“People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?” – Service member comment made in Focus Group as part of the administration’s DoD’s report on repealing the ban on open homosexuality in the Armed Forces.

According to a Support Plan for implementing President Obama's plan to allow open homosexuals to serve in the military, a couple of male Marines in civilian clothes could kiss and display homo-erotic affection at the local mall without any repercussions. "Standards of conduct regarding public displays of affection (PDA) are orientation-neutral," according to the report (p. 82). What about on base? Obama's radical Repeal plan would degrade the moral authority of our Armed Forces and turn the Pentagon into the biggest bureaucracy working to mainstream homosexuality (sin) that the world has ever seen.

The U.S. Senate is hours, or perhaps a day, away from what I believe is the most important congressional vote on homosexuality ever taken in the USA: a bill that would Repeal the existing ban on open homosexuality in the military [Call your Senators: 202-224-3121]. If we lose and the Repeal goes forward, it will usher in a sea-change of pro-homosexual political correctness — not just on our Armed Forces, but on the rest of society, as a Brave, New, ‘Gay’-affirming Military will be held up as the new “civil rights” paradigm for the rest of America (God help us). The Homosexual Lobby knows what is at stake, which is why they have been pounding Capitol Hill for weeks on the Repeal. Unfortunately, not enough conservatives and people of faith understand the critical importance of this vote.

A handful of Republicans such as Sen. Scott Brown (who has flip-flopped on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and the two Maine Senators (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) may join with the Democrats in supporting the fast-track legislation passed by the House Wednesday (see vote Roll Call HERE). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs 60 votes to homosexualize the Armed Forces.

As sure as New Years Day follows Christmas, the Homosexual Lobby would seize upon this (giant) opening and push for more and more pro-homosexuality policy changes in the military — including same-sex partner benefits, “married” housing for homosexual Service members, sweeping pro-gay “diversity” propaganda for our troops, etc.  What a Christmas “gift” for our military men and women! (More like a huge, rainbow-striped lump of coal.) Please pray and do all you can to oppose this radical legislation! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

________________________________________

Action Steps:

1) Call your Senators using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 (www.senate.gov) and urge your U.S. Senators to vote against the Repeal of the military’s “gay” ban — and demand that a full and fair debate be held on this radical legistlation that would turn the Pentagon into the world’s largest de facto pro-”gay” advocacy agency. Here are some key Senators to call in this bill; use the Capitol Switchboard (202-114-3121; 202-225-3121) or even better: go to www.senate.gov for their contact info and call their local office numbers:

Republicans:

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK):
• Sen. Scott Brown (MA):
• Sen. Mark Kirk (IL; still “undecided,” according to his aides):
• Sen. Richard Lugar (IN)
• Sen John Ensign (NV)
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME)
• Sen. Susan Collins (ME)
• Judd Gregg (NH)
• George Voinovich (OH)

Democrats:

• Joe Manchin (WV) (he was the only Democrat who voted with the Republicans to deny cloture in the last Senate Repeal vote)
• Bill Nelson (FL),
• Ben Nelson (NE),
• Jon Tester (MT),
• Evan Bayh (IN),
• James Webb (VA)
• Mark Warner (VA),
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Blanche Lincoln (AR)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)

2) Pray that this Repeal bill would be stalled in the Senate. Contact your friends and urge them to pray as well. If Harry Reid calls the House bill and gets 60 votes, this battle is over — and then (as with Obama-care) Americans will learn the radical ramifications of this legislation!)

3) Pass this e-mail to your family members, friends, and contacts — especially those living in states with key states above, and urge them to take action!

_______________________________________

Background — Working Group Report makes case for NOT repealing the “gay” ban:

I finally read most of the Obama-/Def. Sec. Gates-commissioned Working Group DoD report on the DADT Repeal and – although biased and carefully written and “spun” to camouflage some of the extreme results of allowing open homosexuals in the military, it STILL contains plenty of information showing how damaging the Repeal would be to our military. Here are some findings of and problems with the DoD report:

• 23.7 % of surveyed Service members (38.1 % of Marines) said repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cause them to “leave [the military] sooner than I planned” or “think about leaving sooner than I had planned”;
• 44.3% of combat veterans (59.4% of Marines) said that having an open homosexual in their immediate unit in a field environment or out at sea would “Negatively” or “Very Negatively” affect their “unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission”; other survey data shows significant opposition within the ranks to the idea of homosexuals serving openly;
• A major flaw of the Working Group report is the analogy it draws between Service members currently serving with men and women they know or suspect to be homosexuals (under DADT) — with being able to serve alongside “gays and lesbians” under a new regime in which homosexuality is out of the closet. Obviously, in the current situation, homosexual Service members are forced to be discrete. A new military culture tolerant of ”open and proud” homosexuality – including pro-homosexual “diversity” teachings, etc. — is simply not analogous to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”;
• The report punts on the question of military benefits for same-sex couples, but recognizes that this will be a future issue — and even notes that one of the big problems it will cause is that unmarried heterosexual soldiers will be upset if coupled “gay” soldiers get partner benefits while they are not allowed to get benefits for their hetero boyfriend or girlfriend. Thus, repealing the ban jars open a Pandora’s Box: surely gay activists will DEMAND partner benefits — using lawsuits if necessary — in the name of respect, equality, and “fairness”;
• The report discusses respecting Service members’ “dignity” but rules out separate shower facilities and barracks for homosexuals – saying that doing so would “stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ‘separate but equal’ for blacks prior to the 1960s” (p. 12). In other words, the Armed Forces is more concerned about offending ’gay and lesbian” members’ sensitivities than defending the privacy rights and dignity of normal, hetero Service men and women;
• The above shows that in the name of paving the way for homosexuals’ alleged “civil rights,” the DoD is willing to abridge the civil rights of the normal majority of Service Members;
• The above is also just one example of the DoD’s unfortunate penchant for linking the laudable and noble civil rights achievement of racially integrating black soldiers into the Armed Forces with the crusade to allow open homosexuals — with their attendant sexual desires and behavior — into the military. Racism is bigotry, and wrong. Moral opposition to homosexuality (widely and historically regarded as sinful) — and common-sense privacy concerns based on the self-described sexual desires of homosexual men and lesbians – are natural and acceptable. Applying the DoD report’s logic, men should be able to shower with women as long as they recognize that they cannot ogle them or make sexual advances on them in the shower (see p. 13: “to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations”);
• The Working Group report admits that factoring in the sentiments it received in its review process — through large “informational exchange forums” held on bases, smaller focus groups, online confidential communications, etc. — “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal of the current policy” (p. 49). Perhaps this helps explain why President Obama and Defense Sec. Gates did not task the Working Group with studying whether the troops wanted this pro-homosexual change, but rather how a Repeal would be implemented;
• There are some excellent comments from Service members opposing Repeal in the DoD report, including this by a woman: “I do not have to shower or sleep with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel uncomfortable” changing and sleeping as I would if it wa a man in the room. i should not have to accept this.” (p. 50);
• On DADT: “You don’t ask and you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke so don’t fix it.” (p. 52);
• On using the military to promote immorality: “People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?” (p. 55)
• In defending the right of religious and moral-minded Service members (and chaplains) to voice their opposition to homosexuality, the DoD report authors seem oblivious to the escalating legal and cultural conflict in the civilian world between homosexual activists’ demanding same-sex “rights” – and the freedom of Christians and other moral critics to live out their opposition to that behavior. Surely this “values contest” will be transferred to the a post-Repeal military — as many homosexual activists will put their “right” to be accepted above the freedom of Service members to disagree with homosexuality. The report offers no coherent plan for how it will manage and balance that inherent conflict — and how it will avoid trampling over the rights of moral-minded Service-members in its zeal to enforce homosexual tolerance through (presumably mandatory) post-Repeal education and training programs.

Elaine Donnelly testifies against homosexualizing the military in the name of "nondiscrimination." Donnelly cautions that few lawmakers realize the radical changes that would result from opening up the Armed Forces to homosexuals -- including the persecution of moral-minded servicemembers and chaplains.

TAKE ACTION: Elaine Donnelly rightly warns in an interview with AFTAH of the devastating impact of Obama’s plan to homosexualize our military. Have you contacted both your U.S. Senators to oppose repealing the military’s common-sense homosexuality ban? Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) says he has the votes to move forward on a Defense bill containing the repeal measure. A repeal vote by the lame-duck Senate could come any time after Dec. 1. Call 202-224-3121 or go to www.Congress.org to make your voice heard!

____________________________________

This interview [click HERE to listen] with Center for Military Readiness founder and president Elaine Donnelly aired Nov. 20, 2010, and was recorded Nov. 17. As the leading proponent of maintaining the military’s common-sense ban on homosexuality, Donnelly more than any other American has fought debilitating “politically correct” agendas in the Armed Forces. In this discussion, she covers:

• the unforeseen harm to good order and discipline that would result from allowing open homosexuals in the military;
• how the Pentagon working group report on the repeal of the “gay” ban is a thinly-veiled tool to advance President Obama’s radical plan to homosexualize the miltary; 
• how the Obama administration led by Defense Sec. Robert Gates has politicized the investigations of homosexual soldiers violating the existing homosexual ban — effectively neutralizing the law;
• why “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land;
• how pro-homosexual diversity sessions and policies would be foisted on the conservative military culture to enforce “sexual orientation nondiscrimination”;
• the radical effect on military housing policy resulting from repealing the “gay” ban;
• how religious serviemembers and chaplains who oppose homosexuality as a matter of faith and conscience could be targeted for disciplinary action in a homosexuality-affirming military — especially if their opposition were to become public;
• the implications of a “zero tolerance” policy for soldiers expressing opposition to homosexuals in the military;
• what the surveys actually show regarding military and public attitudes toward the military’s homosexuality ban. 

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  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. 

11-20-10, Elaine Donnelly, All

Barack Obama may be setting new highs when it comes to presidential appointments of People Practicing Homosexuality (PPH) in his administration — already more than 150, according to AP – but he’s setting new lows everywhere else. Yesterday, leftie Comedy Central “anchor” Jon Stewart referred to the Commander-in-Chief as “dude” in the course of his half-hour interview with Obama. (Obama is the first president to appear on the show.) 

Read liberal Washington Post writer Dana Milbank’s slam on Obama and his appearance (“On Comedy Central, the joke was on President Obama Wednesday night”) HERE, and watch the “dude” reference in context starting at about 1:45 on Part 3 of the videos of the Daily Show interview HERE.

I agree with this comment responding to a YouTube critical of Obama’s Daily Show disaster: “Obama has diminished himself so many times enough already that even liberals don’t treat him with presidential respect.” We at AFTAH are not nearly as cool as Jon Stewart, and don’t have anything approaching his cultural sway (especially with young people), but here are some questions and comments we wish he would have delivered to the Dude-in-Chief:

• Dude, stop undermining our military by using illegal means to homosexualize it (under the existing law that only Congress can change, homosexuals are barred from serving in the Armed Forces; see www.cmrlink.org); 
• Dude, abortion is the murder of an innocent life; stop promoting it and don’t make taxpayers subsidize it;
• Dude, aren’t you trashing the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution by granting via Executive Order marriage-type benefits to homosexual “spouses“?;
• On the same point: dude, you really pulled the wool over America’s eyes (and Rick Warren’s…) with all that talk in the 2008 campaign about how you believe marriage should be preserved as between a man and a woman. If that were true, why didn’t you use your Bully Pulpit to criticize the homosexual activist judge who recently single-handedly overturned California’s Proposition 8 — even though this marriage-defense amendment had passed in a statewide referendum?
• Dude, homosexuality is a sin, according to the Big Guy Upstairs (the real Annointed One) who created the world, so could you stop celebrating homosexual “pride” and stop promoting “gay” identities to impressionable young people?
• Speaking of which: dude, do you get to change God’s transcendent moral code just because you’re the coolest cat who ever sat in the Oval Office (the pro-homosexuality-obsessed Jon Stewart also might ask that of himself…);
• Dude, fire Kevin Jennings. He hates Bible-believing Christians (at least those who object to his homosexual lifestyle) — and the organization he founded, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), promotes reckless sexual behavior and gender confusion to minors; what message are you sending by stubbornly keeping this bigoted extremist on the Obama Team?
• Dude, stop making a sham of your public profession to be a Christian by using your tremendous executive powers to distort historic Christian teachings – and promoting sexual immorality as a “right” and abortion-on-demand as a “choice”;
• Dude, before you made that YouTube video about bullied gay youth, shouldn’t you at least have looked into the massive health risks linked to gay sex? Is the proper response to bullying to promote dangerous lifestyles and identities based on unnatural and unhealthy behaviors?
• Dude, we get it: you respect Muslims, but enough with the “America is not a Christian nation” comments already;
• Dude, since you respect Muslims so much, why not learn from their strong moral disapproval of homosexuality and abortion?
• Dude, a federal bill granting “civil rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion (ENDA, the Employmen Non-Discrimination Act) will be used to take away the rights of other citizens who disagree with homosexuality. What about their “civil rights”?; in fact, the woman you appointed to the E.E.O.C., Chai Feldblum, has essentially affirmed that the courts will grant superior rights to homosexuals at the expense of Americans’ religious liberties; “Gays win, Christians lose,” she says; is that fair in a nation founded on religious liberty?
• Dude, why don’t you expand your vision by “vetoing” Political Correctness and inviting some EX-”gays” to the White House? Wouldn’t that be consistent with your commitment to “diversity”?
• Dude, why did one of your “gay” appointees urge his fellow homosexual activists visiting the White House to lobby for coverage of transsexual “sex-change” operations under Obama-care? I feel sorry for these terribly confused people,  but should Americans be forced to pay for their grotesque, body-disfiguring operations with their hard-earned tax dollars?…. 

We could go on and on, but there is too much work to be done to spend time pondering the degree to which Obama has degraded the Office of the Presidency, and harmed the United States of America with his left-wing agenda (after running for office posturing as a moderate). There’s a big election Tuesday. Change is coming. Yes, we can, dude — er … Mr. President. Yes, we can. — 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

Would Ann Coulter speak at an event for “Republicans For Responsible Porn Use,” or “Republicans for Higher Taxes,” or Republicans for Choice (Abortion) -- if such groups took legitimately conservative positions on other issues like gun rights?

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; e-mail: AmericansForTruth@gmail.com ; August 10, 2010

CHICAGO — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera today urged conservative pundit Ann Coulter to reconsider her appearance at “Homocon,” a September event for the homosexual Republican group GOProud. 

LaBarbera said: 

As a fan of Ann Coulter, it pains me to see her cave in to political correctness and lend credibility to the phony homosexual “conservatives” over at GOProud. Worse, Coulter is sending a dangerous message to young Americans that homosexuality is OK. (It’s actually a sin.) Fully half of GOProud’s top 10 federal priorities center on using the Government to advance homosexuality, including: 

#4 – “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” – Homosexualizing the military is reckless, especially in wartime. GOProud claims to defend “individual liberty,” but what about the privacy rights of normal soldiers who don’t want to bunk and shower with men who lust after other men? Moreover, if DADT is repealed, the military will become a massive government bureaucracy for pro-homosexual “diversity” – subjecting millions of tradition-minded servicemen to Orwellian, same-sex propaganda to enforce its new lavender crusade. (Chaplains: beware.) 

# 7 – “Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.” Coulter must know that America might be just one Supreme Court justice away from legalizing oxymoronic homosexual “marriage” – which would undermine religious freedom in every state in the nation. A Federal Marriage Amendment could be the only way to stop this Roe v. Wade-like disaster. And since when did state-enforced homosexual “marriage” – with its corrosive effect on liberty and linkage to Homosexuality Promotion in schools — become “conservative”? 

GOProud's flier for Ann Coulter appearance Sept. 25 in New York City.

GOProud is non-committal on ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would federalize workers’ “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. A truly conservative organization would fight this federal power grab — and GLBT lawyers’ dream legislation — tooth and nail. Ann, are you aware that these days it’s Christians like Julea Ward and Matt Barber who defend biblical truth – not “gays” – who are victims of corporate discrimination? 

One must ask Coulter, who professes Christianity: 

• Would you speak at an event for “Republicans For Responsible Porn Use,” or “Republicans for Higher Taxes,” or Republicans for Choice (Abortion) — if such groups took legitimately conservative positions on other issues like gun rights?
• Does God condemn only Democratic “men who lie with a male as one lies with a woman” – while giving Republican sodomists a pass?

Homosexual practice may be hip in New York City, but objectively it is always wrong and unnatural, and often unhealthy. Thankfully it’s also changeable, as proved by thousands of ex-gay men and ex-lesbians. Ann: why don’t you speak instead at a conference for former homosexuals? It’s not PC, but it would be far more consistent with your conservative principles than celebrating GOProud – which works directly against the Republican Party’s pro-family and pro-marriage platform. 

Please reconsider and nix your GOProud talk — in the name of true conservatism.­

Julea Ward

From the Alliance Defense Fund website:

ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior

DETROIT — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys will appeal a problematic federal court decision issued Monday in a lawsuit filed on behalf of student Julea Ward against Eastern Michigan University after it kicked out the Christian student for holding to her beliefs.  EMU dismissed Ward from its graduate counseling program in March 2009 for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.  Ward would not agree to change her religious beliefs about homosexual behavior or express a message contrary to them during counseling sessions as a condition to receiving a degree.

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan last month.  “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court:  uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

EMU initiated its disciplinary process against Ward shortly after she enrolled in a counseling practicum course in January 2009, when she was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship.  Recognizing the potential conscience issue with the client, and knowing she could not affirm the client’s homosexual relationship without violating her religious beliefs, Ward asked her supervisor how to handle the matter.  Ward was advised to reassign the potential client to a different counselor.  EMU then informed Ward that she could only stay in the counseling program if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program.  Its purpose was to help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships.

At a subsequent formal review meeting, EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views and asked several inappropriate and intrusive questions about her religious beliefs.  A faculty committee then dismissed her from the counseling program.  Ward appealed, but the dean of EMU College of Education upheld the dismissal.

“Julea merely followed her supervising professor’s advice by referring a potential client to a counselor who had no conscience issue with the particular matter to be discussed,” said French.  “She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. We trust the 6th Circuit will understand the constitutional issues involved in this case.”

The EMU speech codes enabling the university’s actions were challenged as part of the ADF lawsuit, Ward v. Wilbanks.  One policy prohibiting “discrimination based on…sexual orientation” adds that counselors cannot “condone” what the university defines as discrimination.  Another problematic policy states that EMU’s counseling department may discipline a student who shows a “failure to tolerate different points of view.”

Steven M. Jentzen, one of nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is local counsel in the case. ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Augusta State University in Georgia.

• ADF University Project website

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Jennifer Keeton

Here’s the latest victim of the Pro-Gay Thought Police (PGTP): Jennifer Keeton. Her predicament is further evidence of the “zero-sum game” in the Culture War between pro-”gay” policies/laws and religious liberty. It’s incredible that this public institution, Augusta State U,, is requiring this principled young woman to alter her beliefs and even attend a “gay pride” parade as a condition for completing the program. (Imagine the outcry if a public university required a committed, secular ”gay” student to go to a Bible-believing church as part of a remediation plan.)

Will authentic Bible-believing Christians (as opposed to the compromised, homosexuality-affirming variety) be boxed out of the counseling profession? If so, faithful Christians will have to support alternative counseling institutions, because unrepentant homosexuality will never be compatible with Christianity. And there are way too many happy ex-gays and ex-lesbians out there for sexually struggling people not to be given this healthy option.

Modern “diversity” is to genuine diversity as Marxist-Leninist “People’s Democratic Republics” are to true democracy. Wouldn’t true “diversity” allow people to exercise their own choice to see either a pro-homosexual counselor or one that adheres to traditional moral views? I guess that’s asking too much of left-wing academics and the pro-”GLBTQ” movement.  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org 

P.S. Check out this Queety blog post on the Keeton case. It contains a video of Keeton giving her side of the story. Note the nasty and irrational pro-homosexual comments that follow the Queerty post, including this one:

Imagine if a KKK member became a firefighter and said “If a black person is in a fire I’m not going to save their life. It’s against my beliefs.” Rubbish.

_______________________________________

LifeSiteNews reports [Click HERE to subscribe to LifeSite's daily e-mails.]:

Augusta State Univ. to Counseling Student: Change Beliefs or Get Out

AUGUSTA, Georgia, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against Augusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling student who was allegedly told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The student, Jennifer Keeton, says she has been told to stop communicating her beliefs and that she must undergo “training” to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from the counseling program.

Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.

“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.

“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”

Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. Lawyers say that after her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton says she never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.

The plan, according to ADF lawyers, assails Keeton’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” They say the plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training” and to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.”

Each month, Keeton is allegedly required to complete a report on how the “remediation” assignments have influenced her beliefs so that faculty can “decide the appropriateness of her continuation in the counseling program.” Lawyers say the plan concludes by noting that “failure to complete all elements of the remediation plan will result in dismissal from the Counselor Education Program.”

In an ADF video, Keeton said that, “While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs.” “I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t, change my Biblical views,” she said.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley with the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia.

ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University and successfully resolved a case at Missouri State University. Also in litigation is a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

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).

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/