HOMOSEXUAL HATE: New York City homosexual activist Scott Rose created this nasty, infantile graphic demonizing Parents Action League President Laurie Thompson. The text underneath the graphic — showing feces coming out of her forehead – is Rose’s, and typical of the rest of the tirade on his blog, “AntiGayBigotryScaresMe.” Click on graphic to enlarge.

WARNING: Offensive Language

This is Part Two of my interview [click HERE to listen] with Barb Anderson of Parents Action League and Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute. This discussion was pre-taped in early April and aired April 21, 2012. Note that beginning May 1, the new time for hearing the AFTAH Radio Hour live on WYLL-AM-1160 in Chicagoland is every Saturday at midnight (one hour later than the usual time). Anderson describes the incredibly nasty attacks (see graphic at right) on pro-family advocates concerned about the promotion of homosexual behavior in Anoka-Hennepin schools (outside Minneapolis). She and Higgins discuss how the Southern Poverty Law Center has named Parents Action League a “hate group,” and how a “hit-piece” in Rolling Stone magazine promoted the falsehood that a rash a local youth suicides was tied directly to “anti-gay bullying” (an assertion debunked by Anoka-Hennepin school district officials). Anderson discusses how the school district ultimately settled lawsuits brought by the SPLC and the Obama Administration– which she says will accelerate pro-homosexuality propaganda in schools.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

4-21-12, Barb Anderson & Laurie Higgins, Part Two

51501. The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

For more on the other “sexual indoctrination” bills pending in the California legislature, go HERE.

Prof. Ken Howell

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview with Professor Ken Howell, Senior Fellow at the School of Catholic Thought of the John Paul II Newman Center, which resides at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).  Prof. Howell was fired (and the reinstated) by the University of Illinois (Champaign) last year for teaching the Catholic “Natural Moral Law” understanding of homosexuality. This interview was pre-recorded and aired Nov. 5, 2011. Howell explains the circumstances surrounding his firing, and how he ended up at UIC (but not actually teaching for UIC).

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

11-5-11, Ken Howell, Part One

Frank Turek

Editor’s Note/Correction: our original story labeled Frank Turek as an “employee” of Cisco Systems. Turek was in fact a vendor with Cisco (with high marks for his performance). Thus he lacked the protections of an actual employee. This does not detract from the main story of Cisco’s hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry (we call it homo-fascism), which led Turek to be fired abruptly for his private, pro-traditional-marriage advocacy — by a company that champions “diversity.”  — Peter LaBarbera

_________________________________

Below is a reprint of a Townhall.com column by Christian apologist Frank Turek, an eloquent defender of natural (i.e., real) marriage – who was recently fired as a vendor by Cisco Systems (408-526-4000) due to his off-the-job, pro-family advocacy. Turek’s sudden firing was instigated by a homosexual fellow-employee at Cisco who — acting like a homo-fascist — turned in Turek to the Cisco authorities (actually an HR exec), despite the latter’s stellar and completely professional work record.

Conservative columnist Mike Adams has written three terrific pieces about “diversity”-touting Cisco’s outrageous action. (Read them in order HERE, HERE and HERE.) Needless to say, if Turek were a practicing homosexual who had been canned, this would be a huge media story and Cisco would be contracting with the services of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

I have never met Mr. Turek – I’ve only read some of his excellent columns – but I gather that he is a compassionate man who models the Christian ideal of speaking the Truth boldly, in love. One reason I deduce this is that while attending (undercover) the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “Creating Change” meeting earlier this year, I listened as a homosexual activist described (to a room full of fellow “gay” activists) a church talk given by Turek that he had attended as a critic. The homosexual advocate described Turek’s presentation and demeanor as kind and bereft of malice. This particular LGBT activist works diligently to convert Christians to a pro-“gay rights” mindset, and yet – even as he opposed Turek’s ideas – he found no hatred for homosexuals in the man. (You can buy Turek’s book, “Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Hurts Everyone” HERE; and watch him debate atheist Christopher Hitchens HERE; also see Turek’s outstanding Christian youth site here: http://crossexamined.org/.)

The bottom line for Christians and opponents of homosexuality who are not silent about their moral beliefs? If it’s OK to fire Frank Turek merely because he disagrees with homosexuality and “same-sex marriage,” then you, too, are vulnerable. Christians and all defenders of sexual normalcy: we have no other choice but to fight back against the emerging liberal homo-fascism — unless you are content to live as a muted serf in the land of the “free.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org 

Write Cisco here:

Mr. John Chambers
Office of the President
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mail Stop SJC10/5/4
300 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134

Phone: 408-526-4000; hit “0″ for operator

________________________________________

Frank Turek’s column in Townhall: 

Sex at Work?

6/28/2011  Townhall.com

Are you supposed to have sex at work? I guess it depends on your profession, but for most of us the answer is “no.” Why then is corporate America obsessed with training about sex?

As described in several recent columns by Mike Adams, I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and requested I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).

How could an experienced HR professional commit such a blatant act of discrimination unless the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted left? Why didn’t Cisco’s relentless emphasis and training on “inclusion and diversity” serve to prevent this? Maybe it’s because “inclusion and diversity” means something different to corporate elites than to normal Americans. That’s why their training didn’t prevent the problem but actually created an environment of intolerance that led to the problem.

Cisco’s chief “Inclusion and Diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, had trouble on the phone defining what “inclusion and diversity” actually means at Cisco, so she sent me several links from the Cisco website. As in our conversation, I found no specific definition on the website but plenty of platitudes, such as Cisco is committed to “valuing and encouraging different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.”

If that’s the case, then why not value my “perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas?”

Because only certain perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas are approved, you see. “Inclusion and diversity” to corporate elites actually means exclusion for those that don’t agree with the approved views. Whoops, there goes “diversity.”

Shouldn’t the real intent of Cisco’s value of “inclusion and diversity” be to ensure that people in that diverse workforce work together cordially and professionally even when they inevitably disagree on certain political, moral or religious questions? It would seem so. In a large multicultural workforce, people need to work together despite political or religious differences. That’s a noble and necessary goal. It’s totalitarian, however, to subject people to “diversity” training and corporate sponsorships that go beyond teaching respect for people to advocacy of what they do in bed.

All employees should treat one another with kindness and respect because they are fellow human beings, not because of their sexual behavior. If people are to be respected simply on the basis of their behavior, then none of us qualify for respect because we have all behaved badly on occasion.

So instead of trying to force all employees to accept any sexual behavior—especially something as controversial as homosexuality—the inclusion and diversity police should be urging us to treat all people with respect simply because we are human beings. That’s all you need to be productive at work anyway.

But as soon as you start telling people from different religious and cultural backgrounds what they must think about homosexuality, you will offend and create conflict andr resentment. As a Christian, I am commanded to respect all people. That’s what I was doing at Cisco. But don’t tell me that I have to respect and celebrate what people do in bed. Don’t tell me that I must violate my conscience or my God in order to make widgets. That’s not only immoral and un-American; it’s manipulative and stupid. How does accepting homosexual behavior have anything to do with job productivity? Are we supposed to have sex at work?

There simply is no business reason to judge my beliefs about sexual behavior or anyone else’s. And even if some corporate nanny could dream up a reason, it would not justify the assault on an employee’s conscience or religion.

Notice that Cisco did not have a problem with my behavior. My job performance was deemed excellent, and I was “inclusive and diverse” by working in a respectful manner with people of all moral, religious and political views.

Cisco had a problem with my thoughts. Although I certainly accepted homosexuals, I committed the thought crime of disagreeing with homosexual behavior and homosexual political goals. So despite all their talk about “inclusion and diversity,” Cisco deemed my thoughts about something irrelevant to the workplace as grounds for immediate exclusion. Do you think they would have excluded me if I had pro-same-sex marriage thoughts? Of course not—that’s an approved view that Cisco actually sponsors (even though they deny it).

But people who don’t accept homosexual behavior don’t have to work at Cisco then!

True, they don’t. But if Cisco or any other company wants to make it a requirement that every employee and vendor personally accept the behavior of homosexuality or homosexual political goals such as same-sex marriage, then tell us directly. Broadcast it to the world. Cisco can’t and won’t because such a requirement would be a clear violation of the religious protections codified in the Civil Rights Act, and it would result in a mass exodus of employees and customers.

Instead, they create an oppressive culture of political correctness under the false banner of “inclusion and diversity” to achieve the same ends. They tell the world that they value and encourage “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas” while they punish or intimidate into silence people who have “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.” While Cisco executives would never admit this, their actions reveal this twisted truth: Cisco values homosexual behavior more than honesty, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

Is it the same at your workplace? Are you tired of having to hide your conservative or religious beliefs as if you live in a totalitarian state rather than America? If you continue to cower in silence before an intolerant militant minority, it will only get worse. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” It’s time to do something—speak up.

Americans For Truth received an email today forwarded by a U.S. soldier serving overseas, who was sent an official notice containing the following statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton marking “International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia” (IDAHO; May 17th). Clinton’s statement had been forwarded by an “EEO  (Equal Employment Opportunity) Counselor,” who endorsed it enthusiastically.  The statement is published on the State Department website HERE. Accompanying it in the e-mail obtained by AFTAH is a notice by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) extolling IDAHO. The USAID notice is reprinted verbatim below.

In recent years, “transgender” activists and their allies have begun to popularize the use of the term “Transphobia” [See Urban Dictionary "definitions"]. Of  course, the word is tendentious and a derivation of its controversial LGBT cousin, “Homophobia” – the use of which continues to expand to cover opposition to homosexuality rather than irrational “fear” (phobia) of homosexuals. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

——————————————————————–
Press Statement

For Immediate Release

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia
 
WASHINGTON, DC – In every part of the world, men and women are persecuted and attacked because of who they are or whom they love. Homophobia, transphobia and the brutal hostility associated with them are often rooted in a lack of understanding of what it actually means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). So to combat this terrible scourge and break the cycle of fear and violence, we must work together to improve education and support those who stand up against laws that criminalize love and promote hate. As we mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia this May 17, let us resolve to redouble our efforts.
 
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am proud to reaffirm our support for LGBT communities at home and abroad, and to call for an end to discrimination and mistreatment of LGBT persons wherever it occurs. Whether by supporting LGBT advocates marching in Belgrade, leading the effort at the United Nations to affirm the human rights of LGBT persons, or condemning a vile law under consideration in Uganda, we are committed to our friends and allies in every region of the world who are fighting for equality and justice. These are not Western concepts; these are universal human rights.
 
Despite these gains and hard work, there is more to do to turn the tide of inequality and discrimination against the LGBT community. If you are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, know that the United States stands with you and we are unwavering in our commitment to ending this cycle of hate.

_________________________________________________

The following notice from USAID (United States Agency for International Development) was included in the e-mail sent to the U.S. soldier serving abroad: 

USAID Notice
 
Subject: International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, May 17th
 
On May 17, 2011, USAID observes International Day Against Homophobiaand Transphobia (IDAHO) in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender (LGBT) communities in the U.S. and abroad fighting for legal and social equality, and to call for an end to discriminationand mistreatment of LGBT people worldwide.  IDAHO is celebrated worldwide on May 17 as the date in 1990 when the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.  The theme this year is “As I Am,” which is a response to the daily homophobia and transphobia that seek to deny the individual worth of LGBT people.  IDAHO is an opportunity to reflect on the international LGBT community’s ongoing struggle for equal social treatment, civil protections, and rights.   Through its programs and policies, USAID encourages equality for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and/or gender  identity/expression.  For example, across Asia, USAID helps ensure that LGBT people have equal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment.  Additionally, in Washington, USAID has updated its “Policy on Diversity in the Workplace, Equal Employment Opportunity, and Non-Discrimination” to include protections on the basis of gender identity.  Despite these gains, there remains much work to remove inequality and discrimination against the LGBT community, and we encourage all USAID employees to consider how they, through their programs and daily actions, can speak out against and proactively undo homophobia and transphobia wherever and whenever it occurs.
 
USAID’s Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) is committed to ensuring the equality and proper treatment of all its employees, and is proud to observe IDAHO in partnership with Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA).  GLIFAA is the officially recognized employee resource group of LGBT and ally employees in U.S.foreign affairs agencies serving in the U.S. and abroad — it works to achieve full equality (in policy, treatment, benefits, etc.) for its members.  For further information and/or to join GLIFAA, please visit www.glifaa.org. Click here for further information about IDAHO, and to learn about related events in Washington and abroad.  Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to — Sheri Solomon, OCRD, (202) 712-1051.

Display prominently celebrating new Illinois "Civil Unions" law put up by a pro-homosexual student club at Lyons Township High School. Photo: Earl Gough. Click on photo to enlarge.

Dear Readers, each pro-homosexual law makes it easier for school administrators and teachers to allow the one-sided promotion of homosexuality in their school, as occurred recently at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange, Illinois (see photo). The state’s Democrat-dominated General Assembly passed a “Civil Unions” bill in a lame-duck session last year (before a new elected, more conservative legislature could take office) — and Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed it into law January 31. (The bill, which also allows heterosexual “civil unions,” thus further undermining marriage, takes effect June 1.)

America’s public schools are becoming de facto “Homosexuality-Promotion Zones” — directly undermining the authority of parents to guide their children’s moral upbringing — and subjecting Christian and moral-minded students to one-sided pro-homosexuality propaganda like the above. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; [Send news about your children's or local schools to americansfortruth@gmail.com.]

Illinois pro-family advocate Earl Gough writes March 7, 2011:

This is one of the reasons my kids no longer attend Lyons Township High School (LTHS) in LaGrange and Western Springs [Illinois].  This and much worse happens there because parents are not involved enough and (sorry) churches do even less.

I was at the South Campus this evening and found this large display (see photo at right) applauding Civil Unions at the front entry of LTHS.

There are 17 suburbs and 25 feeder schools that send their children to this school.  Imagine what influence parents would have if they cared to get involved.  But, because less than 2% (not 10%) of the population is more consistent in pressing this agenda, all of our kids, the majority, have to be subjected to this family-threatening political correctness that is not healthy or in the interest of the general welfare.

Perhaps, with upcoming school board elections [April 5, 2011], this may be good time to discuss this in the public square.  Remember the frog in the kettle?

Earl Gough

Illinois Citizens for Excellence in Education
Brookfield, IL

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@gmail.com

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, issued the follow statement:

• Homosexual practice is always wrong. To advocate for this lifestyle, including homosexual relationships, is also wrong. Advocacy of a sin is itself a sin.
• It is immoral to “mainstream” homosexuality to children in schools in the guise of teaching tolerance and diversity.
• No sincere Christian supports violence or hatred directed at homosexuals. In fact, Christians want homosexuals to accept Christ, repent of their sin and be forgiven — and change their lifestyle, as countless former “gays” have. Violence and abuse toward homosexuals is the work of people who reject Christian love and compassion.
• “Bullying” in any form is wrong and must be stopped. But it can be addressed without promoting acceptance of homosexuality. “Anti-bullying” measures must not become a Trojan Horse to advance the pro-“gay” agenda.
• Many homosexual activists are anti-religious bigots, stemming from their hatred of the Church for opposing homosexuality as a sin. Often these militants claim that religious people who oppose homosexuality are on a par with racists – a spurious and hateful analogy.
• Homosexuality has nothing to do with race. Skin color cannot be changed. In contrast, thousands of ex-lesbians and ex-gay men testify to the reality that homosexuality can be overcome.
• Driven by their hatred of moral opponents, homosexual activists like Human Rights Campaign are shamelessly exploiting the suicides of homosexual youth and violent attacks against homosexuals to demand that religious bodies stop speaking against homosexuality. Their aim is to silence all opposition.
• The liberal media – which is now practically an arm of the homosexual movement – is also promoting the false linkage between speech critical of homosexuality and gay suicides and violence against homosexuals. This must stop. The media must return to its proper role of reporting both sides on homosexuality – which starts by acknowledging that there is another side to this debate.
• Christians who believe that the proper response to anti-homosexual hatred in our society is to downplay biblical truth are naïve and misguided. Now more than ever, young people and all Americans need to hear the truth: that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and often unhealthy (one in five “men who have sex with men” has HIV: CDC) – but that it can be overcome through Christ.

_________________________________

Media exploits University tragedy

Editorial
By The Daily Targum
Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The death of University student Tyler Clementi might have been properly mourned if it were not for the massive rallies and aggressive news coverage that altered the nature of the situation. The truth is that an 18-year-old boy killed himself – he was a student just like the rest of us, someone just trying to receive an education. Yet people’s relentless agendas took his death and turned it into a cause based on false pretenses.

A crowd of more than 20 people ended up lying outside the entrance of the Rutgers Student Center on the College Avenue campus the first night of the news breaking. The chants were, “We’re here. We’re queer. We want safety in our homes.” The mistake was that Clementi’s death should not have been turned into a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender protest for gay rights and safe spaces at the University. Robert O’Brien, Department of Anthropology assistant instructor, led the rally as he chanted, “Not safe in dorms, not safe at Rutgers.” Essentially, an angry mob fending for their rights turned the death of a young boy into a cause for “safe spaces” for gays across the University – all the while, these spaces already existed. We have groups across campus that deal with students’ psychological difficulties – 17 Seconds is one that deals with suicides – as well as groups that address their sexual orientation. We have these spaces, and the University community is diverse enough to provide students with whatever it is they need.

The focal point of Clementi’s tragic death should have been a boy’s inability to deal with the hardships of life. And yet the news and certain organizations picked this up and carried it into the ranks of general causes for major social groups – for their profit. Did Tyler really feel unsafe after all? Do we know the reason behind his suicide? Do we know if he, himself, would take part in the movement behind his death – the push for safe spaces?

It is disappointing that everyone from news to celebrities picked up the story. Actress Brittany Snow and actor Neil Patrick-Harris are just two of the many celebrities belittling Clementi’s death – forcing his remembrance into a cause rather than a proper mourning.

We did not know Tyler. It was barely three weeks into his first year at the University, and most of his neighbors in his residence hall barely knew him. Turning his death into a push for gay rights is a fallacy. Homosexuality is not the only reason for which people kill themselves. In this case, it might have pushed Clementi over the edge, but the fact that he was gay should by no means turn his death into a march for safe spaces. These groups want to be heard. They want the attention. They want their agendas to shine in the limelight.

Instead, we should address that the signs of a suicidal 18-year-old kid were unseen and went unnoticed, not “We want safety in our homes.” We have the safety, or as much of it as we together as a University community can in today’s world. What we need is to notice those of us who need help and help them. Entertainers stay away. O’Brien leave the issue alone. Let us – family, friends and the University together – mourn for Clementi, and just for him, rather than using him as a martyr for a cause that has yet to be proven.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick compared servicemembers who oppose President Obama's policy of allowing open homosexuals in the military to "racists" and said they will have to leave the Armed Forces if they cannot bend to the new pro-LGBT rules. Why is Obama already moving ahead with homosexualizing the military in violation of U.S. law, which bans homosexuals from serving?

TAKE ACTION: The beginning of the process to vote on repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military starts Tuesday. Call and urge your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) to oppose turning the Armed Forces into Homosexuality-Affirmation Zones that officially discriminate against normal, faith-based servicemembers and chaplains (see bigoted comments by Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick below).

Also, call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) and thank him for leading the opposition to negating the 1993 law barring homosexuals from military service. Read McCain’s formal remarks from the Senate floor yesterday HERE or watch the FOX News video (start at 7:44) on his website HERE. 

________________________________________

Background:

Excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

The U.S. Senate took the initial steps of moving forward with the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Thursday as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed cloture on major defense budget legislation that includes repeal language.

Reid’s motion to proceed on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill was met with objection by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), prompting Reid to move to end debate by filing cloture.

This manuever means a vote to start official consideration of the defense bill and amendments will take place Tuesday at 2:15 pm. Moving forward will require 60 votes from members for the U.S. Senate.  [Continued at the BLADE HERE...]

___________________________________________

AFTAH COMMENTARY:

See below where Lt. General Thomas Bostick equates those who defend normalcy and oppose sexual deviance in the military with racists.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama are rushing to homosexualize the U.S. military to satisfy a vocal and aggressive GLBT lobby made up of men and women desperate to have their disordered sexual lifestyle affirmed at any cost. If they succeed, they will severely undermine military morale by turning our Armed Forces into a zone of “Sexual Correctness” that punishes dissent, leading tens of thousands of moral-minded men and women to leave the service or otherwise not enlist.

The comments by Bostick are only the latest evidence that President Obama’s pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” plan for the military WILL DISCRIMINATE against normal and religious servicemembers who disagree with his immoral and impractical plan. Thus we face the specter that a type of ”homo-supremacy” will grow in the ranks:  ”open and proud” homosexuals and bisexuals will be welcomed into the Armed Forces, while those who defend faith, tradition and common sense on this issue (including Bible-honoring chaplains?) will be shown the door.

Lt. Gen. Bostick’s twisted comparison — which echoes the standard anti-Christian rhetoric of homosexual activists — is itself an act of bigotry that shows insensitivity toward people of faith. Opposing people based on their (unchangeable) skin color is bigoted; defending a time-honored sexual moral code in the military’s unique environment is not. Opposing the celebration of perversion is not “hate” or prejudice but the right thing to do!

Note also how Bostick is discussing the implementation of a homosexuals-in-the-military plan before any action by Congress has been taken. When you are The Annointed One as president, who needs Congress, right? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________________________________ 

Excerpted from the Washington Times editorial:

Friday, Sept. 17, 2010

New Gay Army

Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to begin floor debate on a defense authorization bill that would repeal the Clinton-era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces. Last month, a top military official offered a glimpse of how the military might look should the new policy take effect: Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome.

Those were the views of Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters who spoke about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” Lt. Gen. Bostick said. “But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”

The strong words take additional significance from Lt. Gen. Bostick’s direct involvement with a Pentagon panel charged with shaping military policy on this issue. Although Lt. Gen. Bostick presented the question of homosexuals in the military as if it were about civil rights, it is nothing of the kind. The services must discriminate to function. Those who are too old, too weak or too overweight must be shown the door even when similar actions in the private sector might spark a lawsuit. The reason for the military’s existence is to win battles and wars, not to ensure feelings aren’t hurt or to serve as a playground for social experimentation

The military’s long-standing ban on homosexual conduct is rooted in the principles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which also criminalizes adulterous conduct among heterosexuals insofar as it undermines the good order and discipline of the armed forces. Lt. Gen. Bostick suggested he would employ the same strict disciplinary standards to provide “education and training” that would ensure soldiers, sailors and airmen embrace the new LGBT agenda….. [Editorial continues at Washington Times HERE]

_______________________________________

SAVE THE DATE: AFTAH Banquet

Pastor Ken Hutcherson to keynote AFTAH banquet Sat. Nov. 13.

WHERE: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004

WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010; 6:00 PM; dinner served

BACKGROUND on Hutch: http://americansfortruth.com/news/ken-hutcherson-to-keynote-aftah-banquet-nov-13.html

Cost/register: $50 for early regristration; $75 after Nov. 8 and at the door. Send to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, or pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate.

Those who have attended previous AFTAH banquets know that they are intensely educational and uplifting experiences that build you up and equip you to stand for righteousness in a dying culture. Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a bold man of God whose talk promises to be another special time of celebrating God’s timeless Truth. I look forward to hearing from – and learning from — ’Hutch.’  Info requests to: americansfortruth@gmail.com  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Psychologist Mike Campion was vindicated when the City of Minneapolis settled with him for $211,000 rather than try to prove in court their false charge that he was an anti-gay bigot who could not professionally do his job of evaluating police and firefighter candidates -- due to his past affiliation with a Christian pro-family group.

“Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, ‘How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?’

“The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better ‘diversity and transparency’ issues at the firm.” – Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000″

By Peter LaBarbera

The City of Minneapolis just admitted its guilt and, in effect, shameful anti-Christian bigotry by settling with psychologist contractor Michael Campion for $210,000 rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial that it surely would have lost on First Amendment grounds. See the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article reprinted below. 

I know Mike Campion and his wife Kathy. He is a good and decent Christian man whom compassion-challenged liberals put through the grinder merely because he supports the objective truth that homosexuals can change their lifestyle (as countless have). His firm, Campion, Barrow & Associates, is one of the most professional in its field and evidently the City of Minneaopolis could not find anyone who would testify that Mr. Campion had mistreated or discriminated against them on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

In other words, unlike the liberals who sought to destroy him, Campion is no bigot. Pathetically, some city officials even tried to smear Campion as a racist to achieve their goal. End justifies the means, right?

Note the comment by homosexual activist Scott Benson above: a “gay” politician, working with pro-homosexual city officials, gets Campion fired because he was once a board member with a “notoriously discriminatory organization,” the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

Most of AFTAH’s readers know of IFI, where I served as executive director from 2003-2006. This fine group and its followers merely defend the historic Christian and biblical teaching that homosexuality is outside of God’s expressed will. They believe that this sinful behavior is changeable through trusting in Jesus Christ, who in His grace and love and truth offers forgiveness to all sinners. Neither Mike nor IFI “hate” or “fear” homosexuals, and such spurious accusations — now tossed recklessly at any Bible-believer who expresses disagreement with sodomy, is itself a manifestation of reactionary, anti-Christian prejudice. 

Are you seeing the folly and frightening potential of this Orwellian sexual agenda: all across America and the world, homosexual activists are smearing Christians or even working aggressively to get them FIRED (or arrested) – in the name of “fighting discrimination”! The bald-faced hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual Left is exposed — and anyone not blinded by politically correctness (which unfortunately covers many in the media) can see it.

Truth is — as lesbian activist and Obama-appointed E.E.O.C. Commissioner Chai Feldblum asserts — there is a “zero-sum game” between homosexualist ideology/”sexual orientation”-based “rights” and our First Amendment freedoms. To the committed homosexualist, it doesn’t matter if you are black, white or brown – it only matters whether or not you affirm homosexuality. And if you don’t or, God forbid, you belong to a church or organization that questions the cherished myths of the powerful “Gay” Lobby, watch out! You could be in trouble with the Sexual Thought Police. (Read Julea Ward’s story HERE; Crystal Dixon’s story HERE; and Elaine Huguenin’s story HERE.)

How dare the liberal Left lecture us about ”rights” as they take away others’ rights and promote a vicious, new form of discrimination that cynically equates God-honoring moral convictions with “hate” and punishes them accordingly.

A new civil rights movement

The encouraging news is that the seeds of a new civil rights movement are growing — made up of Americans and citizens of all creeds and colors worldwide demanding that their freedom to live by their religious and moral beliefs be respected and made inviolable. This noble freedom-of-conscience movement will rise up against any and all attempts — government and corporate – to punish people for their deeply-held moral convictions. It will stand aggressively against laws and policies that belittle and demonize traditionalist and religious views – and which demand that our morality be shoved into some personal closet or church away from the workplace and public square.

America is a freedom-loving nation. We must not let it become a freedom-crushing nation, especially in the name of a misnamed ”tolerance” that will not tolerate dissent and a (non-diverse) “diversity” that punishes and maligns adherents of moral truth. (See my expulsion and then crude demonization by the curiously-named DiversityInc magazine and its hateful publisher, Luke Visconti.) In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, we will not tolerate government-enforced tyranny, and certainly not in the name of “rights” based on sexual misbehavior or any errant secularist cause that seeks to recast our God-given liberties to affirm worldly trends.

We understand that many social liberals hate us for defending biblical and moral truth, but that hatred does not allow them to steal way our rights. So, like past patriots, we WILL fight back against the Liberal, Pro-Gay Thought Police at every turn. Because our freedom — like Mike Campion’s — is non-negotiable.

__________________________________________

Star-Tribune article on Campion’s victory:

Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000

Michael Campion was fired because of concerns over his ties to an “anti-homosexual” organization

By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune

September 3, 2010

A psychologist who screened potential Minneapolis police officers will receive a $210,000 settlement from the city over his firing, which stemmed from his affiliation with the Illinois Family Institute and his support for treating the “problem” of homosexuality.

The City Council unanimously agreed Friday after a closed-door session to pay Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates of Illinois Inc. (CBA) rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial scheduled to start Sept. 13 before U.S. Judge Joan Ericksen.

Council Member Gary Schiff, who is gay, said, “It was clear the settlement was in the city’s best interest.”

The Family Institute has stated that it opposes the “gay lifestyle.”

If the city had lost at trial, it could have been made to pay Campion’s attorney’s fees. Schiff said the settlement amount includes legal fees.

In reaching the decision, Schiff said, the council leaned heavily on an 18-page pretrial ruling from Ericksen, in which she wrote, “The court observes, at this preliminary state, that plaintiffs’ First Amendment interests appear to be strong.”

Jim Campbell, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, said the settlement “reinforces that the government cannot penalize Christian contractors for their beliefs.  The court had already issued a decision finding that the City of Minneapolis removed Dr. Campion because of his constitutionally protected involvement with a Christian organization, noting that Dr. Campion’s constitutional rights were strong.”

Schiff said the council realized that Ericksen’s ruling signaled an uphill legal fight.

CBA began working for the city in 2004, about a year after a federal mediator came to town to address concerns about biased policing and low numbers of minority officers. In 2006, members of the Police Community Relations Council, which grew out of the federal mediation, raised concerns about racial bias in CBA’s work. Another firm reviewed the work and found no such evidence.

Campion met with the community council in August 2006 and concerns were raised about his affiliation with the Family Institute, founded by James Dobson, and the “anti-homosexual” nature of the organization, the judge’s order said.

Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, “How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?”

The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better “diversity and transparency” issues at the firm.

CBA sued, claiming the city violated Campion’s First Amendment rights by taking action against him because of his association with the Family Institute.

The city argued that the decision to part ways with CBA stemmed not from Campion’s speech but by “concerns about bias.”

Campion’s business, based in Champaign, Ill., has performed psychological testing for 35 years for more than 100 law enforcement agencies, including St. Paul. A portion of Campion’s testing was developed through a U.S. Department of Justice grant in which he sampled St. Paul residents on what characteristics were important in an officer.

Before receiving the psychological exam, applicants are given a conditional job offer. If they are rated unqualified, they generally are not hired.

Campion has not commented on the case. His lawyers didn’t return a phone call.

Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ”treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do – teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).

President Barack Obama's promotion of a government-enforced homosexual and "transgender" agenda will lead to the loss of liberties for those who espouse and defend the natural, historic Judeo-Christian conception of marriage and family.

CORRECTION: Well folks, looks like we’re a year behind in covering President Obama’s declaration of “Pride” in that which is shameful. I accidentally published President Obama’s 2009 “Gay Pride Month” Proclamation instead of the current 2010 version. So below we have included both years’ proclamations so you can compare them. Note that in the 2010 version, Obama calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he is now circumventing piecemeal through “domestic partner” executive orders for federal workers. I apologize for the mistake. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

Original AFTAH commentary:

America’s pro-homosexual Panderer-in-Chief is at it again….When President Obama proclaims [2009 "Gay Pride Month" statement], “As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit,” I wonder if he’s ever heard of Matt Barber — who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., after Obama’s “gay” allies over at the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign complained that Matt had written an online article critical of homosexuality (on his own time).

(I don’t recall Matt being comforted at the idea that it was for the cause of “gay equality” that he was cruelly and suddenly thrown into unemployment by Allstate….)

Or how about Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer who was fined by the courts under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because she would not take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony? (Pro-gay-agenda Libertarians: take note; Huguenin is appealing the decision.)

Wasn’t religious liberty and freedom of conscience one of those “principles upon which our Nation was founded”?

Clearly, a few Americans many win but only at the expense of many more who will lose their freedom if proud homosexuality is elevated to official “civil rights” status. As Obama’s own recess appointee at the EEOC, lesbian law professor and ENDA architect Chai Feldblum, has put it, it’s a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and homosexuality-based “rights.” So let’s do away with the pretense that celebrating legally-enshrined homosexuality (read: changeable homosexual behavior) is some universally-held value that will unite Americans. It won’t. And the Bible-dismissing Obama’s unprecedented promotion of not just the homosexualist agenda but federally-guaranteed “rights” based on gender confusion (the transgender “T” in “GLBT”) will only help solidify his standing as the most divisive president in modern memory and probably the most left-wing leader in our nation’s history. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________________________

Below is Obama’s (current) 2010 “Gay Pride Month” proclamation:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 28, 2010

Presidential Proclamation–Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities.  Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise.  An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.  This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.  They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.  Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.  Thanks to those who came before us    the brave men and women who marched, stood up to injustice, and brought change through acts of compassion or defiance    we have made enormous progress and continue to strive for a more perfect union.

My Administration has advanced our journey by signing into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which strengthens Federal protections against crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation.  We renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS, and finally eliminated the HIV entry ban.  I also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need, including the ability to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions.

In other areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing.  Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.  That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits.  We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.  I am also committed to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.

As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles.  Our Nation draws its strength from our diversity, with each of us contributing to the greater whole.  By affirming these rights and values, each American benefits from the further advancement of liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

___________________________________________________________________________

And here is (last year’s) Obama’s 2009 homosexual “Pride Month” proclamation:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release, June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- – - – - – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Click here to download PDF

Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.

Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:

MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?

Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video....]

Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that  it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.

Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?

The answer is “gay pride” — which is a military and national priority only in the minds of homosexual advocates and their liberal allies like our current Commander-in-Chief. Discreet and celibate homosexuals have long served and continue to serve in the military — often after lying about their homosexuality to get in (which calls into question all that “gay” blather about “honesty” and “integrity”). But the fact that the nation’s leading homosexuals-in-the-military activist acknowledges that it was “not a big deal” for him to serve in the Army decades ago (Sarvis was in for more than three years) shows that — on a practical level — the issue is not really about homosexuals serving in the military.

No, Sarvis and fellow homosexual crusaders want servicemen and servicewomen who identify as homosexuals to serve as “out and proud gays and lesbians” –and to be affirmed as such by other servicemen, and by the Armed Forces’ bureaucracy. They already “serve in silence,” but they demand the “right” to do so loudly and proudly — traditional military values be damned. H.R. 1283, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), would accomplish this goal by imposing “sexual orientation” egalitarianism on the Armed Forces in the guise of fighting “discrimination”; as with all “gay rights” legislation, such a law would invariably lead to politically correct assaults on the rights and beliefs of fighting men and women of faith who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

In other words, GLBT activists — driven by the need to justify their immoral and unnatural lifestyle — seek to transform the conservative culture of the U.S. military to approve of “proud” homosexuality and bisexuality, even if that means spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “attitudinal adjustment” for all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who either oppose homosexuality or don’t wish to see it celebrated. If Congress caves in to this “gay” agenda, it would help drive out tens of thousands of high caliber, tradition-minded servicemen from the military.

Isn’t that a rather high price to pay to validate those in the military who aren’t even supposed to be serving in the first place? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Why should you spend your hard-earned consumer dollars on the products of a company like Progressive Insurance that promotes "pride" in immoral homosexual behavior? Progressive lists the various big-city "gay pride" parade dates on its special, pro-homosexual "Faces of Pride" website.

[The following message was sent out to AFTAH e-subscribers May 20, 2010:]

Folks, Jamil Adair of Horizon City, Texas, has given us permission to reprint his excellent letter to Progressive Insurance, which he sent after reading our article, “Progressive Insurance Co. Promotes Homosexuality.” (And Jamil approved the printing of his full address: here is one American who does not cower in fear of homosexual activist bullies.) Click HERE to read Jamil’s letter.

This is how we regain our culture: taking one principled stance at a time, and using our considerable power as consumers to defend morality and truth.  In the last decade or so, the corporate world was essentially ceded to the “gay” lobby without much of a fight — while pro-family advocates were busy opposing the homosexual activist political agenda in Washington, D.C.  Now look at the tragic result: major corporations are using their immense resources to promote sexual immorality and gender confusion throughout society.  And the agenda they are financing wars against Biblical values and directly threatens YOUR religious freedom.

One wonders: what have the Christian employees been doing all these years at companies like Progressive?   Why haven’t more people of faith spoken up in their place of employment — urging their superiors not to waste valuable corporate resources to fund and promote the homosexual and transsexual agenda?  And why aren’t more Christians and moral advocates demanding true corporate “diversity” — which includes respecting those employees who support real (man-woman) marriage and who oppose homosexual practice and gender confusion?

It’s time to stop whining and making excuses about the past and to start sending this very clear message to “gay”-pandering corporate execs: We’re not going to just sit back and take it while you use OUR consumer dollars to promote immorality to the public.  Jamil shows us the way with his letter to Progressive.

TAKE ACTION: Go HERE to read a short AFTAH piece about how the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign uses its rigged “Corporate Equality Index” to pressure corporations like Progressive Insurance into ever greater advocacy and financing of the homosexualist agenda.

Find other sellout corporations: you can also go directly to HRC’s website to view their complete corporate “Gay Index” and see for yourself which other major U.S. companies have sold out to HRC’s anti-Christian agenda.  Here’s the HRC link: http://issuu.com/hrcworkplace/docs/hrc_corporate_equality_index_2010.

Call Progressive (even if you don’t do business with them) at 1-800-PROGRESSIVE (800-776-4737); or fax your own letter to 800-229-1590.  (A Progressive phone/e-mail contact page is HERE.)   And work with AFTAH to contact other “100-percent-pro-homosexual” corporations and avoid spending your hard-earned $$$ on their products.

Thanks in advance for taking a stand for God’s truth in a culture that has bought into many lies of the Sexual Revolution.  God bless you. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S.  Write us at americansfortruth@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net, and if you can, send a tax-deductible donation to support AFTAH’s work at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.  And please pray for us.

Related AFTAH articles:

• “Human Rights Campaign’s Pro-Gay ‘Corporate Equality Index’ Rating System”
• “Texas Man Cancels Progressive Insurance Policy over Promotion of Homosexuality”
• “Ex-Gay Greg Quinlan of PFOX Challenges Pro-Gay PepsiCo Execs on Lack of Diversity”
• “Progressive Insurance Co. Promotes Homosexuality”

TAKE ACTION: To contact PepsiCo North America, call 914-253-2000 (ask for the president’s office); to reach PepsiCo’s various regional offices, go HERE.

________________________________

PFOX News Release (PFLAG link added):

Speech by Greg Quinlan to the PepsiCo Board of Directors

May 5, 2010 Pepsi Shareholders Meeting

See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/2010/05/indra-nooyi-and-pepsi.html

Ms. Indra Nooyi [PepsiCo chair], last year at this same event, you said that PepsiCo is “committed to diversity and inclusion without imposition of personal judgment.” So why does PepsiCo continue to fund organizations that hate ex-gays like me?

Former homosexual Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX

PepsiCo, Inc. is the leading corporate sponsor of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, known as PFLAG. PFLAG’s latest publication, a religious guidebook, instructs its members to protest against religious conferences which feature ex-gay speakers like me. PFLAG’s religious guidebook even directs members on how to create picket signs for these protests. It also urges members to hold press conferences and issue press releases against ex-gay religious events “to remind people that there is more than one faith message.”

My church welcomes the ex-gay community. Why does Pepsi fund groups like PFLAG that disrupt Christian events which support former homosexuals like me? Why does PepsiCo fund an organization like PFLAG which issues religious publications urging readers to undermine other religions with which PFLAG disagrees? Why does Pepsi fund hate? Why?

Unlike the Coca Cola Company, PepsiCo refuses to divulge the exact amount of money it donates to various groups. This secrecy by PepsiCo leads to misuse of corporate funds. For example, PepsiCo says it gave ‘over $100,000′ last year to PFLAG, but refuses to specify the exact amount. In past years that amount has meant as much as half a million dollars. This means that Pepsi may be giving away $500,000 or more in corporate earnings to a controversial organization to help fund its religious viewpoint. Pepsi helps fund religious bigotry and hatred.

The Coca Cola Company lists the exact amounts of its corporate donations. Pepsi should do the same. Why is PepsiCo hiding this information? In the era of Bernie Madoff, Enron, bank failures and the like, Pepsi must be accountable; Pepsi must be transparent to her shareholders and customers. But you are not.

PepsiCo is listed on the PFLAG website as a founding sponsor of PFLAG’s so-called “Straight for Equality” program. This program is aimed at heterosexuals. It gives heterosexuals a list of 10 things they can do to be what they call, a “straight ally,” in their church.

This PepsiCo funded program also publishes a “Straight for Equality in Healthcare” manual for heterosexual doctors and nurses. This PFLAG manual misquotes medical associations in an attempt to discredit the ex-gay community. The manual also labels our lives as “snake oil” and “deceitful.” It makes a list of groups to avoid, called “Meet the Snake Oil Salesman.” Three ex-gay groups are listed. One of them is Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, PFOX. My name is Gregory Quinlan; I am the President of PFOX. I am an Ex-Gay man.

Madame Chair and Board of Directors, I can tell you that almost everything said about PFOX on p. A-29 of your PepsiCo funded manual is a lie. Why would you donate even one dollar to spread this kind of hate against people like me? I’m asking you here and now to correct these lies about PFOX on PepsiCo’s website so you can immediately undo some of the damage you have paid for.

Ms. Nooyi, you lead PepsiCo’s Diversity and Inclusion Governance Council. I don’t want to hear any more words from you about diversity and inclusion — I want you to actually practice it. [Applause]

As for Peggy Moore, who represents PepsiCo on the PFLAG Board Workplace Diversity Committee, she should be fired because she doesn’t know the first thing about diversity if she can’t respect people like me. And PepsiCo should resign immediately from PFLAG’s so-called Diversity Committee. Why would PepsiCo sit on a committee that defines diversity to only include those people whose religious ideology they agree with?

Ms. Nooyi and PepsiCo Board of Directors do you make these decisions because of replicated scientific studies supporting specific biological etiology for homosexuality? I can answer that for you. You can’t because there is zero evidence. ZERO that anyone is born homosexual.

Once again, I urge the PepsiCo Board of Directors, yes; each and every one of you, to do your jobs and hold PepsiCo to the ideals and standards it claims to follow. I shouldn’t have to come here year after year asking PepsiCo to stop funding hate against people like me.

The PepsiCo Charitable Contributions Shareholder Proposal asks PepsiCo to fully divulge its funding to groups and account for how the company’s charitable contributions are actually used, a reasonable request. Otherwise, PepsiCo’s actions will adversely affect its public image and goodwill.

Thank you. [Applause]
_____________________________________

Listen to the speech at http://pfox.org/Pepsico_5-6-10.mp3. Go HERE to donate to PFOX.

Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news: http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC

"Where the boys are": homosexual bathhouses lure young men into anonymous sodomies. The CDC and Obama Administration should shut down these perversion centers or at least hit them with a large "sin tax." Above is taken from the Steamworks bathhouse chain's website.

Dear Readers, once again the reality that Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality breaks through the bureaucracy’s official political correctness on this issue. Note how the CDC admits that anal sex is  a much higher risk activity than other sexual practices. Yet to teach the special risks of sodomy in schools would be to invite a “discrimination” lawsuit by the ACLU! Homosexual oral sex also is mentioned as a risk factor for syphilis. So why don’t the nation’s “Best and Brightest” on this issue launch an educational, pro-health campaign against “gay” sex, especially sodomy?

A less bold option might be to levy a heavy “sin tax” on homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs where dangerous, anonymous, “queer” sex proliferates, or — God forbid — actually to shut down these perversion centers as public health hazards. (Instead, “gay” bathhouses like “Steamworks” (right) are flourishing and even offering “Spring Break discounts” to lure young men.)

We understand that such ideas are anathema to the “gay”-pandering fraternity of the enlightened who run the country’s incompetent “war on AIDS” — you know, the types who truly believe their own propaganda that “homophobia” helps spread HIV. But the folly of their failed approach is revealed by press releases like that below. Common sense dictates that our government get out of the “gay” advocacy business and start aggressively targeting homosexual practices linked directly to disease — rather than trying to make those inherently unsafe practices “safe.”

If you have any other ideas on how to target destructive homosexual behaviors rather than “homophobia,” write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NCHHSTP – National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Press Release [emphasis added]

All Findings Embargoed Until: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
Contact: NCHHSTPMediaTeam@cdc.gov [the NCHHSTP is the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention within the CDC]; (404) 639-8895

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

“While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President’s upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

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.”

Posted by MassResistance October 30, 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

READ THE REST OF THE STORY on MassResistance’s website

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Folks, we have been slow to comment on all the Harvey Milk hype in our liberal-dominated popular culture — hype that is driving this push for an outrageous California bill that would effectively force students to celebrate a man famous for … being the first “out and proud” practitioner of homosexuality to win public office. (Oh boy: another marker for America’s Moral Meltdown.) The more one reads about Milk (see Dan Flynn’s excellent City Journal piece HERE) and the real story about his murder at the hands of Dan White (see caption above), the more preposterous becomes the idea of heralding him as a “civil rights” martyr.

For the media, Hollywood and academic establishments, the fix is in on championing Milk as an American hero. For the rest of us (the silent majority), he was a just a man with a sexual problem who achieved a political first in a city — San Francisco — that devolved into a Mecca for others with the same sexual sin problem. Had he not practiced deviant and unhealthy sex, nobody would care about the name Harvey Milk. Incidentally, this epitomizes what is wrong with “gay” history: it’s mostly written by those with a vested interest in normalizing aberrant and immoral sexual lifestyles.

And now, if Arnold wimps out, California children will learn some more skewed history. They will be taught to associate heroism, nobility and justice with a politician who not only crusaded for a misguided cause — state-enfored “rights” based on homosexuality — but who lied to advance that cause and his career. See my friend Randy Thomasson’s Save California website for more background on Milk, and information on how to urge Schwarzenegger (916-445-2841) to do the right thing by vetoing this bill. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from Baptist Press (emphasis added); click HERE to sign up for BP alerts.

_______________________________

‘Harvey Milk Day’ heads to Calif. gov’s desk

Baptist Press, Sep 9, 2009

By Michael Foust

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)–A bill that would encourage California public schools to observe “Harvey Milk Day” and to remember the deceased homosexual leader with “commemorative exercises” passed the state Senate Tuesday and is heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hasn’t taken a position on it.

Schwarzenegger actually vetoed a similar bill last year but is under more pressure this year in light of President Obama recently awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Milk, the nation’s first openly homosexual person elected to public office. Milk was a San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978 by another supervisor. The fact that the biographical movie “Milk” was released last year only adds to the pressure on the governor.

The bill (S.B. 572) would commemorate Milk with what the state calendar calls a day of “significance.” The only other such days are the Day of the Teacher (second Wednesday of May), John Muir Day (April 21) and California Poppy Day (April 6). Harvey Milk Day would be his birthday, May 22.

Schwarzenegger actually referenced the bill on his Twitter account days ago, writing, “Give me your thoughts on the water package, Harvey Milk Day, and the prison reform bill.”

It passed the Senate, 22-14, and the House, 46-28, along party-line votes with Democrats in the majority….

Individual schools and teachers could decide on their own whether to mark the day, although many certainly would. The text of the bill says “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe.” The bill says it would be appropriate to have “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

State Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat and the bill’s sponsor, told The San Francisco Chronicle, “It should be kept in mind that he [Milk] literally gave his life so I and others can serve in public office and that every generation of LGBT Californians can pursue their every hope, dream and aspiration.”

But Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the bill and the president of SaveCalifornia.com, said Milk’s sexual escapades make him unfit to be pushed as a role model. For weeks, Thomasson’s press releases have quoted from “The Mayor of Castro Street,” a popular biography about Milk. Milk was 48 when he died but always had a desire for teen boys and men in their early 20s, the book says. He also advocated having multiple partners, it says….

Thomasson said in a [statement:] “Reputable biographies demonstrate that Milk was a sexual predator of teens, a homosexual sex addict who advocated polygamous relationships, and a public liar who justified his deceit. Harvey Milk was and is a terrible role model for kids, including kindergarteners who would be affected by this very bad bill.”