Welcome to Americans for Truth, a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda.
TAKE ACTION: Below are the main homosexual/trans activist bills that we urge you to stand against (call Congress at 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org):
Federal “Special Workplace Rights” Based on Homosexuality and Gender Confusion — ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017; S 1584) — 40 co-sponsors in Senate (all but 2 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1584; 181 co-sponsors in the House (all but 5 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017. More info on this Top Priority bill for “gay” activists: http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-homosexual-opm-chief-calls-enda-top-priority-keystone-that-will-propel-rest-of-gay-legislation.html
Allowing Admitted Homosexuals in the Military — HR 1283, audaciously entitled, “Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009″; 176 co-sponsors: all but one are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017.
Federal Domestic Partner Benefits for Homosexuals: (HR 2517); sponsored by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI); “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act”; 110 co-sponsors, all but 1 are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
Repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act); HR 3567: mischievously named the “Respect for Marriage Act” it would repeal DOMA, which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages”; homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposes this bill due to timing. See: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3567; “Gay” Blade account here: www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27207
Calls Prop 8 “divisive,” touts DOMA repeal, links “Selma to Stonewall”
America is getting to know the real Barack Obama — and he’s a lot more radical than a 2008 presidential candidate by the same name. This aggressively pro-homosexual speech by Michelle Obama to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (June 27, 2008) had only 56,805 views on YouTube as of August 7, 2009. Most Americans have never seen this side of Michelle Obama, just as most have not seen the side of her husband that celebrated America’s biggest abortion “provider,” Planned Parenthood, in a 2007 campaign speech. (That speech had only 84,875 views on YouTube as of Aug. 7.) Social liberals and “gay” activists will cheer this speech by Michelle; everyone else won’t recognize her vis-à-visthe “apolitical” First Lady described by the national media. (A transcript follows the video; emphasis and web links added.) — Peter LaBarbera
To put it in perspective: timeless truth from that “obscure” passage in the New Testament.–Ed.:
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)
HRC uses 11 criteria to rank corporations — including shunning pro-family groups
By Peter LaBarbera
McDonald’s Corporation scored an 85 percent ranking on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) “Corporate Equality Index.” HRC, the nation’s leading homosexual lobby group, publishes the corporate survey every year. The following are the 11 criteria used by HRC to evaluate whether a major company is sufficiently pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual; note that McDonald’s passed all but one test (a gender-identity ‘nondiscrimination’ policy– criterion 2a). (AFTAH has endorsed a nationwide boycott of McDonald’s.) See important explanatory notes at bottom:
Criterion 3c ++: [McDonald's: YES] Offers at Least Three Other ‘Soft’ Benefits for Domestic Partners ++ (5 points)
Criterion 4: [McDonald's: YES] Has Employer-Supported Employee Resource Group OR Firm-Wide Diversity Council (15 points)
Criterion 5: [McDonald's: YES] Engages in Appropriate and Respectful Advertising, Marketing or Philanthropy (15 points)
Criterion 6: [McDonald's: YES] Exhibits Responsible Behavior Toward the GLBT Community; Does Not Engage in Action That Would Undermine GLBT Equality. Employers Found Engaging in Such Activities Will — Have 15 Points Removed From Their Scores. (—) +++
As local organizations start mobilizing their troops to the front lines of marriage in California, FRC is launching a national effort to educate the public to the damage this ruling may do to democracy, the family, and religious freedom. Together with a broad coalition of pro-family allies, FRC has planned a strategic series of panel discussions on the implications of the California supreme court decision for the nation. Tomorrow, we’ll kick off the event at the National Press Club with legal and policy experts such as Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, FRC’s own Ken Blackwell, and more. More people must recognize that this epidemic of judicial activism has sweeping consequences for children, businesses, the legal system, and every other facet of society. If you live or work in the nation’s capital, we encourage you to join us at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow at 529 14th Street, NW for “California Same-Sex Marriage: Answering the Assault on Family and Society.” To RSVP, call 1-800-225-4008 or visit our website at www.frc.org. If you cannot attend, please log onto our site Thursday afternoon for video of the panel discussion.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior — homosexuality — that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn — TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts — this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted.
California’s highest court has just invalidated California’s Proposition 22, creating a legal “fundamental” right to homosexual so-called “marriage” out of thin air, under the guise of equal protection. We’re reading the 172-page decision — available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF — now, but as we suspected, the court’s majority made use of the fact that in California, homosexual couples already have been given most of the same rights as normal couples — including the right to adopt children.
Footnote 72 on page 117 of the California decision is key:
Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.”
Congratulations to the Thomas More Law Center, AFA of Michigan and all the pro-family groups, legislators, citizens, and churches in Michigan for successfully defending marriage in your state!
The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.
The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.
“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
