“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth.”
– Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze

__________________________________________________

Once "gay" turned Christian Michael Glatze

Editor’s Note: in apparent anger over Americans For Truth’s campaign to expose renegade Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton’s unscriptural approach toward homosexuality, Throckmorton is questioning the accuracy of a OneNewsNow story featuring comments by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — including LaBarbera’s assertion that Throckmorton actively seeks to discredit bold testimonies of profound change like that of ex-”gay” Christian Michael Glatze. Below, Michael explains why he no longer trusts Throckmorton and others who “pervert the truth.” Please say a prayer of thanks for this young man who God has drawn out of homosexuality, and that God will use him mightily to proclaim truth about homosexuality in the years and decades ahead. Please also pray for Throckmorton, who as a professed Christian at an evangelical institution should not be using his authority to affirm anyone in a “gay” sexual identity. You can write either man through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net:

__________________________________________________

The Truth about Warren Throckmorton

By Michael Glatze, Special to Americans For Truth

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Those who seek to provide some kind of intellectual “nuance” to the Gospel will, inevitably, engage in the sin of Pride. The Gospel is quite clear; and, all information about it can be found within God’s Word. Furthermore, all truth — as revealed in God’s Word — will be seen to be true in human experience, as well. Homosexuality is one of those examples.

Six years ago, I began my Christian walk. At that time, I was considered a “rising star” in the “gay rights” movement, editor of a national gay magazine, and a sought-after authority on the subject of gay youth. But, as a new Christian, I began to discover that I simply could not ignore the truth of the Gospel, no matter how difficult it may have been for my habitual, sinful nature to handle those truths. It was not easy to read things that made me feel guilty, or uncomfortable. It was not easy to go before God’s throne in humble repentance. It is still not easy to do so.

However, every time I did that, I found myself blessed — and, I found that God gave me the grace I needed to move on, to grow up, and to grow out of sinful practices that had become quite ingrained in me. This, to those who are unfamiliar, is the blessed process of sanctification. I began to understand that God’s mercy is unfathomable, yet unceasing. I began to understand that I did not have a free ride from sin and temptation, once saved. I began to feel the distance from God, whenever I followed through with a sinful temptation, or acted on that sin — i.e., the spiritual death describe so aptly in the book of James, as following the fulfillment of a sinful action.

Homosexuality, like other sins, involves the temptation to do something that is — quite simply — not necessary. To disagree with God, to say that it is OK, is to sin. And, to confess your sin is to humble yourself enough to say to God, “You were right; I was wrong.” This is an ongoing process.

A great temptation among humans is to step in-between the sinner’s relationship with God, and offer a new way out. People do this in every walk of life. People step in and say, “I know God’s Word is difficult …  let me offer you an alternate way that won’t be so painful.” People do this with philosophies, with “support groups,” and with serious academic “discoveries.”

I have come across many folks, since I first came out as opposed to homosexuality, on a path through healing from homosexuality, standing on the platform of the Gospel to fight against falsehoods about homosexuality — encouraging Christians to not falter on the Gospel truth about homosexuality, and all other sins. It is not easy, nor is life — necessarily — always a walk in the park. But, we must recognize those folks who, momentarily, play Jesus, and put themselves — or, their philosophies, or the fruits of their labors — in Jesus’ place: as mediator between God and man.

Sadly, Warren Throckmorton has been one of those people. He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality “might be OK for some people.” Of course this false gospel will seem preferable for many, because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But, that does not make it right.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

I write this now, as I recognize efforts are being made to describe his indiscretions, and — undoubtedly — a war of words will ensue. All people are redeemable; I am a profound example of that truth.

As I have said in other articles, homosexual sin is a very serious trojan horse that Satan will use — and, has used — to divide and conquer. I know, through the testimony of my own life, as a gay activist and practicing homosexual, who has been delivered from the lifestyle, from the desires, and from the whole mindset, that Gospel truth WILL prevail. But, Christians must be unafraid to tell the truth, stand for the truth, and hold those accountable who pervert the truth.

God Bless You all.

Michael Glatze

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 Linda Harvey, www.missionamerica.com

A broad coalition of pro-family groups recommends that parents keep their children home on the deceptive, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence,” to be observed this year on April 16, 2010, but one “gay”-affirming counselor started what he calls the “Golden Rule Pledge” instead.

Yet, the “Golden Rule Pledge” actually functions as a disinformation tool and a divisive wedge in schools and among Christians. It is insidiously misleading and would bring harm to kids. It grieves me to take this position, but there’s no choice, because lives are at stake.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above), a self-labeled “christian” counselor at Grove City College [contact GCC HERE], has indicated on a radio show he does not object to homosexuality when a person feels comfort with the lifestyle. My concern is that he may be communicating this to youth and college students whom he counsels, because his “Golden Rule” project takes a stand tolerant of this destructive and sinful behavior by encouraging student “respect.”

He has expressed his preference for students remaining in school on the “Day of Silence” and hearing pro-homosexual propaganda, and learning to sympathize with those practicing these behaviors, rather than taking an unequivocal, biblical stand against these harmful practices by remaining home. Throckmorton doesn’t even like the Exodus-sponsored “Day of Truth,” which encourages kids to remain in school and have a frank conversation, in love, with friends while presenting the biblical view of homosexuality. Throckmorton calls this “offensive.”

Throckmorton’s support of the “Day of Silence” will do incalculable harm to many young people. Misleading professionals like Throckmorton in positions of influence can make our sons and daughters become comfortable with entering into, staying in, or approving of homosexuality, bisexuality and gender change.

If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.

Golden Rule? Not on your life.

Jesus would never make a person feel more comfortable about:

• Young males having sex with males, the incidence of which rose over 12 % per year between 2001 and 2006 among males ages 13 to 24 1;
• Young “lesbians” choosing a fatherless life for any future children, since they can never conceive children with female partners;
• Hoping in such relationships for a false “marriage” in violation of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, where Christ told us that “from the beginning” people were created male and female, and that one man and one woman form a marriage;
• Teens and even younger children believing they should change genders. As with homosexuality, we should be doing everything possible to counsel these kids and prevent these behaviors among youth.

Throckmorton on his site (http://goldenrulepledge.com/about/) uses the language of homosexual activism. He couldn’t be more helpful to their cause if he were a consultant with GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which sponsors the national “Day of Silence” Examples of the GRP’s sympathetic, even pro-homosexual statements:

1. The Day of Silence is to “bring awareness to bullying and harassment of transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexually identified students.” This is odd both in the use of activist terms and that “transgender” comes first. This “gay”-crafted rhetoric gives a nod to the unsupportable “born-that-way” claim and a significant level of sympathy for those involved in what the eternally-existent Christ called an “abomination.” By any Christian standard, is this GOLDEN RULE material? NOPE.

2. Another phrase is quite revealing:

“Many straight Christian and conservative students are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers.”

The logical fallacies here abound. If students truly don’t “affirm” homosexuality, then don’t cooperate with its promotion through the deceptive “Day of Silence.”

The second sentence is classic pro-”gay” propaganda. These are not the only choices! To stay home is to show “violence” or approval thereof? This is so unfair to tradition-minded families and students, who feel they make a very positive statement by staying home! The Gospel and its sexual standards are, after all still good news. And one does not have to approve of homosexuality to prevent bullying, violence, or uncivil behavior.

3. Here’s the actual “pledge” language:

This is what I’m doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

Hmmm. “…The way I want to be treated.” So, if a student is about to enter, or has entered, a high-risk practice that is called an abomination by our Lord, and has shared this with classmates, a “true” Christian should attend school to support a day that affirms this behavior and scorns any warnings to that student? Some friendship!

Here’s a biblically-based alternative: “Friends don’t let friends do homosexuality!”

Then, the Pledge website talks about affirming the “safety” of all, based on Christ’s teachings. This piggybacks on the language of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and others who have used a supposed “safety” strategy to obtain affirmation of homosexuality in the schools. Homosexuality is safe and Christian teachings about it being an abomination are unsafe, is the real message. Bullying? Harassment? No one wants those things, but that’s not GLSEN’s actual concern, because schools are fully empowered now to punish incidents where such misbehavior occurs.

No, the “Day of Silence” is about propaganda. The goal is to shame and label Christians and tradition-minded students and teachers, silence their authentic witness, and even silence any public health warnings. Real safety would be to scream from the rooftops about the harm homosexuality or gender change will bring to these young lives. And since no one is born homosexual, these desires are demonstrably changeable, so no one is left without a positive alternative. Christ’s authentic path always gives hope.

This is such a travesty that if we were all ancient Israelites, we’d be rending our clothing and putting on sackcloth and ashes! What is happening to kids is corruption by uncaring and misguided adults.

Throckmorton is doing a great job of affirming propaganda meant to harm young lives and keep them away from Christ through misunderstanding. I don’t know if he means to do that, but that is going to be — guaranteed — the result.

This is completely upside down. Throckmorton doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to get it, or loves the approval of “gay” and “transgendered” blogs and activists, or he has an as-yet-undisclosed motive. [Editor's note: Americans For Truth has asked Throckmorton for his views on "same-sex marriage," "civil unions," homosexual "special rights" ("sexual orientation") laws, etc., but he has not answered our queries.]

This is not Christian and is a heretical use of the Golden Rule.

Please join me in praying for Warren Throckmorton, for his repentance, and also for his duplicitous dealings to be revealed so no further harm is done to our precious and impressionable kids.

And please help me pray that the emotionally manipulative “Day of Silence” is revealed for what it is — adults exploiting precious kids.

Notes:

1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2.htm. See Table at end.

Linda Harvey, founder of Mission:America

________________________________

Linda Harvey is founder and president of Mission: America, based in Columbus, Ohio. Perhaps more than any other American, she has sounded the alarm about the danger of promoting/affirming “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) identities to young people [click the "To Christians" button HERE]. Please support Mission: America’s important work [Donate link is at the bottom of the main website page]. To order a 2-DVD set of Linda Harvey’s talk last year at Americans For Truth, send $35 postpaid to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567, or specify “Linda Harvey 2-DVD set” with your gift of $35 or more through AFTAH’s online donor page.

Kathleen Parker

Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us.  I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”

__________________________________________

Homosexuals in the Military 

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ‘93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ’support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”

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.

WARNING: OFFENSIVE DESCRIPTIONS

In the GLSEN-recommended book "Queer 13," a 13-year-old boy graphically describes sexual "tricking" (prostitution) with adult men.

Folks, as one who has worked for more than 15 years with other pro-family groups to expose the insidious and child-corrupting agenda of Kevin Jennings and GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), I’m overjoyed that conservatives and right-leaning media are finally helping to expose this organization’s truly radical and evil agenda to millions of outraged Americans.

Here’s one point of clarification, though, for the record: my good friend Linda Harvey of Mission America, a Christian pro-family organization, broke the story about GLSEN’s twisted “Reading Recommendations” way back in 2002, yet few people are citing her work today even as they borrow heavily from it. I stood with Linda as a speaker at a Concerned Women for America conference that year when she began her speech, “I’m here to tell you what I did on my summer vacation.” We chuckled as she began holding up book after GLSEN-recommended book that she had read, while describing–as delicately as possible before a Christian audience–their perverse contents.

Linda Harvey (www.missionamerica.com) spent a whole summer reading perverse books on GLSEN's Recommended Reading list in 2002.

If only the media and mainline conservatives had paid attention and helped expose GLSEN’s dangerous agenda and reading list back when Linda did seven years ago! Turns out the much-maligned “Religious Right” was right after all about the LGBT movement’s sinister agenda to push perversion on children in the name of tolerance. Religious-Right-bashing “conservatives”: take note.

One more point: it is now common for conservatives — especially non-religiously-affiliated media leaders like Sean Hannity (who should be applauded for his yeoman’s work exposing Jennings) — to make the odd disclaimer that the GLSEN/Jennings controversy (or whatever “gay”-related culture-war story they are discussing) “is not about homosexuality.” Baloney. This is all about homosexuality and the “gay” activist agenda whose singular goal is to normalize homosexuality as a “civil right.”

Jennings’ role in the wider GLBT movement is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism: cross-dressing, etc.) to impressionable youth through the schools (public and private). It is absurd and intellectually dishonest to claim that this highly organized and well-funded campaign is somehow not about … homosexuality! (Which is not to deny that some or even many homosexuals agree with us that Jennings’ “gay-youth” agenda is reckless.)

Only a Homosexual Movement unified by a morality- and normality-rejecting ideology that aims to mainstream sinful, deviant, and once-taboo behaviors could produce such perverse ‘Recommended Readings’ for students as GLSEN — complete with fictional, “non-judgmental” accounts of man-boy sex. Only a movement that defiantly calls itself “queer” could produce “Fistgate” — a GLSEN-sponsored youth conference at Tufts University in 2000, at which underage children were verbally guided by homosexual adults on how to engage in the vile, sadomasochistic act of ‘fisting’ — hand-anal penetration (yes, truth is stranger than fiction).

The politically correct “not-about-gays” caveat is about as illogical as claiming that the effort to expose systematic human rights abuses in China and North Korea “has nothing to with Communism.” Anyone who calls himself “conservative” should know better. Besides, true conservatives should not be ashamed of enthusiastically conserving the age-old Judeo-Christian sexual/marriage ethic — which has served mankind well and which rejects all efforts to approve of unnatural and destructive sexual behaviors condemned by God. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See Wikipedia entry on "buggery" HERE.]

____________________________

Links were added to the following Washington Times editorial:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Buggery Czar

Jennings’ group made sex between children and adults look normal

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Dec. 8, 2009

The media is trying to keep this story in the closet, but it’s important not to wink at all the serious problems surrounding President Obama’s controversial “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings.

Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” He knew the boy had met the adult in a bus-station restroom. Mr. Jennings also expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he said. Despite numerous requests to the Obama administration and Mr. Jennings, we have not received any answers to inquiries about these troubling issues.

Now revelations have surfaced that Mr. Jennings not only thought there was nothing wrong with boys having sex with older men (or girls having sex with older women), but he also played a role in promoting such relationships.

In 1990, Mr. Jennings founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network, which later became the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). He was the group’s first full-time staffer and executive director, a position he held until August 2008. One of GLSEN’s tasks was to put together lists of suggested readings for K-through-12 students and their teachers. The reading lists categorize books by the ages for which they purportedly are appropriate. The organization Web site reassures us, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.”

Some of these shocking readings clearly promote homosexuality and promiscuity. Consider what GLSEN put forward as appropriate for children 13 years or older. Eleven of the recommended books were examined by Scott Baker from Breitbart.tv and re-examined by The Washington Times. Numerous passages discuss kids having sex with adults. Many of the sexual discussions and scenes are too explicit for us to publish, so what follows are greatly sanitized versions.

In “Queer 13,” the book describes a 13-year-old boy who has sexual encounters with older men. His experience caused him to desperately want sex. “While my classmates wondered what sex was like, content to masturbate over pinups, I was out there having my [explicit descriptions of having oral sex and being sodomized]. These were grown men I was tricking with. Some were nice, grateful for a young boy to have their way with. Some were harsh and mean. … That feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good.”

In “Passages of Pride,” a 15-year-old boy has sex with a much older man. The boy says, “It wasn’t a bad thing. I didn’t necessarily know it would turn into sex. But I knew what I was doing.” The boy claims that he was “not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages.” … [editorial continues at Washington Times website]

Click HERE to read the rest of the Washington Times editorial: “Obama’s Buggery Czar”

MEGA-PANDERING MEGA-PASTOR: “Purpose-Driven” Rick Warren sells out defense-of-marriage movement, telling CNN’s Larry King that he “apologized” to his homosexual friends for his role in supporting Prop 8, which reinstated the historic definition of marriage in California. Warren said he was “oblivious” to the Iowa supreme court’s ruling imposing “same-sex marriage.” Go to end of article to watch the YouTube video of Warren’s stunning CNN interview.

The following is excerpted from Saddleback Church  pastor Rick Warren’s interview with Larry King on CNN April 7 (emphasis added). Following that is a YouTube video of that segment of the interview (except the last few comments and questions from the transcript):

LARRY KING: … How did you handle all the controversy that resulted [from] the President selecting you [to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration]:

RICK WARREN: You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told. In the first place, I am not an anti-gay- or anti-gay-marriage activist. [I] Never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never—never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.

The week before the—the vote, somebody in my church said, ‘Pastor Rick, what—what do you think about this?’ And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is—really should be defined, that that definition should be saved—between a man and a woman.

And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn’t. And I actually—there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends—the leaders that I knew—and actually apologized to them. That never got out . . . .

Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years we’ve been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.

LARRY KING: All right. Do you, therefore, criticize or not comment on the Iowa court decision to permit gay marriage?

WARREN: Yes. I’m—I’m totally oblivious to—to what—that’s not even my agenda. My agenda is two things. One, today is the 15th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It’s the national day of mourning, which I—as you know, I’ve been heavily involved in—in Rwanda and helping rebuild that nation and I’m very concerned about that.

And the second thing is, I’m interested in what the recession is doing to the spiritual climate of our nation. And as we start Easter week and Passover week, which is a really big week for those of us who are Jews or Christians, Passover and Easter, it’s our biggest week of the year. And it actually was the—the week that I started Saddleback Church 30 years ago this Easter Sunday. . . .

KING: One other thing in the gay issue, while you said you were not an activist at all . . . did you not encourage your flock to vote yes on Proposition 8?

WARREN: Oh, yes. You know, I don’t think that the definition of marriage should be changed.

KING: So you did ask your people who worship with you to vote that way?

WARREN: Yes. I just never campaigned. . . .

KING: It’s not high on your road of issues?

WARREN: No, no, it’s very low. In fact, I am working with a number of gay organizations on issues that we care about, in saving lives.

__________________________________