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

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooks Backs Buggery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

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

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

Sacred Sodomy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last turn of the knife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

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

Sutherland Statement on Salt Lake City Nondiscrimination Ordinances and LDS  [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] Support

In response to the November 10, 2009 decision of the Salt Lake City Council to adopt changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances, and to comments presented that evening by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Sutherland Institute issued the following statement:

The LDS Church, like all religions in Utah, has a vital role to play in making Utah a better place to live, work, and raise a family.  Sutherland’s important role is to help elected officials craft sound, principle-based public policy toward that same end.  We recognize the growing differences between religious and secular cultures within Salt Lake City and commend the LDS Church for its earnest desire to keep cultural and political tensions to a minimum.

As a public relations opportunity, the LDS Church’s statement before the Salt Lake City Council may assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of “gay rights” in Utah.  As a policy statement, it is problematic.  The approved ordinances before the Salt Lake City Council are unsound in principle, clarity, and effect.

We have learned from California and other states that the meaning of marriage will die by a thousand cuts.  Each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage.  Of course, each one, singly and in isolation, does no violence to the meaning of marriage.  However, the legal debate is far ahead of such parochial analysis.  Unfortunately, homosexual activists seeking to redefine the meaning of marriage — as well as activist courts seeking to do the same — do not view these types of ordinances singly or in isolation but as a pattern of public opinion to justify radical changes to law as we saw in California.

As we have stated previously, we hold that the approved ordinances are vague, dangerously broad, and unjust to the parties they seek to regulate.

We, once again, call on the Utah State Legislature to overturn these local ordinances on the basis of sound public policy.

On October 12, 2009, Sutherland Institute published a statement addressing the then-proposed changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinance.  Read it by clicking here.

Dear Readers,

We may be witnessing the “official” split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps: the principled groups and churches that oppose all efforts to recognize and approve homosexuality as normal (AFTAH is in this camp); and “soft” family organizations and churches that oppose homosexual “marriage” (and sometimes “civil unions”) but which support other parts of the homosexualist agenda. Below is a version of an e-mail I sent yesterday to pro-family leaders across the United States upon learning of this misguided decision by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to support special legal “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion.

The pro-”gay” decision by the LDS Church to back a local “sexual orientation” law — widely reported by the media — is very bad news for our side.  The proliferation of newfangled laws granting special protections based on objectively disordered sexual/gender behaviors created the basis for punishing dissenters and people of faith long before the “gay marriage” debate became the dominant issue that it is in the “culture wars.”  I think I speak for us all in saying that we are very grateful to the Mormon Church for all it has done to defend against same-sex “marriage” (I personally am astonished by the LDS’ huge contribution to the cause). But “protecting marriage” while legitimizing government-backed preferred status based on changeable, wrong, and very unhealthy (even deadly) behaviors is a Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one.

Moreover, allowing homosexual special rights will only be used by liberal judges to rationalize their imposition of “gay marriage,” anyway (as has already happened), so what’s to be gained by such concessions? [See Gary Glenn's article on this point HERE]

Surely, much is to be lost.  Once we give up the principled argument, we torpedo our moral authority — which is our greatest and most precious asset.  If homosexuality (sodomy) is truly a crime against nature (and implicitly nature’s God), as Noah Webster defined it in 1828, and liberties truly come from God as I trust we all believe, then how can we possibly acquiesce to “rights” based on sin and perversion and keep our credibility as truth-tellers?  Are special homosexuality-based legal protections “civil rights” or a mockery of same?  If churches back “gay rights” (and the LDS is hardly the first), is there some truth to the idea that those of us who remain opposed to ALL aspects of the “GLBT agenda” are “bigots” or somehow extreme in our worldview?  And let’s be honest: our movement has already begun to ostracize its most principled warriors: I notice that everyone [in the pro-family movement] loves to use Brian Camenker’s and Amy Contrada’s indispensable, firsthand research but strangely some fail to credit MassResistance for their work. (They’re too “homophobic,” I guess.)

And where does the gay “special rights” train stop?  Is there some legal “right” to be homosexual parents?  Are school “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination codes legit (and even noble)?  Once you begin to cave, it’s hard to stop — while our cultural foes heap praise on us for every defection to their bogus “civil rights” approach.  Naturally, at the same time, the GLBT groups and their liberal allies will escalate their attacks against uncompromising pro-family groups as representing “extreme hate,” the fringe, etc.  Their goal is to marginalize us, and this certainly makes it easier. As we damage our pro-family/truth “brand,” we boost their spurious “equality” brand.

I fear some in the “pro-family” movement are dumbing and defining “victory” down so that we can proclaim it even as we lose the much harder and real culture war against normalizing homosexuality and gender confusion. This is a conversation our movement needs to have — because it appears there are two “missions” emerging from our once-unified coalition: one dedicated solely to preserving marriage (hopefully without allowing “civil unions” but sometimes even making that huge concession); the other dedicated as always to fighting every attempt to normalize homosexuality and using the government (and corporations) to sanction and celebrate homosexuality-based relationships. I say that our long-term survival — not to mention our integrity — rests on sticking with the latter mission.  Best – Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org

WARNING: OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE

The following is the complete text of the Nov. 4, 2009 post, “Haters vs.Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage,” by homosexual activist Joe Jervis on his “Joe.My.God.” blog (he took down the post yesterday). The post contains violence-oriented and -threatening comments against me and AFTAH, Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel by some of Jervis’ readers. We have not changed a single word, so you will read some vulgar and obscene comments.

After the story broke open yesterday, Jervis took down the post [at http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/haters-vs-haters-peter-labarbera.html], claiming the threatening posts were a “joke” and that our and Matt Barber’s efforts to expose the threatening post was an “obvious attempt to intimidate me and my readers.” Actually, we just sought to expose the extremist rhetoric that could lead a deranged homosexual to kill. We would not fault homosexual advocates to do the same regarding irresponsible and threatening “conservative” rhetoric.

Jervis claims that the comment posted by “Tex” is “clearly a joke,” but as you can see from his two comments below, Tex clearly is serious about the need for violence against Christians to advance the “gay rights” agenda.

Jervis also writes that he’s taken down the controversial only “for the time being,” but “After I’ve thoroughly reviewed all the comments, it’ll go back up.” AFTAH would never post anything encouraging violence against homosexuals — in fact we have denounced such rhetoric; we don’t understand why Jervis feels the need to rationalize comments that endorse homosexual violence against Christians. (Click HERE to read about the phone-in death threat against Maine pro-family veteran Mike Heath, who is also the Board Chairman of AFTAH.)

Yes, Ft. Hood changes everything because it is proof that Political Correctness can end up killing lots of innocent people. Actually, that’s nothing new: liberalism’s naivete and “softness” toward Communism contributed to the deaths of untold millions.

We’ve bolded the most offensive portions, including Fritz’s not-too-subtle “warnings” against violence that might also double as suggestions to the unstable. You can read Jervis’ post explaining his decision to remove the original post HERE — just be prepared to read some vile hate against me and other pro-family leaders if you scroll down to the comments. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

P.S. Note that committed AFTAH-hater Jervis often gets his facts wrong about Americans For Truth and me.  After all, he and other “gay” extremists continue to smear me as “Porno Pete” — as he does below — and claim without any evidence that I am a secret homosexual. Such are the malicious outpourings of reprobate minds. Thus, Jervis lies about the Maine press conference in which we participated — which he refers to in the first paragraph: in fact, it was very well-attended and covered by numerous print and broadcast media throughout Maine just days before the election that overturned “gay marriage” in the northeastern state.

________________________________________________________

The following is reprinted verbatim from Joe Jervis’ Joe.My.God blog, originally with this URL: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/haters-vs-haters-peter-labarbera.html  [the link is dead as Jervis took down the post Nov. 9].

Main | Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Haters Vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand For Marriage

Still stinging from their refusal to be seen in the same room with him and their later denouncement of his largely unattended Maine “press conference,” Porno Pete LaBarbera and his BFF Matt Barber are attacking Stand For Marriage for the one conciliatory message they issued during the campaign.

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

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

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

“We who claim to follow God…” Did you catch that? Those guys at Stand For Marriage aren’t real Christians because they don’t hate enough for Peter LaBarbera. They hate plenty enough for US, Petey.

Labels [Jervis' blog categories]: assholery, Maine, marriage equality, Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, religion, Stand For Marriage

posted by Joe [Jervis, creator of the "Joe.My.God" blog]   19 comments

________________________________________________________

Guest says:
5 days ago, 11:42:36 AM
“He’s just sore because fatty matty [Matt Barber] experienced premature ejaculation when they heard the final result, and porno pete only got half a facial instead of the full spray.

________________________________________________________

Lars De says:
5 days ago, 11:48:33 AM
“And the fragmentation of the fundies has begun. Give them enough rope…..

________________________________________________________

MarkOH says:
5 days ago, 11:48:37 AM
“What DOES this guy to for a living? Is he really making it on just spewing hate? Does he have another job to pay the bills? If not, I think someone needs to look into his organization.

________________________________________________________

laddie says:
5 days ago, 11:54:25 AM
“”changeable and sinful” huh?  What a dumbass!  He must be one of the advocates for reparative therapy.

________________________________________________________

dwerk says:
5 days ago, 11:55:25 AM
“Is there not a hetero woman out there who is dame enough to sex out these two simpering straight ninnies? Pete’n'Matt, the two most gey sex obsessed heteros on the planet need a real whore to grab them both by the balls and rekindle their hetero sex lives to the point where they will forget all about homo fags and our lives. Come on so called allies, where are the women who will take on these 2 sex-starved pantywastes and make them into real men again?

- – - – - – - – - – -

ColdCountry replies:
5 days ago, 12:07:28 PM
“Not on your life.

________________________________________________________

ColdCountry says:
5 days ago, 12:07:55 PM
“Will someone please give me a gun?

________________________________________________________

David L. Caster says:
5 days ago, 12:09:09 PM
“Rabid dogs come to mind.

________________________________________________________

Parsnip [http://www.funnyanimalbooks.com] says:
5 days ago, 12:11:27 PM
“They want us dead or in prison.  News at 11.

________________________________________________________

Bud says:
5 days ago, 12:26:26 PM
“The American taliban has won again.  There is no difference between Christians and Muslims.  One in the same and both evil hateful bastards.

________________________________________________________

Fritz says:
5 days ago, 1:08:31 PM
“What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and Gallagher.

All is will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.

This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. Our president must wake up and prevent this from happening.

Otherwise, we will end up like Israel and Palestine. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches.

All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly.

There are people who will come to the conclusion that fear and death are the only weapons gay and lesbian people have at their disposal. Obama must step forward and prevent this from happening.

There are radicals who plant bombs and commit acts of terrorism for causes like the environment and animal rights. It is not out of the question that straight radicals could begin doing things like this on behalf of gay and lesbian people.

Injustice, oppression and a country where weapons and violence are common is not a good combination.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

tex replies:
5 days ago, 1:28:08 PM
“Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing?
Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean “civil disobediance”…

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 1:50:12 PM
“I doubt that you’ll feel that way when some social misfit blows up a straight wedding and images of the bride in a bloodstained dress appears on the cover of Time.

These kinds of things are always horrible. They are always committed by people who are deranged zealots.

Unfortunately, there are deranged zealots in every population — including our own community.

In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.

Fear this. It will not be anything that you will applaud.

________________________________________________________

Alex in Idaho replies:
5 days ago, 1:28:25 PM
“While I understand the desire to fight back, if that really happens,  I’ll see you in the internment camp after the backlash starts, Fritz.  It’s happened before, and our opponents are masters at whipping up hate and hysteria.  (Sorry, feeling a bit paranoid today)

________________________________________________________

Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 1:44:33 PM
“Well, my mother, her parents and her siblings were held in the internment camp at Crystal City, Texas during WWII.

So, you are not being paranoid. You’re just seeing a little bit of history repeating.

________________________________________________________

the crustybastard [http://thecrustybastard.blogspot.com/] replies:
5 days ago, 3:09:12 PM
“I suggest we call them The Pink Panthers.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

David L. Caster replies:
5 days ago, 5:16:31 PM
“I get the reference, but don’t you think that Lavender Panthers is more appropriate?

________________________________________________________

tex says:
5 days ago, 2:01:47 PM
“Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz….How many photos of innocent gay people bludgeoned to near death have I seen lately?

Mixner talks about “Gay Apartheid”, but what he fails to mention is the 20 years of bloody revolt that went into the ANC revolution. There was literally blood running through the gutters. I know…I was there in ‘88 through ‘92, and believe me….they didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 2:17:39 PM
“My point is that Obama’s leadership could prevent these kinds of things from happening.

Violence is always a bad thing. Suppose someone plants a bomb at a wedding of one of your family members.

Obama needs to step up and give LGBT people some of that hope for change that he used to win the election. If he doesn’t, there is a very real potential for violence.

I have been seeing people turning to radical language and ideas more and more — especially after the election.

Obama dangled a carrot of hope and then snatched it away. There are dangerous people who will react violently to that. Innocent people could get hurt.

When LGBT leaders start saying “enough” and calling on the community to take a stand, there will be a few who will take it to the extreme. This is how it has always been throughout history. Every movement has the potential for violence no matter how peaceful the core group.

AFTAH note on above graphic: Suggestion on homosexual activist Joe Jervis's blog by commenter "Tex" that violence against Christians isn't a "bad thing." Jervis claims Tex was joking but he is clearly serious as he suggests to Fritz that "maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.""

Posted on WorldNetDaily [read full story HERE]: November 09, 2009
10:16 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A homosexual blogger passed off as a “joke” a suggestion by a contributor to his website that there might be church bombings because of Christians’ refusal to support the homosexual lifestyle.

But several individuals named in the column are taking the threat seriously.

“That is what Fort Hood teaches us,” said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, referring to the attack on the Texas Army base by a Muslim officer that killed 13 people and wounded 28.

LaBarbera was cited by name in the postings on the “joemygod” website run by homosexual advocate Joe Jervis.

“When people are talking about violence to pro-family proponents, you have to take it seriously,” LaBarbera said.

LaBarbera and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who also is an active supporter of biblical marriage, confirmed to WND they notified authorities of the threats.

“The First Amendment gives you the right of free speech but it does not grant the right to claim you have a bomb in your luggage at the airport, it doesn’t give you the right to claim you have a bomb in a movie theater,” Barber said. “It doesn’t protect saying you’ll shut up these Christians up by strapping bombs [on] and blowing up churches.”

The recent postings, taken down “temporarily,” according to Jervis, came from “Fritz” and “Tex.”

Fritz’s comments came after voters in Maine last week made it the 31st out of 31 states to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. He wrote he was concerned about “gay and lesbian people” giving up on obtaining “equality,” and there would follow “radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and Gallagher,” referring to Maggie Gallagher, a leading pro-family activist who runs the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

“All is will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause,” “Fritz” wrote. “This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. Our president must wake up and prevent this from happening. Otherwise, we will end up like Israel and Palestine. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches.”

“Tex” responded, “You say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean ‘civil disobedience.’”

LaBarbera said it is ironic in the wake of the “hate crimes” law signed by President Obama that provides special protections to homosexuals that attacks immediately began targeting Christians.

“It seems the more the gay movement achieves, the more hostile the activists become toward religious people,” LaBarbera said. “They know the religious and moral people are the last impediment to their full agenda.”

But he said Fort Hood teaches that targets should not ignore online rantings. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan wrote on the Internet of the conflict between his Muslim teachings and America’s war against terrorism before the attack Thursday. … [story continues at WND]

Click here to read the rest of the WND story: “Gay Blogger Calls Church-Bomb Threat a ‘Joke’”

Contact: jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: November 9, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“Gay” Activists Mull “Organized Terrorism” Against Christians

Pro-Family Leaders Targets of Death Threats

Lynchburg, VA – In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians.

In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay” activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist “JoeMyGod” Weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry had been removed. (captured version of post will be available at www.americansfortruth.com).

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”

In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”

“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.”

“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz … [African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.”

In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage were specifically named targets.

Meanwhile, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, was targeted by a direct death threat shortly after the passage of Question 1 last week. An anonymous caller telephoned the League, warning:

“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine.  He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”

Law enforcement was immediately notified of the threat against Heath. Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously.”

###

Below is a reproduction of  comments posted on a homosexual activist blog “Joe.My.God.” — responding to an article attacking Americans For Truth titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage”:

Dear Readers,

Homosexual activist blogger Joe Jervis of “Joe.My.God” website contains a post attacking AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera followed by a reader comment suggesting that “domestic terrorism” against pro-family leaders who oppose the homosexual agenda is justifiable.

In the post, titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage” — which has been live online since last Wed., Nov. 4  — a reader named “Fritz” writes:

“What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and [National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie] Gallagher.

“All [it] will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause….”

Responding to Fritz’s suggestive “warning,” “Tex” writes:

“Fritz … you say this like it’s a bad thing?

“Maybe a bit of well-organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean ‘civil disobedience.’”

More coming …. We will reproduce all the offensive comments on our website. The pro-family Christian defense organization Liberty Counsel has contacted the FBI regarding the threatening post.

Reprinted from the Christian Civic League of Maine website:

Nov 6, 2009

The normal routine of the League was interrupted Friday afternoon, when an anonymous caller called to say he owned guns and his next target was the former director of the League, Mike Heath (right). The death threat was apparently related to the recent win on Question 1, which revoked the right of homosexuals to be married in Maine.

The caller said the following:

“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine.  He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”

The call was the latest and most serious example of intimidation by homosexual rights supporters after the win on same sex marriage. The League withheld publishing comments from homosexual rights supporters since the referendum vote, for fear the comments would be too offensive for our readers.

The death threat now provides our readers with the proper context for understanding these comments, which are as follows. They will not be suitable for some readers:

“Your ‘Pastor” is a BIGOT…..and [expletive deleted] CRAZY.”

“You sick (expletive deleted)!  You have nothing to offer except hate, bigotry, and lies.  …homosexuality is not a sickness and you know it. It is perfectly normal. If anything is a sickness and a scourge, it is your hatred. Excuse me while I go puke.”

“The real sin is not treating all people equal. You will all burn in hell.”

Here is more:

“Please pray that people in Maine see through the charade of religious (expletive deleted) spewed by Rev. Heath. He is NOT a Christian. He needs to simply shut up. Just because same-sex marriage, which was voted on by a majority (heterosexuals) to discriminate against a minority (homosexuals) doesn’t mean it was right.”

“You people are devil worshipers and are going to (phrase deleted) and get nailed to a cross by a man in leather chaps listening to Barbara Streisand and the rest of the world will cheer for your slow painful death. [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted]”

“Seriously…Jesus would hate you. Everyone else does. You are sinners and not Christians. Again [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] do the world a favor by slitting your throats and the rest of your congregation too. [expletive deleted]  Pray for yourselves you idiots. You are the ones who will burn in hell… not believing in equality for all. God hates you. and you know it deep down inside.”

The League immediately reported the death threat against Heath to the Augusta Police Department, which is investigating the incident.

——————————————————————————–

When PR flacks take over moral messaging

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

By Linda Harvey
© 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When that happens, they have won the war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________

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

Posted by MassResistance October 30, 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

READ THE REST OF THE STORY on MassResistance’s website

New Jersey's new governor-elect Chris Christie, a Republican, campaigned against homosexual "marriage" -- and beat two pro-"gay marriage" opponents in a deep blue state.

By Peter LaBarbera

Social conservatives did quite well on Tuesday. Not only did traditional marriage win in Maine, but in several high-profile races, such as New Jersey’s governor’s race, the pro-traditional-marriage candidate won. In Virginia, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won the race for attorney general handily despite being smeared as a “bigot” by the powerful Washington Post for his principled opposition to granting “rights” based on unnatural behavior.

The victorious candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a strong pro-family, pro-life conservative who helped enact legal protections for the definition of marriage in the state. The following is from his website:

Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.

In the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation. In his 2005 race for Attorney General, Bob was honored to receive the endorsement of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

Christie ran on traditional marriage

In New Jersey, GOP victor Chris Christie was the only one of three candidates to oppose homosexual “marriage,” and sent out a mailer on that issue (this “gay” Advocate account sums it up). The Advocate reported Nov. 2:

The New Jersey legislature is widely expected to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session following the election. Governor Corzine has pledged to sign the bill. Christie opposes marriage equality.

Even in the only race that the White House likes to talk about — Democrat Bill Owens’ victory in the heated NY-23 Congressional race (he was endorsed by the GOP’s exiting moderate liberal candidate, Dede Scozzafava) — the news is not good for “same-sex-”marriage” advocates. Turns out that Owens, running in upstate New York, opposed allowing homosexuals to “marry.” However, he appears to support “civil unions.” See HERE and HERE.

The New York Observer reports:

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage–he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue”–telling me, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.”

______________________

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

Righteousness prevails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough trembling before the online “queer” thugs who want to punish people or frighten them for doing what’s right! I say: shame on the Homosexual Lobby — which has a knack for doing the most outrageous things to promote and defend its pet sin of homosexuality.

Nobody should be ashamed of being identified with the Truth on this issue or any social position that aligns with their faith. Life teaches us that you never reward a bully; you stand up to him. If that means that some creep might ring you up at midnight or call you a name or list your address on some twisted website, so be it. Christians in some parts of the world are maimed, tortured or even murdered for believing in Jesus Christ; their churches are burned down. Shame on us if we’re unwilling to be called a name for defending God’s wonderful created order of sex in marriage. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. In saner times, sinners were ashamed of their sin or at least knew deep down they were wrong. Some responded to Gospel preaching, were forgiven and became part of the body of Christ. Now sinners “preach” at us, coax us to approve of their errant lifestyles –  and even demand that Christians surrender truth on this issue by bowing to their immoral vision. Isaiah 5:20 applies.

Statement regarding threat to Yes on One TV ad spokesman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29, 2009     Contact: Scott K Fish
Communications Director
207-458-7185

STATEMENT FROM STAND FOR MARRIAGE MAINE
REGARDING THREAT TO YES ON 1 TV AD SPOKESMAN DON MENDELL

The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman, Stand for Marriage Maine:

“I want to alert you to a disturbing development that confirms what we have been saying about the larger threat that redefining marriage poses to every Mainer.

“Don Mendell, one of our spokesmen who appeared in a television ad for Stand for Marriage Maine, has come under attack by our opponents.

“Don is a high school guidance counselor and licensed social worker. His appearance in the television ad prompted a complaint to the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation – requesting that his license to practice social work in the state of Maine be stripped away – simply because of his personal opinion on marriage.

“It is ironic that those who claim tolerance as their highest value prove themselves to be so intolerant that they would go so far as to threaten a father’s career and put his family’s future at risk. This latest attack highlights the true agenda of those who demand that marriage be redefined.

“No one who opposes Question 1 is in similar danger from those who support marriage between one man and one woman.

“Our opponents want to shut us down. We have no interest in limiting free speech and threatening the right of conscience for those who disagree. So who’s really intolerant?

“This attack proves that a “YES” vote next Tuesday is about much more than protecting marriage. It is also about preserving free speech, religious liberty and right of conscience and about what is taught to children.

“This threat to Don and his family’s livelihood is proof that those who demand marriage be redefined seek to punish and silence those who disagree.

“It is our hope that the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation dismisses this complaint for what it is – nonsense. The Alliance Defense Fund – a legal alliance of attorneys committed to defending the right of people to freely live out their faith – is considering potential action on behalf of Don’s fundamental liberties.

“If the people of Maine vote Yes on Question 1 to protect marriage, we have hope that free speech and religious liberty will be respected. If marriage is not protected, Don will only be the first victim.

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________

STATEMENT BY MATT BARBER
Contact:  jmattbarber@comcast.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Nov. 4, 2009

Counterfeit Marriage Rejected in Maine

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

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

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

###

Added comments by Barber for Americans For Truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

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

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

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

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

Debate over tactics

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

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

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

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

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

Highlighting Outside ‘Gay’ Extremism in Maine:

The NGLTF boasts HERE how they helped mobilize grassroots activists to pass homosexual “marriage” in the Maine legislature, and then how they stepped up their grassroots and monetary assistance in an attempt to defeat Question 1, a ballot measure to be decided today. If Question 1 passes — i.e., a YES vote — it would repudiate the “gay marriage” legislation signed into law by Gov. John Baldacci (D).

Here’s the link for the audio on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s AFTAH-bashing website. (There are audio files and video links.) If you are a glutton for punishment, you can read the hateful ad hominem attacks and irrational putdowns by “Louise” (from Maine) and others on Pam’s left-wing-nut blog. (Looking for a straw man to knock down, Louise calls our event a “rally” though it was an informational press conference.)

You want to see some more raw homosexual hatred? Go to this snippet from the press conference posted on YouTube, and read the comments under the video. Nobody — and I mean nobody — hates like the nasties on homosexual side. [Clarification: by this I mean not all homosexuals, of course, but the activists among them who traffic in vilification and mean-spirited verbal assaults against their opponents, and even blatantly anti-religious attacks.] This movement more than any other hates people of faith, or I should say those who act on their heartfelt belief that homosexuality is wrong. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

AUDIO LINKS to Maine press conference found on this page: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13803/peter-labarberas-antigay-rally-at-maine-statehouse-draws-feeble-numbers

By Bay Buchanan, Townhall.com, 11/2/09

According to a recent Gallup study, 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative, 36% call themselves moderate, and only 20% fall into the liberal category. While this may be great news for conservatives, the Grand Old Party did not fare so well.

Last Spring a Pew poll found that only 23% of voters consider themselves Republicans. This month an ABC/Washington Post survey suggests the number has fallen even further—to 20%. Meanwhile the largest block of voters, 36%, classify as Independents, with 35% calling themselves Democrats.

One more number: 72% of Republicans identify themselves as conservative.

Bottom line—the Republican Party is deeply conservative while America is predominantly conservative. It is the party label that has trouble, not the philosophy which was once its driving force.

The key to expansion then is to realign itself with that which is conservative and regain the trust of the 35% of Independents and 21% of Democrat swho also call themselves conservative. You do this with candidates who appeal to these voters—conservative populists who speak with boldness and clarity about their vision for America. Then you paint democratic candidates with the Obama brush– fiscally irresponsible, socially radical, out of touch liberals fully engaged in bankrupting the nation.

So what are Republican Party leaders doing? With 20% of the electorate in their pocket they’re running to the middle, adding even more credibility to Sam Francis’ description of them as the “Stupid Party.”

According to story in Politico this past week, “many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities.” But it was on their “big tent, big spending, big amnesty” watch that the referenced defeats took place!

This same article reports that John McCain and his little side-kick Lindsey Graham are working to move the party in a “more centrist direction”. But a year ago McCain, as the party’s nominee, couldn’t energize a Republican convention without first inviting the fire-breathing right-wing Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to join him on stage. ….

Go here to read the rest of Buchanan’s column on Townhall:  “Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?”

WARNING: Offensive Images

Malice Targets Maggie: A photo of pro-traditional-marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher’s face is attached to a nude mannequin with “LIAR” written on the stomach — the rooftop creation of West Hollywood homosexual couple ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles. The deviant duo say the theme for their bigoted rooftop display is the “forces of evil 2009″ — seemingly oblivious to the nastiness of their crude attacks on religious and conservative leaders.

By Peter LaBarbera

Well, it’s Halloween again, so that means more über-tacky rooftop hate-displays by West Hollywood homosexual duo ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles. Delighted by their 15 minutes of fame last Halloween for infamously hanging a mannequin dressed up as Sarah Palin with a noose around her neck, the homosexual couple this year has broadened its hate campaign by loading their house’s rooftop with several new images attacking social conservatives.

Morrisette and Aviles painted “LIAR” on the stomach of a nude mannequin and attached as its head the face of Maggie Gallagher, the leader pro-family activist fighting “gay marriage.” Gallagher runs the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and founded the National Organization for Marriage.

(Memo to liberal bloggers and media: please take care to spell Morrisette’s and Aviles’ names correctly when you write your nonjudgmental pieces about their “decorations” — and try not to think about how differently you would craft your piece were the story about “gay” leaders being cruelly depicted on a conservative couple’s rooftop.)

“The reason that ["Gallagher"] is naked is that we are exposing her lies,” Morrissette told Curbed LA.

In addition to the pitiably childish slam against Gallagher, the homosexual couple anti-religious creation features a chopped-in-half and bloodied, upside-down torso of a blond woman hanging from the roof — intended to be Carrie Prejean, the runner-up to Miss California 2009 who was infamously maligned by homosexual gossip columnist and pageant judge Perez Hilton because he didn’t like her sincere answer to a question about “same-sex marriage.”

ChadMichael Morrisette (left) and Mito Aviles stand proudly outside their home with its grotesque, anti-religious displays. Arrow from this "Curbed LA" article points to chopped and bloodied mock torso of "Carrie Prejean" hanging from their rooftop. Click on photo to enlarge.

Mormon missionaries also targeted in hate display.

Curbed LA reports: “Prejean is a ‘victim of Gallagher’s,’ according to Morrissette, because he says her image has been used by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.”

The West Hollywood attack-display also features a mock Mormon missionary (below) stuck and burning in a chimney flew — reflective of the larger “queer” activist movement’s disdain for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)’ central role in passing Prop 8, a ballot amendment that reinstated traditional marriage in California.

Morrisette's and Aviles' handiwork from last Halloween: hanging of GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin in effigy. Some media reported on the incident but the "gay" angle went largely unreported. The anti-Paln stunt was not popular with the homosexual activist couple's neighbors.

Thanks to everyone who made our Americans For Truth banquet last night a resounding success. Matt Barber was insightful as our keynote speaker, and Pete Lines — a former homosexual who overcame years of confusion stemming from being sexual molested in his youth — stirred the crowd with his testimony. The only “hate” to be found was outside the building at the (Marxist) Gay Liberation Network’s ineffective protest. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

The following report is from our friends at the Republicans For Fair Media (RFFM) website:

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Fundraiser Huge Success: Gay Protest Fizzles
RFFM.org Staff Writer

An estimated audience of over 100 pro-family leaders gathered in Arlington Heights on Saturday night, October 24th, in support of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).  The evening featured a speech by Peter LaBarbera, Founder and President of AFTAH, and a nationally recognized activist who has toiled on behalf of pro-family issues for more than two decades.

The keynote speaker was J. Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member: Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Counsel; Associate Dean, Liberty University School of Law; and author of “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War.”

Others addressing the event:

• Paul B. Madore, Founder and Director, Maine Grassroots Coalition (see their website: SaveMaineMarriage.org);
• Jim Finnegan, President, Choose Life Illinois; and
• Pete Lines, who overcame the homosexual lifestyle

LaBarbera told RFFM.org that the night was a huge success and he expressed his appreciation to those gathered and to Pastor Calvin Lindstrom, Church of Christian Liberty and Christian Liberty Academy, who delivered the invocation.

Jack Roeser, a well-known pro-family philanthropist who attended the banquet, wowed those in attendance when he offered a $10,000 matching grant for AFTAH.

An expected protest by radical homosexual activists took place outside Christian Liberty Academy which included approximately fifteen demonstrators.  The protest was in response to a national call to action from homosexual leaders.

“I expected to be met by a huge phalanx of pro-homosexual demonstrators,” said Dan Zanoza, RFFM.org’s Executive Director and an attendee of the AFTAH fundraiser.  “The pro-homosexual group blocked our access to the crosswalk leading to the banquet hall.  As a blind individual, I was struck by the insensitivity of a group which calls for tolerance and recognition of what they claim are special rights homosexuals should receive under the U.S. Constitution.”

“Thankfully, two members of the Arlington Heights Police Department cleared a path for me and those I came with and that was deeply appreciated on my part,” continued Zanoza.  “As I attempted to enter the crosswalk leading to the Academy itself, the pro-homosexual group proceeded to loudly chant their message which greatly increased the danger for myself and others, including the elderly, who depend on both sight and sound to cross a street.  The insensitivity demonstrated by the group was ironic.”

David Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, accepted an award on behalf of Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) and American Family Radio. [Wildmon, who is recovering from encephalitis,  was the recipient of AFTAH's first annual American Truth Teller Award; his son, AFA President Tim Wildmon, thanked Americans For Truth with a video message played at the banquet.]

Though the AFTAH banquet was not a political event, two candidates seeking statewide office were present.  Dan Proft, who is running for Governor in the GOP primary and Andy Martin, who is seeking the Republican Party nomination in the U.S. Senate race, joined pro-family supporters at the AFTAH fundraiser.

“I was very impressed with the gathering of people who are concerned about this issue, especially with the words of Mr. Lines, an individual who found his way out of the homosexual lifestyle with God’s help,” said Arlene Sawicki of South Barrington, a longtime pro-life/pro-family activist.  “Contrary to the sentiments of radical homosexual activists, the entire evening approached the issue of homosexuality and its impact on our culture in a loving, Christlike manner.”

A Question and Answer session with Matt Barber and Pete Lines topped off the proceedings.

“I learned a great deal about the negative impact the homosexual lifestyle has upon our culture and individuals who find themselves trapped in this lifestyle,” said one of those gathered.  “It is a sad story, but Mr. Lines is proof that there is hope for all who are living their lives contrary to Biblical teachings.  However, it is also a message of hope for those with other addictions because I believe, as one of the speakers noted tonight, homosexuality is a form of sexual addiction that one can overcome.”

For information regarding contributions to AFTAH go to:  www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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