Greg Quinlan

Folks, Herr Herrschaft over at the “Human Wrongs Campaign” is building up quite a record for himself in shutting down dissent to the homosexual activist message. His homosexual comrades might call him The Enforcer: this is the fellow whose threat of a boycott at a 2007 DiversityInc Magazine panel on “Religion in the Workplace” succeeded in getting AFTAH knocked off the panel as the sole voice representing faith-based opposition to homosexuality. Isn’t it amazing how “queer” militants continually play the victim card to the public even as they aggressively lobby to squelch opposing views in the workplace and throughout society (all in the name of “diversity”!)? Kudos to Greg Quinlan and PFOX for exposing the raw hypocrisy of the GLBT Lobby. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________________

Ex-Gay Addresses Disney Board of Directors

Contact:  Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX); 513-435-1125; PFOX@pfox.org

San Antonio, TX — Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) addressed the corporate directors of the Walt Disney Company at its annual shareholders meeting and asked them to approve a resolution to include ex-gays in Disney’s mandatory diversity training for employees.

“Disney’s diversity training emphasizes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, but fails to include ex-gays,” explained Quinlan.  “Ex-gays remain closeted because they are not protected by diversity policies and are subject to open disapproval.  Employees who support the ex-gay community are also not welcome to express their views.”

In response to the resolution asking for inclusion and diversity for the ex-gay community,  Daryl Herrschaft, director of the workplace project at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, was quoted by Daily Finance as saying that the resolution is “wrongheaded.”  The Human Rights Campaign, known as HRC, is the nation’s largest gay rights organization advocating for gay equality.

“How can HRC demand gay equality when it refuses to extend equality to others?” asked Quinlan.  “HRC demands that gays and transgenders be included in diversity policies, but belittles ex-gays who ask for the same rights that gays and transgenders currently enjoy.  HRC insists that men can change their gender to become the opposite sex, but refuses to acknowledge that men like me can change our sexual orientation from gay to straight.”

Every year the HRC Foundation issues a Corporate Equality Index which rates American companies on their equal treatment of gays, bisexuals, and transgenders.  HRC gave Disney a 100 rating, its highest score.  HRC rated Disney on its corporate nondiscrimination policy, diversity training, benefits, employee resource group and diversity council, advertising to gays, sponsorship of gay community events or organizations, and for not engaging in action that would undermine gay and transgender equality.

“Is it a conflict of interest for any corporation in this country to donate money or other form of support to HRC, which then rates those same corporations on corporate equality?” asked Quinlan in his speech to the Disney Board of Directors.

“Disney, your equality index score is -0- for ex-gays and their supporters.  You should treat former homosexuals with the same respect and benefits you give to gays and transgenders.”

“This week HRC is celebrating the first “gay marriages” in Washington D.C., our nation’s capital.  As gay couples in D.C. lined up to apply for marriage licenses, they wore HRC victory buttons.  But there is one victory in Washington D.C., that HRC did not celebrate.  And that is the judicial decision issued by the D.C. Superior Court last year, in a case brought by PFOX.  The Court ruled that ex-gays are a legally protected class under sexual orientation and therefore specifically protected from discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

“PFOX calls on HRC to issue public statements condemning hatred and discrimination against the ex-gay community. Human rights demand no less.”

The Disney resolution needed a vote of 3% to pass for inclusion at next year’s meeting, and received approximately 2%.  Quinlan is gratified by the support he received from shareholders present at the meeting.  “Shareholders applauded, shook my hand and said it was about time this happened,” said Quinlan.

###

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news. See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

Correction: in initially posting this piece, we mistakenly cited the American Psychological Association, instead of the American Psychiatric Association, regarding the changed DSM on homosexuality as a mental disorders. We apologize for the error. — AFTAH, www.aftah.org

________________________________________

“Nuance” — yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin. Where oh where is C.S. Lewis when we need him to poke holes in the fancy façade of sophistication that we sinners don to conceal our acquiescence to a fallen world?

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton’s feet have been put to the fire recently regarding the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines that he and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have developed. Their guidelines state the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations….some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.

How can a serious follower of Christ “envision” a homosexual identity, that is to say, an identity defined by disordered desire and objectively immoral behavior? Substitute another sin for homosexuality and imagine such a statement:

“The emergence of a polyamorous or promiscuous identity with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations. Some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of polyamorous eroticism or promiscuity within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

In an interview with One News Now [see ONN site HERE; AFTAH analysis and ONN story HERE], Throckmorton stated that “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.” Throckmorton and Yarhouse quote APA guidelines which state that “Psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.” In the words of the infamous Gollum, this is tricksy rhetoric that calls for some careful parsing.

What constitutes “mental illness” is determined by the notoriously liberal American Psychiatric Association, which removed “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because of the political machinations of a group of homosexuals who stormed and disrupted an APA meeting and subsequently applied political pressure to any pockets of resistance.

But whether the APA considers homosexuality a mental illness or not should be irrelevant to a Christian mental health professional. Christian counselors ought not ignore serious moral issues when deciding how or whether to counsel a client. Neither polyamory nor adult consensual incest is considered a mental illness either. Does that mean that Throckmorton and Yarhouse would be complicit in helping a brother and sister who were involved in an incestuous relationship to work out their relationship conflicts?

Throckmorton asserts that “homosexuals can live normal, natural and healthy lives,” which raises the critical question of how he, as a Christian first, defines normal, natural and healthy. He quite obviously is not applying biblical understandings of normality, naturalness or health. I can’t imagine even what secular standards he is using to define these terms. [Editor's note: in a 2007 radio interview with homosexual activist Mike Signorile, Throckmorton was asked this question: "So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as 'normal, natural and healthy' – that that is fine?" He responded:  "Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile."]

Since homosexuals constitute somewhere between 2-4 percent of the population, homosexuality can’t be considered normal. And since the predominant sex act between homosexual men is profoundly unhealthy and structurally damaging, and homosexual sex is inherently sterile, it’s hard to see how anyone would define homosexuality as natural or healthy.

But most important, as a Christian first, how is Throckmorton defining that which God calls abominable as normal, natural and healthy?

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

First, if the Equal Protection Act actually required homosexual unions, it seems it would require same-sex “marriages” also.

Second, the question Throckmorton needs to answer directly is, does he, who claims to hold orthodox Christian views on homosexuality, believe that “civil unions” — which are really same-sex “marriages” in all but name — should be legalized? Some are interested not in what he thinks the Equal Protection Clause permits, but what he personally thinks should exist.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian — no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life — would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith. We shouldn’t be surprised: Jesus told us that,

Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 10:32-39)

_____________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst with Illinois Family Institute. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Warren Throckmorton

Prof. Warren Throckmorton said in an interview with AFA’s One News Now published today that he supports homosexual “civil unions” and equivocated on the question of whether homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy.” (In 2007, Throckmorton answered affirmatively to the same question when asked by radical homosexual activist Mike Signorile.) Is this what Throckmorton’s employer, Grove City College, means when it advertises itself as “authentically Christian”?

Note Throckmorton’s parsing of words in the ONN interview (below). Looking through the lens of Judeo-Christian history, to NOT discourage someone from adopting a ‘gay’ identity and practicing  homosexuality (even in a “monogamous” same-sex relationship), is effectively to promote the acceptance of homosexuality — i.e., sexual sin.

Moreover, Prof. Throckmorton seems to adhere to the notion that his Christian life and his professional “therapist” role are mutually exclusive — as if secular requirements in the current psychological paradigm supersede adherence to God’s holy and inspired Word. As AFTAH previously reported, Throckmorton’s and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” (SIT) stipulates that therapists must respect their client’s chosen “sexual identity” — whether that means rejecting a homosexual identity out of religious convictions or embracing one that “allow[s] integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” (p. 7)

The overriding question remains: can a faithful, Bible-believing Christian who believes it is sinful to condone immoral sexual behavior practice the SIT approach professionally — if that means NOT attempting to dissuade clients who decide they are happiest living homosexually from embracing that identity?

Perhaps the choice between faith and therapy is not as stark for Throckmorton because — despite his claim to ONN to uphold a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics” — the GCC professor affirms monogamous “gay” relationships. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Throckmorton is “uneasy that NARTH [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] rejects even the possibility of a fulfilling life with a same-sex partner.” Writing on his blog the day the story was reported, Throckmorton did not take issue with the L.A. Times article but in fact linked to it, noting that it had also been picked up by other news sources.

Normal,  Natural and Healthy?

I will gladly take a shot at answering the three-part question that Throckmorton answered so assuredly in his radio interview with Signorlie, but with which — in the ONN interview — he struggles, ultimately trying to split it down the middle:

“Is homosexuality natural, normal and healthy?”

• Natural? Nope. Anal sodomy and various other homosexual sex acts are unproductive perversions obviously at odds with human anatomy and God’s created design. Since two people of the same sex cannot produce a child, it is not natural (nor possible) for a child to have “two dads” or “two moms.”
• Normal? Not a chance. (Well, maybe in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets completely naked; where an “order” of male “drag queens” called “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — with twisted names like Sister Roz Erection — are regarded as a legitimate charity; and where every Easter Sunday a city park hosts a shameful spectacle called the Hunky Jesus Contest that blasphemes the Son of God on the Christian holy day.)
• Healthy? Again, no: check out the latest CDC stats on the disproportionate disease rates for “men who have sex with men.”

It appears that in an effort to preserve his reputation, Prof. Throckmorton not only has raised more concerns about his dubious claim to to biblical fealty, but further undermined Grove City’s slogan — aimed at parents of future potential GCC students — that the evangelical college is “authentically Christian.” AFTAH will be publishing other pro-family advocates’ reactions to the ONN interview with Throckmorton.  – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

One News Now reports:

___________________________________________________

Christian professor clarifies stance on ’sexual identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/11/2010

A professor at an evangelical Christian college in Pennsylvania says his guidelines for “sexual identity therapy” are being misunderstood by some Christian proponents of traditional marriage.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College says he has not lost faith in God’s ability to change people who are struggling with homosexuality, but believes most of those people are not likely to experience a “diminishment” in same-sex attraction.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton”To say that because it appears from the research that change is infrequent in attractions doesn’t mean I’ve lost my faith in God’s ability to change people,” he states.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality expressed concern on American Family Radio Monday that Throckmorton “downplays” the stories of former homosexuals “who have experienced profound change.” (See earlier story)

Throckmorton tells OneNewsNow that his “Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Therapy” are for professional therapists and not pastors. He denies that as a therapist he would advise clients to maintain a homosexual identity.

“The framework [for the guidelines] doesn’t encourage a client to do what the counselor thinks he or she ought to do,” says the professor. “The framework follows the beliefs and the values of the client. So to say that the counselor encourages clients any particular direction would be in error.”

Throckmorton says he personally holds a “traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics.” However, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is “normal, natural and healthy,” he said he could not answer that with a simple “yes” or “no” response. He said “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.”

On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” Throckmorton says he takes a more “nuanced” view — and that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.

Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College? How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a "gay" "sexual identity" that values "same-sex eroticism" -- especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality? The above excerpt is taken from Page 7 of GCC Professor Warren Throckmorton's (and Regent University's Mark Yarhouse's) paper, "Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts" (emphasis added).

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” with “mischief.” You see, “Mischief” is Throckmorton’s middle name. Here’s Warren taking a cheap shot at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality in one of his many Uganda posts.  (Note how Warren sounds like … well, a “gay” activist … in cynically accusing Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa of “tak[ing] his pornography show to church”; Ssempa was using video to warn fellow Ugandan Christians about the reality of homosexuality.)

Question for Warren: is AFTAH doing a “porn show” when it exposes to the rest of America that twice a year in San Francisco, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — third in line to be President of the United States — “tolerance” is so distorted that men are allowed to walk around publicly by the hundreds completely naked as the authorities stand idly by?

Here’s one of Throckmorton’s particularly snarky posts against Christian ex-”gay” advocate Richard Cohen (what about that Golden Rule, Warren?). The latter is a frequent target of Throckmorton’s barbs, perhaps because Cohen — unlike the Grove City professor — actually has helped many, many people experience real change and overcome homosexual desires.

There are good defectors and bad defectors in this world. Exemplifying the former are ex-”gays” like Pete Lines — whom I just interviewed for AFTAH’s new radio show — who have walked away from homosexuality toward a biblically faithful life. Warren is a bad defector. Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as “authentically Christian,” Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s “Sexual Identity” according to their feelings (and comfort level with same).

As you can see above, Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive “gay identity” that “modifies” their religious beliefs in such a way as to “allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a “valued identity” — to sexual sin.

And Warren Throckmorton has the audacity to lecture the Ugandans about their approach toward homosexuality?

Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College

We applaud Throckmorton’s past and current work affirming homosexual strugglers’ right to live by their own religious and moral creed and seek counseling help to move away from  “gayness.” But his  “nonjudgmental” Sexual Identity Therapy approach affirming those who choose to embrace a “gay identity” wouldn’t pass the smell test if it were applied to any other sinful temptation. (“Doctor, I am so happy now that I’ve finally decided to embrace my core identity as a Sexual Swinger….”)

So we say to Grove City College and Regent University: let Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse apply their “gay”-tolerant theories on their own — privately — but if you continue to allow them to do so under the auspices of GCC (or Regent) — then stop misleading people by promoting Grove City as “authentically Christian” (and Regent as “education from a Biblical perspective”).

And further questions remain: what is Professor Throckmorton teaching his students about homosexuality and the pro-homosexual activist movement? Does he counsel students struggling with homosexuality at GCC — and if so, does the school sanction his unorthodox, anti-Biblical counseling approach?

Larger Issue: Course of Modern Christianity

Understand this: Throckmorton –  who was once a respected part of the pro-family movement before he lost faith in people’s ability to change and leave homosexuality behind — is not the issue. (“I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent,” he writes.)  The larger issue is what is “authentically Christian” teaching on the matter of homosexuality? What is sin, how relevant is the Bible, and what is the real application of the Golden Rule? The Christian Church is at a pivotal moment regarding homosexuality: will Christians abandon Biblical orthodoxy and begin recognizing and affirming “gays,” “gay Christians,” and/or a homosexual “sexual identity” — or will they adhere to the historic Christian understanding that holds homosexual practice as sinful and which rejects the notion of a positive “identity” based on homosexual desires?

I’ll apply this high-stakes question to the most important people in my own life. If one of my sons — God forbid — came home from college one day with the revelation that he is “gay,” I wouldn’t accept that “identity” for him. Instead, I would emphatically plead with him that “being gay” is NOT “who you are” nor even a part of “who you are.” (It may be a burden with which he would have to bear with God’s help.) Of course, I would love my son as much as I’ve always loved him, but I would warn and counsel him that practicing homosexuality is a sin; that it is extremely unhealthy; that if he does not repent and turn from it, this sinful embrace could lead to his eternal separation from God; and that the Lord can help him to be an overcomer in this struggle — just as He has aided untold millions of sinners struggling with other difficult, besetting sins.

In other words, I wouldn’t be “neutral” or “nonjudgmental” — and certainly not affirming — on the matter or make the primary determinant of my counsel to my son his “feelings or stated “attractions.” Instead, I would seek to imitate as best I could — with much prayer — God’s heart on homosexuality — balancing love and truth. The Lord is merciful, forgiving and just but being holy He cannot affirm “gayness” (homosexuality) any more than He could affirm porn-use or promiscuity, etc. (e.g., a “porno identity”). We’re all born sinners, but it is a cop-out to say our “orientation” or “identity” is tied to any special sin.

And by the way, I would throw the book at anyone who ever tried to harm my son in any way or whose only response to him would be to hate and ridicule him.

Today, in post-biblical America, “Christians” who defect from the Truth are a dime a dozen. The challenge for you — committed Christian — is to hold to the Truth and love “gays and lesbians” (the quote marks are there because sin does not define personhood) enough to tell them the truth: that God loves them and He will forgive them — that is why He sent his Son to die for their sin — but that they must repent and turn from that ungodly lifestyle.

My good friend Linda Harvey is right: Warren’s namby-pamby “Golden Rule Pledge” isn’t biblical, and it isn’t truly compassionate. God has a better plan for today’s youth than to confirm or affirm them in a “sexual identity” linked to behavior that He calls an abomination. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

P.S. On behalf of Americans For Truth, I have asked Throckmorton for his views on “same-sex marriage,” “civil unions,” homosexual “special rights” (“sexual orientation”) laws, etc., but he has not answered my queries. We will be presenting these and other questions to Throckmorton publicly.

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’
• What Qualifies the United States to Lecture Uganda on Homosexuality?
• Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’

Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."

Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.

Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com

TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information.  Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.

WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.

We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services.  I seriously question the wisdom of your position.  As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue.  Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain.  I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program.  In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.  I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships.  I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College.  After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law.  Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.  Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval.  I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps.  Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities.  In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties.  But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison.  There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell.  That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot.  They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder.  Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.  The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.  Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer.  There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement.  Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale.  If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.  Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.  At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks.  I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.  Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew.  Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in  the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders.  Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se.  Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct.  But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals.  Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies.  However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual.  I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law.  But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion.  As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him.  He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public.  However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse).  It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron).  In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.  I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.  And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal.  I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.  There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment.  Again, I must ask “why?”

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual.  That can’t be true.  It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy.  But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment.  Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment.  Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted.  Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy?  Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards.  The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun.  But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals!  Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals?  If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument?  If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore?  Carnal Knowledge?  I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.  At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.  Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions?  When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.”  We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis.  Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV?  Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources?  Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits?  Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?  And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures?  I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.  It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders.  Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense.  But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges?  Will they be entitled to military housing?  Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”?  Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?  Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police.  While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered.  The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me.  During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring.  They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco.  They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.  CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors.  Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships?  I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s.  An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.  When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge.  After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem.  Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.  I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source.  I have not walked the mile in your shoes.  But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine.  I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.  In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals.  It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance?  I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.  Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye.  Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect,

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” –  Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 

“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com

TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt  to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):

You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin  — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.

Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)

Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)

Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]

Prof. Rob Gagnon

Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?

Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN:  Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

_________________________________________

Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:

3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”

Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.

What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.

Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.

Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.

Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:

1. the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
2. the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
3. the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
4. the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.

Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):

“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:

Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)

Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).

WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.

If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.

See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.

Event times and locations are as follows:

Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.

The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.

Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH story: “Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

____________________________________

By Ed Whelan, National Review Online’s “Bench Memos”

Reprinted from NRO Online, February 07, 2010

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.

And so on.

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Reprinted from LifeSiteNews.com [click here to sign up for LifeSite's daily news e-mails]

Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who accepted Christ and left the lifestyle, with her daughter Isabella. Miller does not want her Isabella raised in an environment in which sexual immorality is modeled as normal.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

NEW YORK, February 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Janet Jenkins, a practicing lesbian who was once in a “civil union” with ex-lesbian Lisa Miller, is conducting a media campaign to locate Miller’s seven-year-old daughter in an attempt to gain custody of the child.

Miller’s daughter, Isabella, was conceived via artificial insemination during the pair’s relationship, and has no biological relationship with Jenkins. Miller disappeared with Isabella in December, apparently in an effort to prevent a Vermont judge from transferring custody of her child to Jenkins.

But Jenkins is doing numerous interviews with mainstream media outlets, ostensibly in an effort to locate Isabella (described by Jenkins in one interview as “my child”), which are uncritically repeating her charges against Miller, while failing to mention Miller’s charges against Jenkins – -including that her relationship with Jenkins was abusive.

“I think she’s dangerous, and I think she’s very vulnerable and I think she’s capable of anything,” Jenkins told ABC News on January 29 when asked about Miller.

“I think she’s very desperate,” added Jenkins. “I think the people and the places that she is exposing herself to and my child to – our child to – it’s just frightening for me to even think about.”

Reports of Jenkins’ abusive behavior

However, Jenkins herself has been repeatedly accused of being “dangerous” — both to Miller’s child, Isabella, and to Lisa Miller herself.

In a lengthy interview with LifeSiteNews.com in 2008, Miller recounted the physical and emotional abuse she said she suffered at Jenkins’ hands, and also stated that her daughter was desperate not to return to Jenkins’ custody.

In addition to being “physically and emotionally abusive,” and repeatedly trying to throw her out of the house, Jenkins even “said she wanted to kill me,” Miller told LSN in her account of her relationship with Jenkins, which began in late 1998 and lasted more than four years.

Miller said she fled the ongoing abuse twice before leaving Jenkins permanently in 2003.

According to Miller, Isabella had become desperate not to return to Jenkins (shown at left) after a visit in which she said that she had been required to bathe naked with her other “mother.” She had even spoken of wanting to die.

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” Miller told LSN. “She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, ‘I want to kill myself.’ I don’t know where she got that. It was immediately after a visit. Other people have seen huge changes. She also started openly masturbating which is not something that my child has done.”

“She is 6 now (2008) but this started when she was 5 — after visits,” Miller continued. “The very first time that Janet ever saw Isabella after the two and a half years, her very first over-night visit — the court ordered it and I allowed it because it was in Virginia and she was supposed to have been supervised by her parents — Isabella came home and said, ‘Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house.’

“I asked her what happened. She said, ‘Janet took a bath with me.’ I asked her if she had a bathing suit on. ‘No, Mommy.’ She had no clothes on and it totally scared Isabella. She had never seen this woman except once in 2 ½ years and she takes a bath with her.”

Other Witnesses

According to Miller attorney Rena Lindevaldsen, Miller was not alone in her accusations. In a 2008 interview with LSN, Lindevaldsen said that a psychologist who had examined Isabella before and after her trips to see Jenkins had submitted two affidavits testifying to the damaging effects of the trips.

At least two other witnesses also submitted affidavits testifying to Isabella’s troubling behavior following visits with Jenkins, according to Lindevaldsen.

Even Jenkins’ own parents, who are supportive of their daughter, admit that Jenkins had a “spat” with Miller while they were together, in which Jenkins threatened to force her onto the street, something they objected to.

“Janet said: ‘I’m going to kick her A-double-S out. I’m going to put her clothes on the curb.’ My answer was: ‘You can’t do this. The kid has no place to go,” Jenkins’ father told the Washington Post Magazine. “‘You’ve already said you’d allow her to move in. You can’t put her out on the street. You don’t do stuff like that.’ ”

When LSN spoke to Lindevaldsen in late 2008, she said that the Vermont courts had delayed ruling on the accusations for nine months, but that a hearing had finally been scheduled. Ultimately the testimony of Miller, at least one psychologist, and multiple other witnesses was not enough to prevent Judge Richard Cohen from transferring custody to Jenkins in late 2009.

The mainstream media also has almost completely ignored the accusations, with the exception of a single 2008 Newsweek article that mentioned them in passing, along with Jenkins’ rebuttal. The affidavits presented to the court were never mentioned.

However, ABC News and other major newspapers and media outlets have allowed Jenkins to repeat, without proof and without rebuttal, her accusations that Miller is “dangerous” and “capable of anything.” One writer at ABC, David Schoetz, went so far as to compare Miller’s disappearance to that of Clark Rockefeller, who tried to flee with his ex-wife’s biological daughter. Schoetz wrote that if “we can learn anything from the Clark Rockefeller, pictured in his mugshot above, it’s that hiding a child is not an easy thing to do, especially when so many people care.”

_________________________________________

Related links:

Helping Isabella Facebook Page

AFTAH articles:

• Virginia Christian Mom, Lisa Miller, Could Lose Custody of Daughter to Former Partner, Vermont Lesbian Activist;
• CWA, Barber Urge Prayer for Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller and Daughter Isabella;
• Liberty Counsel Update on the Hearing in Lisa Miller’s Case;
• ‘You’re Not My Mommy!’ — Matt Barber on Lisa Miller Custody Battle;
• Barber: Virginia Supreme Court Buys Time on Lisa Miller Case

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

• Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest;
• Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller “Disappears” as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover;
• Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against “Civil Union” Partner;
• Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover

“Most of the studies of gay men [couples] report about 50% are monogamous—they have been Bay Area studies and studies that were done all over the US and Australia and Western Europe.” –San Francisco State University researcher Colleen Hoff in e-mail to lesbian couples therapist Michele O’Mara of Bilerico.com. See the comments following O’Mara’s Bilerico column.

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

Dear Readers, note the distinct nonjudgmentalism of lesbian writer Michele O’Mara regarding the not-so-shocking report (if you are familiar with “gay” male promiscuity) that half of homosexual male “couples” choose to be “non-monogamous.” That is, they agree to or allow their male partner to have “outside sex” with other men.

O’Mara asks, “I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender?” Let me answer: the “open option” is rooted in the anything-goes mores of the Sexual Revolution, which served as a catalyst for the modern “GLBT” movement. Homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse: why would anyone expect monogamy — of the sort that imitates a faithful marriage — from a promiscuous sin movement? And men are simply more promiscuous than women. (Note that the fact that O’Mara professes to practice monogamy with her lesbian partner confers no legitimacy on her sinful relationship, nor does it negate the damage that her intentionally fatherless parenting will do to the boys they are raising.)

The implications for the “same-sex marriage” (SSM) debate are obvious: we hear a lot about homosexual men being domesticated by homosexual “marriage” — supposedly a noble public policy goal. A more compelling question is: how will legalized SSM and/or “civil unions” help bleed rampant homosexual non-monogamy into the straight married world? (This is not to say that modern-day “heterosexuality” needs help from the Homosexual Lobby to sink into ever deeper levels of corruption: witness the creation of mainly heterosexual websites devoted exclusively to helping married men and women hook up with adulterous sex partners.)

AFTAH has already reported on how “gay” sex columnist Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage [his blog is HERE]– whom O’Mara cites below — espouses “non-monogamy” for straight couples, but I doubt that the vast majority of everyday Americans would agree with Savage on the practical benefit of what is essentially organized cheating. Neither would they be comfortable with O’Mara’s studied neutrality on the issue. After all, isn’t faithfulness between husband and wife at the core of real marriage? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

O’Mara writes in the homosexual website Bilerico.com (emphasis hers):

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

Filed by: Michele O’Mara
February 4, 2010 7:00 PM

After studying 566 gay male couples over a three year period, Colleen Hoff of San Francisco State University discovered that roughly fifty percent of gay male couples choose to be non-monogamous. Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen are a great example of how this works. Spears and Lowen started dating in their mid-twenties with the agreement that they will keep their relationship open. Thirty-four years later the couple is still going strong. In fact, this duo credits their relationship success in part to their decision to keep their relationship open.

Lowen and Spears have taken their interest in non-monogomy a step further by studying 86 non-monogamous, long-term (8+ years) gay male couples. Their research reveals that forty percent of the 86 couples started out with agreements to be open and have maintained this status, while the remaining sixty percent of the couples took an average of 6.5 years to open their relationship. The average length of relationship for the 86 couples in this study is 16.2 years.

While I’m not interested in promoting or discouraging open relationships, I do find it fascinating to consider what makes this arrangement work for so many gay men. Of the 86 couples in the Spears/Lowen research, only one couple is raising young children. This does not surprise me. Raising children is a time and energy consuming experience that will unlikely leave much room for extra play. In an email exchange with Hoff, she explained to me that while they did collect data on parenthood for the couples in their study, they did not separate that data out to examine the relationship between monogamy and parenthood.

I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender? Traditionally men are thought to be better at separating sex from emotion, which is helpful in an open arrangement. As Spears and Lowen point out on their website:

We found many couples had a somewhat compartmentalized perspective and approach to outside sex. “It’s just sex” – a release without meaning, quite separate from the relationship.

The statistics on fidelity among men and women suggests that monogamy is a struggle for heterosexuals too. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” That’s a whole lot of cheating. To clarify, infidelity is deceptive non-monogamy, but an open relationship is non-monogamy that occurs with the consent and knowledge of both partners.

Dan Savage, chimed in on the topic recently during a guest appearance on The Joy Behar show, saying:

I believe men can be monogamous. But I believe that it’s a difficult struggle. You know, when you’re in love with someone and you make a monogamous commitment, it’s not that you don’t want to sleep with other people; it’s that you refrain from sleeping with other people.

The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself.

In my own practice, having worked with more than 1,000 lesbians over the last decade, I would be very surprised to discover that lesbians choose non-monogomy at a rate of fifty-percent. While my sample of gay male couples is much smaller, it is large enough to support the notion that fifty percent of gay male couples open their relationship to outside “play” or sexual activity.

Some advocates of gay marriage are discouraged by findings such as Hoff’s and Lowen/Spears’s. I anticipate that norm-seeking gays and lesbians will post about this topic adamantly defending the fifty percent of us who choose monogamy. The inference is that monogamy is better. Seems to me that most people have their hands full just trying to figure out their own relationships. Maybe if we all focused a little more on how to make our own relationships work, and less about how others are going about it, we would all end up with more meaningful and satisfying relationships.

As a partnered lesbian, in a long-term (10+), monogamous relationship I enjoy the simplicity, comfort, and predictability of our relationship. As co-parents, it is also important to us to prioritize time with our sons and time as a family. By the time I’ve gone to work, tended to our homestead, done homework with my sons, spent time with them, prepared dinner, taken a family walk, caught up with my partner and how her day has gone, read to and tucked the boys into bed, I can’t imagine fitting in to my life an outside liaison or two. This is what works for us. That doesn’t mean it will work for or be fulfilling for everyone. That doesn’t mean that our way is the best way. Our way is simply the best way we’ve discovered for us.

What works best for you? At the end of the day that’s all that matters.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

Bruce LaVallee-Davidson

Once again we are confronted with the unparalleled deviance of a Sexual Perversion Movement that masquerades as a “civil rights” cause. As we’ve said many times, truth really is stranger than fiction when it comes to the “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/sadomasochist” (GLBTS?) lobby.

Just four days after attending a sadomasochistic party where he shot a fellow homosexual, Fred Homer Wilson, who “got a thrill out of using a loaded gun as a sex toy,” Bruce LaVallee-Davidson testified for “gay marriage” with his homosexual lover Buck at a public hearing.

Had such a bizarre situation emanated from the “religious right,” Maine’s liberal media would have had a field day with it and used it to discredit pro-family ideas. Here’s a description of the sex-party shooting from WorldNetDaily:

The defense in the case said there were three men participating in the sex party, and they were consenting adults and were aware of the risks. The defense also said no one was at fault, because Wilson was an ultimate thrill seeker and wanted the gun to be loaded to maximize the sexual experience.

We aren’t surprised that homosexual activist groups are silent about the LaVallee-Davidson scandal. After all, powerful “gay” groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which was heavily involved in Maine’s recent plebiscite on same-sex “marriage” — promote sadomasochism as part of their overarching “sexual freedom” agenda.  Kudos to the Maine Christian Civic League for their good work in bringing this to the public. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org [Christian Civic League press release follows jump]
__________________________

The Christian Civic League of Maine has issued the following press release in response to the manslaughter conviction of (Malcolm) Bruce LaVallee-Davidson for the killing of South Portland resident Fred Homer Wilson (emphasis added):

In January last year, the homosexual rights lobby used State Senator Dennis Damon (Democrat – Hancock County) to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage.”  Not only did the bill legalize same-sex “marriage,” it made all terms pertaining to the family, words such as ‘husband and wife’, ‘father and mother,’ gender neutral.  It was a travesty to introduce such a bill at a time of deep economic crisis, a fact acknowledged by Democrat Governor John Baldacci, the most liberal governor in Maine history.

The bill was shepherded through the Maine Legislature by State Senator Larry Bliss (Democrat – Cumberland County), a homosexual activist from California, now head of the Judiciary Committee.  During the campaign to repeal the law, the ‘No on 1′ side offered a sanitized view of same-sex “marriage,” marketing their product with commercials which showed “married” homosexual couples and their children, all smiling, healthy, and content in a typical Maine setting.

It took an act of brazen hypocrisy for the truth to be revealed.  The public discovered that one of the proponents of same-sex “marriage” testified in person in favor of gay “marriage” shortly after killing a man during a night of drug and alcohol-fueled debauchery. During the public hearing on same-sex “marriage” at the Augusta Civic Center, Bruce LaVallee-Davidson stood alongside his homosexual partner ‘Buck’ and claimed he was “already married in the eyes of God.”

Some independent observers, including those who support same-sex” marriage,” have claimed LaVallee-Davidson’s remarks taint the entire same-sex “marriage” movement, and that the leadership of that movement must move quickly to disown his call for gay “marriage.”  We at the Christian Civic League of Maine agree.

We wish to give the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement a fair chance to explain why they have not already publicly repudiated the remarks of Bruce LaVallee-Davidson.  Let them step forward and state forthrightly why they have been reluctant to call LaVallee-Davidson’s  actions by their right name — perversion.

The Christian Civic League of Maine calls on EqualityMaine, Senator Larry Bliss, Senator Dennis Damon, Senate President Libby Mitchell, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, and Jesse Connolly, to take this opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to clear the air.  Let them explain how LaVallee-Davidson could state he was “married in the eyes of God” after a night of  tenfold depravity — tenfold because his actions that night involved two guns, five drugs, and three men — one of whom is dead.

Let the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement in Maine use the opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to explain why sadomasochistic bondage-and-discipline homosexual organizations march in their parades, namely the Harbor Masters of Maine and Blackstones bar, under the name of Pride.  Let them also explain the extent and prevalence of illegal drugs and AIDS infection in their homosexual community, as all three men involved used illegal drugs and were AIDS-infected at the time of the killing.

Absent such explanations, the public will be left with the impression that the call for ‘gay marriage’ by these groups and individuals is nothing more than a sinister ruse.  Convicted violent felon LaVallee-Davidson’s own claim to marriage, like the claim to marriage made by many other homosexuals, is built on a foundation of appalling homosexual perversion and sodomistic deviancy.

Worse, the failure to speak out publicly against such perversion by these groups and individuals will be seen as a tacit admission that such behavior and practices are not an aberration in their community, but rather, a normal and accepted part of everyday homosexual life.

WARNING: Offensive Descriptions, Web Links

Dan Savage, anti-Christian activist, deviant sex advice columnist, prolific hatemonger -- and 'Gay Grinch 2009' candidate. See his "gay marriage" YouTube video below.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, we have heard from a few readers who suggested that prolific homosexual writer and sex advice columnist Dan Savage be added to our “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 contest, and so he is. Only a perversion activist as twisted as Savage could stage a contest with his readers to come up with a sickening definition to associate with “santorum” — because he was upset that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) made comments critical of homosexuality (in 2003). (And how appropriate that the winner of Savage’s little nastiness competition was a disgusting by-product of the crime against nature itself, anal sodomy; see his “santorum” definition HERE in the Urban Dictionary.)

Savage is also the lovely fellow who engaged in “Germ Terrorism” against GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer in 2000, by, as Wikipedia reports, “volunteer[ing] for the Bauer campaign with the intent to infect the candidate with his flu.” Picture the pathetic and sniffling Savage  walking around Bauer’s empty Iowa campaign office licking doorknobs; later he presented Bauer with a saliva-soaked pen to autograph a picture of his adopted son, posing as a pro-life fan of Bauer. (Don’t you just love modern liberalism?)

Who would have thunk that our “Gay Grinch” award would end up sullying the reputation of the “real” TV Grinch by comparison to such Major League deviants and hatemongers as Savage?

But enough about Savage’s past extremism. Recently the Seattle-based sex columnist made a very “queer” plea for homosexual “marriage” (watch YouTube below) — not seeming to comprehend the radical difference between evolving reforms within marriage and the revolutionary homosexualization of “marriage” that essentially redefines the institution to mean anything. (If two men can get “married” on the basis of “love,” how are we going to stop a man and two women from doing so on the same basis? In fact, polygamists feel they have a greater claim to legal marriage than homosexuals because at least they have opposite genders and can produce children on their own.)

You will note that toward the end of the video Savage shamelessly appeals to the fact that he has a child (which he adopted with homosexual partner Terry), thus seemingly satisfying one his critics’ criteria for real marriage. But here Savage has the chutzpah of ten Gay Grinches — plus two: as we reported, he thinks “monogamy is optional” for marriage and admits to having sexual three-ways with Terry and another man — one with an ex-boyfriend of Savage, “a Microsoft millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building a ‘playroom’ in his basement — a kind of sex toy wonderland.” Yuck. (Keep in mind these are “gay parents” of a young boy.) Savage claims that allowing heterosexual spouses a “few tightly controlled” affairs would help lower the divorce rate.

To protect his overactive behind, Savage then oddly asserts in his column recommending non-monogamous “marriages”: “”We’ve never done anything, nor would we ever do anything, that would put our child at risk.” Earth to Savage: it’s way too late for that! But I suppose that from the poor boy’s perspective, if you’re being raised by two homosexual men — one of whom writes a perverted, weekly sex column and shills for “nonmonogamous marriage”– finding out one day that they engaged in a sadomasochistic threesome with another guy could hardly be construed as shocking news.

Nevertheless, I have a question for Dan and his domestic homosexual lover Terry: who watches the kid when you guys are having one of your “tightly controlled” three-way sex romps? — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

In 2008, 15-year-old Amanda Collette was shot and killed by lesbian classmate Teah Wimberly after she resisted Wimberly's homosexual advances.

A SERIOUS NOTE: As you can see, below we are making light of the bald-faced hypocrisy of homosexual activists, who demand tolerance for themselves even as they maliciously attack and victimize their critics — and falsely accuse them of “hate.” However, we are not including the most vicious manifestation of homosexual hatred that occurred this year: the recent murder conviction of  Teah Wimberly, a lesbian student who shot and killed Amanda Collette, her 15-year-old classmate at Ft. Lauderdale’s Dillard High School — because Collette refused Wimberly’s same-sex romantic advances.

This is no joking matter, so Wimberly (courtroom photo below left) is not on our list. Needless to say, her conviction for the murder of the talented and beautiful Collette (pictured below right) — a murder directly tied to homosexuality — has not received anything close to the national media attention that made homosexual murder victim Matthew Shepard a household name. (Recall that the much-touted “anti-gay-hate-crime” motive for Shepard’s murder was later cast into serious doubt by ABC’s 20/20.)

Teah Wimberly was found guilty of murdering the target of her same-sex crush, Amanda Collette.

A little over a year ago, Amanda Collette became the ultimate victim of homosexuality when Wimberly shot her in the back at school. As the Miami Herald reported, “Collette, 15, a star dancer on the school’s hip-hop dance squad, had rejected romantic advances from Wimberly in the days before the shooting.” Minutes after the shooting, Wimberly cried in a call to the 911 operator: ”I didn’t want to kill her so I shot her in the back . . . I just wanted to give her the pain she gave me.”

Regardless of what other factors were involved in this tragedy, it is not unreasonable to assert that Collette would be alive today were it not for the modern GLBT activist movement, which aggressively seeks to mainstream sexual deviance and immoral gay/lesbian “relationships” as normal and acceptable — most tragically among young people.

Yes, Virginia, there was a time in America when young women did not have to worry about sexual harassment and sexual advances from other young women. And the GLBT movement is first and foremost to blame for the rising number of youth who are embracing homosexual behaviors and considering destructive “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, or “transgender” self-”identities,” at younger and younger ages.  We ask you to pray for the families of both Collette and Wimberly, and pray for the Christian conversion of Teah Wimberly as she awaits sentencing. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________

Nominees Sought for ‘Gay Grinch of the Year 2009′

By Peter LaBarbera

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is taking nominations for our first annual “Gay Grinch of the Year” Award for 2009 — given to the meanest, most deceitful, most socially destructive and/or most blasphemous “gay” activist of the year. Two Thousand Nine was a particularly “mean one” for the Homosexual Lobby — to quote the infamous theme song for the Grinch (which was sung by Thurl Ravenscroft and not Boris Karloff, by the way) — so the choice will be a tough one. We want your input: send your nominations, suggestions and documentary evidence of “gay” Grinchiness to americansfortruth@comcast.net. The Gay Grinch 2009 Award winner will be announced after Christmas.

As this is AFTAH’s debut “Gay Grinch of the Year” award, our procedures are still in flux. I am inclined to limit the competition to actual practicing homosexuals, bisexuals and “transgenders” but am open to the idea that we will need to give another award to the Grinchiest heterosexual advocate for “gay rights” (perhaps starting next year). We have noticed the growing arrogance and stridency of straight, pro-homosexuality activists — and some of the most caustic pro-”gay” rhetoric comes from straight sympathizers — so we don’t want to leave them out.

AFTAH has already received input from various pro-family experts in choosing Gay Grinch of the Year 2009 candidates. Please write to us at americansfortruth@comcast.net to cast your vote for the Grinchiest “gay” activist of the year, or to nominate one. Here is a partial list of the candidates that we have assembled (a few more nominees will be in another post):

• Perez Hilton — homosexual Hollywood online gossip columnist — for his vulgar, bigoted rant against Miss California Carrie Prejean during the Miss USA 2009 pageant (Hilton’s other mean and intolerant acts can count towards the award as well);
  

  Perez Hilton

• Wayne Besen — for his ongoing hatred and harassment of former homosexuals and Christians who help “gays” leave the lifestyle; Besen was videotaped screaming with a megaphone into the window of Boston’s Park Street Church that was hosting an “ex-gay” seminar; see MassResistance’s full story on the Park Street protest HERE.
  

  Wayne Besen leads fellow homosexual militants in harassing Boston's Park Street Church, which was hosting an "ex-gay" conference. Imagine if "Christian" activists did this to a "gay" church.

• Frank Kameny — this “gay” historical icon — who led the first public pro-homosexual protest in America — proclaimed that the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to repent (to whom, we wonder…) — in a letter to Americans For Truth’s Peter LaBarbera; Kameny is an atheist, yet he maintains that “Gay is Godly”;
• Rachel Maddow, resident lesbian talker 0n MSNBC — for suggesting that rather than tossing two tomatoes at Sarah Palin, an activist in Minnesota should have thrown a pie at the former Alaska governor (it’s more accurate). Especially coming from a “gay” activist, this recalls the infamous incident in which a homosexual militant threw a pie in the face of Anita Bryant — a very mean act indeed.  (Maddow too has plenty of other material that gives her a serious shot at the Gay Grinch 2009 award.);
• ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles — This West Hollywood homosexual couple erected a grotesque Halloween display on their rooftop: a nude female mannequin with “LIAR” written on the belly and a copy of the face of pro-traditional-marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher attached as the head (amongst other anti-religious images; see photos of the pathetically putrid and puerile prank HERE). This followed last year’s effigy of a Sarah Palin lookalike mannequin hanging from a noose. The vicious anti-Palin stunt in 2008 may have made the deviant duo a favorite for last year’s Gay Grinch award, but alas, we didn’t give one out. They remain dark horse for the 2009 Gay Grinch Award.
• Timothy Kincaid — this writer for the homosexual website “Box Turtle Bulletin” stepped into the competition for Gay Grinch 2009 when he preposterously accused pro-family advocate Laurie Higgins (a former high school writing instructor) of wanting to see students harmed — just because Higgins opposes the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” and affirms the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual sin.
  

  Tim Kincaid

  Kincaid wrote: “Let’s be clear. Higgins does not oppose the Day of Silence because it is the wrong way to go about ending the bullying of gay kids. Rather, Higgins opposes the Day of Silence because she believes it is a Christian kid’s duty to bully his gay classmates.” This is a mischievous and awful lie, and Kincaid knows it, yet he and Box Turtle Bulletin’s editors have left it up on their “fact-checking” site for months — even after Higgins strenuously complained to Kincaid. (We understand from Laurie that the Grinchy Kincaid now regrets his word choice but not enough for BTB to remove their spurious hit-piece.) Read Higgins’ response to Kincaid’s “stunning display of malicious, deceitful non-reasoning” HERE.

• George Fornero — This homosexual superintendent of school District 113 in the northern suburbs of Chicago was caught red-handed spreading gossipy, lying e-mails about the same Laurie Higgins and her family. Higgins, now with Illinois Family Institute, is a former writing instructor at a District 113 high school. She filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request with the district — which revealed dozens of nasty, catty in-house e-mails by and between Fornero and other liberal educators and administrators.
  

  George Fornero: bad role model for students.

  Fornero’s most malicious lie occurred in the form of a constituent e-mail he forwarded that made this absurd claim about Higgins: “I have a pretty good idea that she doesn’t care for Jews.” The hate-filled missive erroneously asserted that Higgins had barred her son from attending a classmate’s bat mitzvah ceremony, and then added this über-Grinchy bit of nastiness: “”I guess the contamination would have spread to [Higgins' son's] pure heart nor did he attend her celebration–probably too many Christ killers there.” WRONG, writes Higgins, who corrected the record: her son “attended countless bat and bar mitzvahs, as did my other children.” Fornero should be fired as a mean-spirited activist and poor role model for students who does not practice the respect and tolerance that he demands from others. See the incredible story HERE and if you are a pro-family advocate who holds educators accountable: file a FOIA request at your child’s school!

Look for more Gay Grinch of the Year 2009 Nominees Tomorrow!

Frank Kameny with one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian Museum of American History officials. The homosexual icon says the God of the Bible is a "sinful, homophobic bigot" who needs to repent.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. E-mail: cpac@conservative.org. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

'One of these groups doesn't belong': the homosexual activist group GOProud joins truly conservative organizations co-sponsoring the annual CPAC conference. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel is leading a pullout of CPAC by social conservative groups unless GOProud is removed as a co-sponsor.

[Note: since publication of this article we have published a letter to AFTAH clarifying that GOProud does NOT support "hate crimes" laws, as most other homosexual groups do. -- Editor]

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, for years religious conservatives have been complaining about getting  the short end of the stick from CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. There is usually only a token panel or two dealing with “Culture War” social issues like abortion and homosexuality (and rarely one explicitly on fighting the “gay” agenda) – as organizers seek to appease the CPAC libertarians, some of whom support goals like homosexual “marriage” that are anathema to socially conservatives.

Now CPAC’s tenuous ”Big Tent” could collapse altogether as social conservatives led by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber threaten to launch a boycott of the conference (scheduled for Feb. 18-20, 2010) unless CPAC drops a homosexual activist group, GOProud, as a co-sponsor. Barber, my good friend, an AFTAH Board Member, and the Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel, is leading the charge to keep the CPAC sponsorship list … conservative.

GOProud describes itself as “the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies,” but we at AFTAH dispute their definition of “conservative,” which would have the movement’s Founding Fathers, like Russell Kirk (see quotation at bottom), rolling over in their graves.

Matt Barber, author of The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War (www.righthookbook.com)

I received an email sent by Barber to conservatives nationwide in which he wrote:

“I was disturbed to learn that CPAC is allowing the ‘Republican’ homosexual activist group GOProud to sponsor a booth at the 2010 conference. Among other things, GOProud advocates in favor of both ‘gay marriage’ and ‘civil unions,’ against pro-marriage constitutional amendments ; is pushing for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and advocates in favor of federal ‘partnership benefits’ for homosexuals. This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God.”

In other words, GOProud is just another “gay” activist group, with a twist: the rest of its agenda (outside its pro-homosexual special interest) is conservative.

Barber is committed to leading a social conservative pullout of a pro-homosexuality CPAC, and AFTAH has learned that a number of leading pro-family organizations have already hinted that they will heed his call if CPAC retains GOProud as a co-sponsor.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

What is conservatism?

It boils down to this: there is nothing “conservative” about — as Barber inimitably puts it — “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations or raising a child together in an intentionally fatherless home. This does not mean that people practicing those and other immoral (and changeable) behaviors cannot think and act conservatively on other issues like lowering taxes, cutting government spending, ending abortion, etc. But let’s be honest: the “proud” in GOProud is not about pride in opposing the death tax, or defending the right to bear arms; it’s about proudly embracing sinful homosexual behavior – and that is hardly a conservative value.

I challenge every thinking conservative to explain why we should jettison our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage (which clearly rejects homosexual acts as immoral) for some new, secularized brand of “conservatism” that fails to conserve natural, normal, and noble sex within God-ordained marriage. Where does the expansion of “conservatism” stop? Would CPAC welcome “Republicans for Abortion” as a co-sponsor? How about “Conservatives For Higher Taxes”? We doubt it. So let’s stop the double-standard on one issue — homosexuality — that happens to be politically incorrect in this decadent age.

Libertarians for a Big Gay Government?

And for you protesting libertarians who attend CPAC: please tell me what part of the statist Big Gay Government agenda you support: the part that expands newfangled federal “rights” based on aberrant-sex and -gender preferences — at the expense of Americans’ historic religious and First Amendment freedoms? The part that redefines criminal prosecution to factor in people’s thoughts (“hate crimes”)? The part that forces men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces to bunk and shower with people who define themselves by their sexual attractiom toward those of the same sex — thus sublimating straight soldiers’ and sailors’ privacy concerns to the demands of activist homosexuals? Or could it be the part that uses taxpayer-funded public schools to indoctrinate innocent, impressionable children in one side of the homosexuality debate?

We’re all ears.

_____________________

“A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.”
–Russell Kirk, historian, essayist, author, among many other books, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot

_____________________

The following item was posted on GOProud’s website Dec. 8:

GOProud to Cosponsor CPAC 2010

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director – “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

(Washington, DC) Today, GOProud, the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies, announced they are a cosponsor of CPAC 2010. Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s Executive Director, said, “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will take place February 18-20 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. “GOProud’s participation at CPAC is one of the most important things we will do all year,” continued LaSalvia. “This gathering of the nation’s most influential conservatives gives us an incredible opportunity to deliver our message.”

“GOProud looks forward to continuing to work with the conservative movement to promote policies that will improve the lives of all Americans – including gays and lesbians,” concluded LaSalvia.

Press Release – For Immediate Release

Protest Against President Obama and EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum

Rabbi David Eidensohn issued the following statement (web links added by AFTAH):

“I protest President Obama’s claim that his support for EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum is because “if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support.” This is a gross distortion of the honest opinion of people who oppose his nominee, not for what she is, but for what she believes.

“At one time Ms. Feldblum belonged to a NSDP “non-sexual domestic partnership” with three other women. She demanded for them government support and recognition similar to married mixed-sex couples. And why stop at relationships between caring people? Why not declare support for sadists and masochists who marry their mothers and fathers? And what of those people in the closet because they sleep with their pet dogs? Surely polygamy and prostitution should not be a problem.

“In 2007, 40 percent of mothers who gave birth were unmarried, and they were mostly mature women who had simply rejected marriage. What will happen when the President of the United States nominates and supports people like Ms. Feldblum? What will happen when the President of the United States supports those who don’t discriminate in defining marriage against those who do discriminate in defining marriage as something based on family values?

“I believe Mr. Obama when he says that he will do anything to oppose discrimination. One thing he is doing is to twist the argument against twisted marriages into an attack on family people. This must stop.”

New Jersey Pops the Question
Less than a week after New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill went down in flames, neighboring New Jersey didn’t seem to learn its lesson. Today, the Trenton statehouse is packed for a six-hour debate in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee over a bill to redefine marriage in the Garden State. More than 300,000 people have signed a petition urging their leaders to reject the measure, but the Left is intent on staging a vote before Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is replaced by pro-marriage Republican Chris Christie. Liberal Democrats have until January 19 to get something done, and their first key vote is this evening. If the bill, S-1967, passes out of the 13-member committee, the entire Senate will vote on the proposal as early as Thursday. If you have friends or family in New Jersey, please ask them to contact their state senators as soon as possible.  [Go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/.]

Speaking of throwing a bone to the Left, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) has asked his staff to put together a proposal before he leaves office that would give state employees same-sex partner benefits. Kaine’s successor, Bob McDonnell, is an outspoken opponent of special rights, but it would be his mess to clean up when he takes over for the Kaine next month. According to the Washington Post, “a change of this magnitude” would take a year and a half to implement. Of course, it’s taken a lot less time for the idea to rile up conservatives, who–like New Jersey–see this as a gutless move meant to please a radical constituency after liberals lost in November’s elections. Governors Corzine and Kaine could have acted on this agenda earlier, but both were too afraid of voter backlash–which, ironically, they couldn’t avoid anyway.

ALBANY — The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue.

The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure….

The defeat, which followed a stirring, tearful and at times very personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new Legislature will be installed.

Since 2003, seven states, including three that border New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. But in two of the seven — California last year and Maine last month — statewide referendums have restricted marriage to straight couples, prohibiting gay nuptials. Pollsters say that while support generally is building for same-sex marriage, especially as the electorate ages, voters resist when they fear the issue is being pushed too fast….

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26. They had the support of Gov. David A. Paterson, who had publicly championed the bill, along with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Democratic leadership….

Several supporters said they felt they had been betrayed by senators who promised to vote yes but then, reluctant to support an issue as politically freighted as same-sex marriage if they could avoid it, switched their votes on the floor when it became evident the bill would lose. …

Republican advocates who supported the bill insisted that the agreement they struck with Democrats called for Democrats, who have 32 seats in the 62-member Senate, to deliver enough support so only a handful of Republicans were needed to take such a politically risky vote.

“Several Republicans wanted to vote for this,” said Jeff Cook, a legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans. “But those Republicans aren’t willing to take a tough political vote when the bill has no chance of passage. And that’s the political reality.”

It is rare for legislation to reach the floor in Albany when passage is not all but assured. And initially, gay rights advocates resisted bringing this bill to a vote, fearing the consequences of a defeat. But they shifted that strategy over time, becoming convinced that an up or down vote was necessary so they could finally know which senators supported the bill.  … [article continues HERE]

See the full New York Times article HERE.

Former homosexual Pete Lines shares about his life at AFTAH's banquet last month.

“[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land….“

“But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’ “ — 2 Chronicles 7

Dear Readers,

I want to wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your support of Americans For Truth this year, and for standing up for God’s Truth in an era (and in a country) in which true biblical values have fallen out of fashion.  America is the most spectacular nation every formed –  with blessings from God too great to quantify.  But like the Israelites, we will be judged if we continue to reject the will of our Creator.

This has been a good year so far for Americans For Truth, despite the challenges brought by the severe economic downturn.  We opened a new office in Carol Stream, where we have hosted several fine pro-family speakers (please note that our scheduled Laurie Higgins dinner-lecture has been postponed until January).  Our banquet a month ago was a great success, and our website continues to draw readers who are frustrated by the media’s incessant cheerleading for homosexuality and gender confusion (the “transgender” “T” in the “GLBT” movement).

AFTAH is founded on a simple idea: that homosexual behavior is as wrong, changeable, unnatural and unhealthy today as it was thousands of years ago.  We confront the “Gay” Activist Lobby directly, and expose its destructive agenda without apology — as we did in Maine just before that state’s citizens voted to reject “same-sex marriage.”  In a culture in which even many conservatives seem reluctant to publicly oppose homosexuality as a matter of principle, Americans For Truth stands out as bold and uncompromising.  In our vocabulary, political correctness is a dirty word because it’s all about fearing man instead of God.

For our adherence to God’s truth we are hated by “queer” activists.  But we do not hate them back: one of my goals for 2010 is to pray more for lost people caught up in homosexuality — who desperately need the grace, forgiveness and love of God.

As I look out at the moral landscape of our country on sexual issues and marriage, I am haunted by the spectacle of a post-Christian America squandering its immense spiritual heritage, as we fall from a biblical standard into amoral relativism.   A country in which even the “Christian” kids have lost the ability to tell right from wrong.  The other day, Christianity Today article reported on one group’s study that found that “younger evangelicals … are more tolerant of same-sex marriage” than older evangelicals.

More “tolerant” of government-sanctioned “marriage” based on perversion that the Bible calls an abomination (Lev. 18:22)? Has the term “evangelical” — with its presumed allegiance to Scripture as the source of Truth — lost its meaning?  How is it that young Christians (and older ones) are ditching the Bible’s truth in favor of a sin-enabling worldliness, and what can be done about it?  I wish I had all the answers, but I do know that abandoning God’s heart on homosexuality is not one of them.

If our nation’s moral trajectory is not reversed, we will sink further into ungodliness and inevitable judgment, all the while patting ourselves on the back for our “tolerance” and new ideas about sin.  And yet, Christians know the way back: a humble return to following Almighty God through the daily study of His Inerrant Word, the Bible — which reveals His Son, Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, Truth and the Life.

(Yes, whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, you can trust your life to Christ.  He will forgive you and take the punishment for your sins.  Salvation is a free gift from God — you can’t earn your way to heaven — “so that no one can boast.” And God’s grace is limitless: did you know that David Berkowitz, the infamous “Son of Sam” New York City serial killer, is now a powerful Christian witness to the life-changing power of the Gospel?!  Watch Berkowitz’s amazing YouTube Testimony HERE.)

We must teach a new generation that they have no right to redefine God’s timeless moral code just because, well … they’re young and hip.  (I write this as a hipness-challenged 47 year old.)  Young followers of Christ must understand that they cannot truly love homosexuals without telling them the full truth — that “gay identity” and “same-sex relationships” are not part of God’s plan for anyone.  “Feelings” can lead people astray (our hearts are deceitful), but there is freedom through Christ, as ex-”gay” Pete Lines told our banquet audience last month.

On this Thanksgiving Day 2009, let us give thanks to God for the blessing that is America, and repent for our creeping toleration of all kinds of sin. And let us pledge to return to biblical fidelity — each in our own sphere — as a path toward national healing.  God bless you.

P.S.  I found this online CWA interview with David Barton on America as a “Christian nation” extremely informative.  Share it with your friends and family!

Sincerely in Christ,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
E-mail: americansfortruth@comcast.net

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE, says legalizing homosexual "marriage" is like offering a glass of wine to a drunk.

Folks, I wish more conservative leaders: a) understood the truth about government-celebrated homosexuality as Star Parker does; b) had the guts to take a strong public stand on the issue like the column below. We encourage you to check out Star’s organization, CURE (Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education) at www.urbancure.org. — Peter LaBarbera

Parker writes (emphasis and web links added):

____________________________________

Sodom in the nation’s capital

There is a centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and a centrality of family breakdown to poverty

At a time when our country is sick, it shouldn’t surprise that one our sickest places is our nation’s capital.

The poverty rate of Washington, D.C., almost 20 percent, is one of the highest in the nation. Its child poverty rate is the nation’s highest..

D.C.’s public school system, with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent, is one of the worst in the country.

According to D.C.’s HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is “…higher than West Africa…on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.” And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity.

Amidst this dismal picture, the D.C .City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same-sex “marriage” in America’s capital city.

Looking at realities in Washington, D.C. should make clear why George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

But the America that our first president had in mind was very different from the vision of our DC government officials.

George Washington’s America was one in which the point of freedom is to allow Man to rise to what he can become. To do this, the greatest challenge he faces is conquering himself. To rise above his baser instincts, to rise above the many temptations that lead him astray. And to achieve this end, as Washington said, “religion and morality are indispensible supports.”

In left-wing America, of which the D.C. government is a poster child, freedom means to indulge every instinct that the tradition and religion of George Washington would have us overcome.

Where does it lead? Well, look at D.C.

It is tempting to look at D.C.’s realities and just call this a black thing. And by and large it is.

DC is largely black — almost 60 percent. Its poverty is black poverty. Its public school system serves mostly black children. And its AIDS crisis is mostly among blacks.

But the pathologies that strike the weakest parts of our population most brutally are nonetheless pathologies of the nation.

The Brookings Institution is one of our oldest policy institutes and certainly no bastion of conservatism. But in a recently published volume, Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill point out the centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and the centrality of family breakdown to poverty.

Reporting data showing the general breakdown of the traditional American family, they say, “Some claim that anyone who is concerned about these trends is simply out of touch with modern culture; we respond that, if that be the case, then, “modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children.”

The Catholic Archdiocese of D.C. announced that legalization of same sex marriage would make it impossible to continue its relationship with the D.C. government and require termination of the social services it provides to some 68,000 of the city’s poor — including about one third of its homeless. The reaction of D.C. Council member David Catania was essentially “so what.” According to him, “their services are not indispensable.” [Editor's note: Catania is one of two open homosexual activists on the Council.]

Is Catania out of touch with the needs of D.C.’s poor?

No. He just has different priorities. More important to him, and more important to D.C.’s left-wing city council, is advancing moral relativism and the indulgences it feeds.

This is more important to them than feeding the poor or recognizing the values that would get them out of poverty.

It should concern every American as we watch our nation’s capital city transform officially into Sodom.

Star Parker is founder and president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.  Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.