterosexuals and self-described gays, lesbians and bisexuals. For example, the latter were much more likely to be heavy drinkers than straights.
So much for ‘10 percent’
The 2.3 percent gay-lesbian-bisexual figure is far below the “10 percent gay” number that has been advanced for decades by homosexual activists and their allies—dating back to the discredited sex research of Alfred Kinsey, who vastly over-sampled sexual adventurers and deviants (including criminals). The “10 Percent” ploy suggested homosexuality was far more common—and hence “normal”–than it actually was. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, homosexual authors of the influential 1989 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in 90s (and relying on Kinsey’s fraudulent estimates), demonstrate how the myth was used for PR purposes:
If we must…pick a specific percentage for propaganda purposes, we may as well stick with the solidly conservative figure suggested by Kinsey decades ago: taking men and women together, at least 10% of the populace has demonstrated its homosexual proclivities so extensively that the proportion may reasonably be called ‘gay.’….
Straights do not appreciate that, with at least one-tenth of the public extensively involved in it, the practice of homosexuality may be a more commonplace activity in America than, say, bowling (6%), jogging (7%), golfing (5%), hunting (6%), reading drugstore romance novels (9%), or ballroom dancing (2%) on a regular basis. (Ballroom dancing—not that’s abnormal.)…
You should grasp clearly why America’s persistent underestimation of the number of homosexuals in its citizenry and core institutions is so dangerous to the cause of civil rights….Literally, the more the better. As Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin explain dryly in their classic study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
“To those who believe, as children do, that conformance should be universal, any departure from the rule becomes immorality. The immorality seems particularly gross to an individual who is unaware of the frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur.”
Thus, when it comes to fighting the charge that homosexuality is statistically abnormal hence immoral, there is strength in numbers. [pp. 16-17, emphasis theirs]
Here I call it a myth, but the defiance with which homosexual activists like Kirk and Madsen so aggressively promulgated their “10 percent gay” factoid suggests that it could more aptly be called a lie, perhaps a useful political lie—which is to say, propaganda. (Another LGBT activist distortion is the oft-repeated claim that homosexuals, and now transgenders, are “born that way” despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.)
For example, Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, and a former Obama Department of Education appointee, titled one of his books, “One Teacher in Ten” (see graphic above)—which is far more compelling, from a “gay” activist perspective, than “One Teacher in 45.”
I have two observations about this excellent piece by my friend, Barbwire.com founder, and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber: 1) I wish all Christians could possess Matt’s resolve in defending Truth; and 2) only a tiny minority of believers understand what is coming down the pike, persecution-wise, from the combination of treating homosexuality as a “civil right” and the court-imposed legalization of “gay marriage.” This is Big Government imposing immorality on us all, and we must fight it with great vigilance. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
The Coming Christian Revolt
By Matt Barber, July 21, 2014
From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular “progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”
Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.
To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, gay marriage and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.
Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians—regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands—will not—indeed cannot—participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.
Court’s defense of religious liberty for profit-making companies could help Christian small businessmen oppressed by “gay rights” laws
Current U.S. Supreme Court: left to right in back: Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan. Front, left to right: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito wrote the Hobby Lobby decision, and Kennedy is lionized by “gay” activists for writing last year’s decision striking down DOMA. Click to enlarge.
By Peter LaBarbera
It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?
The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.
Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobbyisn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.
Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.
Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government
Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.
On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:
“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”
On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”
As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.
The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.