Then there are the targets of more crass homosexual extremism such as Maggie Gallagher, Greg Quinlan, AFTAH, Mike Heath, and pretty much every pro-family leader who still resists the “queer” activist agenda — and even churches that stick to the Word of God on sexual morality or that dare advance the redemptive truth that men and women can overcome homosexuality through Christ.

A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward,  a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:

Reprinted from the Christian Civic League of Maine website:

Nov 6, 2009

The normal routine of the League was interrupted Friday afternoon, when an anonymous caller called to say he owned guns and his next target was the former director of the League, Mike Heath (right). The death threat was apparently related to the recent win on Question 1, which revoked the right of homosexuals to be married in Maine.

The caller said the following:

“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine.  He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”

The call was the latest and most serious example of intimidation by homosexual rights supporters after the win on same sex marriage. The League withheld publishing comments from homosexual rights supporters since the referendum vote, for fear the comments would be too offensive for our readers.

The death threat now provides our readers with the proper context for understanding these comments, which are as follows. They will not be suitable for some readers:

“Your ‘Pastor” is a BIGOT…..and [expletive deleted] CRAZY.”

“You sick (expletive deleted)!  You have nothing to offer except hate, bigotry, and lies.  …homosexuality is not a sickness and you know it. It is perfectly normal. If anything is a sickness and a scourge, it is your hatred. Excuse me while I go puke.”

“The real sin is not treating all people equal. You will all burn in hell.”

Here is more:

“Please pray that people in Maine see through the charade of religious (expletive deleted) spewed by Rev. Heath. He is NOT a Christian. He needs to simply shut up. Just because same-sex marriage, which was voted on by a majority (heterosexuals) to discriminate against a minority (homosexuals) doesn’t mean it was right.”

“You people are devil worshipers and are going to (phrase deleted) and get nailed to a cross by a man in leather chaps listening to Barbara Streisand and the rest of the world will cheer for your slow painful death. [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted]”

“Seriously…Jesus would hate you. Everyone else does. You are sinners and not Christians. Again [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] do the world a favor by slitting your throats and the rest of your congregation too. [expletive deleted]  Pray for yourselves you idiots. You are the ones who will burn in hell… not believing in equality for all. God hates you. and you know it deep down inside.”

The League immediately reported the death threat against Heath to the Augusta Police Department, which is investigating the incident.

Obama likes to play basketball, and the head fake is an important part of the game. You try to get your defender to commit with a head or body fake, throwing him off balance so you can move in to take the real shot (or get a clear shot at the basket). “Both Sides” Barack, the candidate, made some pretty good head fakes on abortion and homosexual “marriage” during the campaign, and many Americans were fooled. He said he wanted to “reduce the number of abortions” and pretended to be a strong supporter of preserving traditional marriage. (Remember the Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren?)

Then the real Obama went to the hoop: he championed the radical Freedom of Choice Act to rally his pro-abortion base as a candidate, expanded taxpayer-funded abortions worldwide as president, and now is moving to destroy DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996). But the double-game is getting much tougher for Obama: a growing number of Americans are seeing him for what he is: the most radically left president ever to occupy the Oval Office. Shame on the gullible Christians and religionists who went for his head fakes. We’d be fools to rely on them again to “defend” life and marriage. — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. I wonder if Obama is aware of Planned Parenthood’s racist origins.

[This YouTube video had only 85,371 hits as of Aug. 30, 2009.]

SAVE THE DATE, Saturday Oct 24: Please save the evening of Saturday, October 24 to attend Americans For Truth’s banquet. Our featured speaker is Matt Barber, culture warrior for Liberty Counsel. Matt is quite a guy, to say the least. He’s gone from being a professional heavyweight boxer, to being fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article — on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality, to his current position as one of America’s leading defenders of natural marriage and family. AFTAH got rave reviews for its last banquet; you won’t want to miss this one! The event will be held outside Chicago, at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. Tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (just note “AFTAH banquet” in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate: “AFTAH banquet”) to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.  Write us at  americansfortruth@comcast.net, or call Donna at 910-308-7619, for additional information. Please spread the word and we hope to see you there on Oct. 24th!

Note: you can read some of Matt’s columns by plugging his name in the “Search” button on the upper right corner of the AFTAH website.

– Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com

By Laurie Higgins

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen of the oddly named Truth Wins Out described Dr. Michael Brown’s group of evangelists (the “God Has a Better Way” campaign responding to the Charlotte, N.C. “gay pride” parade) as “uninvited locusts” descending on Charlotte. With that description in mind, I wonder how conservatives should describe the thousands of participants in “pride” parades and “fairs” who pollute our streets with illegal nudity and public sex acts to which law enforcement agents, who are paid by the public to enforce laws, turn a blind eye.

When Besen said that “the notion that gay people in conservative North Carolina needed Brown to educate them about religious fundamentalism was farcical,” he revealed his ignorance about Biblical and Historical Theology. Although the belief that homosexual acts violate God’s will is a belief held by “fundamentalists,” it also integral to all orthodox theological traditions and has been since the beginnings of the church. His ignorance is not surprising, however, since Besen is a member of the homosexual activist movement that regularly makes numerous ludicrous exegetical claims, including the claims that Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan had homosexual relationships.

Then Besen makes a patently false assertion when he states that homosexual activists are “falsely accused of working to undermine freedom of religion.” He may want to read the words of Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum who writes that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Besen’s clouded vision is manifest in this description of a group of Christians engaged in evangelism: “Most alarming are these charlatans’ deliberate perpetuation of paranoia by trumpeting alleged religious persecution that exists only in their warped minds.” Perhaps Besen should talk to the Christian infertility doctors in California whom a lesbian sued when their religious convictions prevented them from inseminating a lesbian. Or perhaps he should talk to the Christian owners of a New Mexico photography studio who were sued and fined for “discrimination” when their religious beliefs prevented them from photographing the commitment ceremony of two homosexuals.

Perhaps Besen (left) should talk to the Christian mother in Alameda, Cal., whose public school is introducing pro-homosexual resources to first-graders next year. The school is refusing to notify parents prior to the presentation of these resources and is refusing to allow parents to opt out. Or perhaps he should talk to me about the efforts of change.org to get a hotel to break a legal contract with Illinois Family Institute because of our religious conviction that homosexual acts are immoral. Sounds remarkably like religious persecution to me.

What is confusing in Besen’s diatribe are these two seemingly contradictory claims: first, he said, “Brown tries to cover his tracks by sprinkling his apocalyptic rhetoric with calls for non-violence. Good orators, however, understand the principle of ‘layering’ messages. If in one sentence you speak of violence and in the next of non-violence, the listener will almost always embrace the words that support his or her belief system.” This clearly implies that Dr. Brown “spoke of violence in one sentence.”

But shortly thereafter, Besen said, “Brown, of course, doesn’t actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem,” which seems to imply that Dr. Brown did not, in fact, “speak of violence.”

Besen takes issue with the proposition that the movement to normalize homosexuality tampers “with the foundations of human society.” Surely, he knows that this belief is not unique to Dr. Brown. It is widely held by theologians from most denominational traditions and by many legal scholars, philosophers, political commentators, sociologists, psychologists, and ordinary people of all educational backgrounds and walks of life. Many, many people view heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman who together produce and nurture future generations of children to be the foundational institution of any healthy society. Once society divorces marriage from children and marriage from gender, the institution becomes meaningless and the culture dies.

Besen goes on to say in his apoplectic way that “It is time for Brown and his comrades to abort their increasingly hostile and combative tactics before it leads to more wanton death.” This tactic of misrepresenting any public opposition to the ideologies and political actions of homosexual activists and their supporters as hate mongers, fomenters of violence, and bigots is the stock-in-trade of the “LGBT” movement. The logical implication of the argument that the expression of opposition to one group’s moral claims represents hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence, however, would be that Besen’s words represent hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence against Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, and secular conservatives.

Besen’s screed is laden with overheated, inflammatory, intolerant rhetoric. Kudos to Dr. Brown for doing what faith leaders should have done decades ago. Let’s hope more brave men step forward.

One last point on another topic: I noticed that Besen (shown with the bullhorn at right) refers to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth as “Porno Pete” which I also find ironic in light of the homosexual community’s purported opposition to name-calling.  It’s not just ironic; it’s hypocritical. It’s just one more revelatory sign of the intellectual and ethical vacuity of the homosexual movement.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of Illinois Family Institute’s Division of School Advocacy.

If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-”gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.

By Peter LaBarbera

Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)

Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U.  be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.

In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-”gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.

Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (”I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):

By Peter LaBarbera

OK, where do we start with the Perez Hilton-Carrie Prejean Miss USA controversy? Earlier today I was a guest on the Bob Dutko Show on WMUZ in Detroit, and observed that Hilton epitomizes the spoiled-brat aspect of “queer” activism. It’s bad enough that this obnoxious and rude “gay celebrity blogger” calls Miss California a “dumb bitch,” and then stands behind his ugly remark after initially apologizing for it. I want to know why this nasty fellow is then treated so deferentially by the media — first by this MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell and then NBC’s Matt Lauer? Are the liberal media — like those irresponsible parents who let themselves be manipulated by their spoiled children — now so indulgent toward homosexuals that they can’t even call out an angry activist whose vicious and juvenile conduct is obvious to most everyone else? Would NBC have accorded similar respect to a right-wing blogger who blasted a homosexual contestant as a “dumb fag”? Of course not (but they would have made an example of him as a hateful bigot, which is precisely what Mr. Hilton is). Watch this YouTube of this morning’s NBC Today Show, followed by more commentary after the jump:

… The reflexively pro-”gay” media have become the enablers of creeps like Perez Hilton because they allow themselves to be used and intimidated by them. (See Hilton’s penis-humor doctored photo of Carrie posted at bottom.) And when you give in to the bully, the bully steps up his abuse of others. In fact, Hilton with his absurd rationalizations for his misbehavior is himself the product of a media/Hollywood culture that rewards homosexual militants while demonizing sincere Christians. The good news is that the gay/liberal media overreach is starting to backfire: everyone can see that Hilton, and not Prejean, is the real hater here — just as most TV viewers who are not hardened liberal ideologues saw that MSNBC and CNN’s Anderson Cooper with their crude sex jokes about “Tea Party” rallies nationwide were the true extremists — while the ralliers themselves were mostly just good Americans with a beef against Big Government.

Check out his MSNBC clip (caption: “Miss California Stirs Controversy”! — in which O’Donnell is disturbingly solicitous of Hilton — how strange that she and the feminists aren’t coming to Prejean’s defense?:

Beyond the intimidation factor, many morally-challenged media professionals agree with Perez Hilton’s basic premise (minus the rudeness–except for potty-mouth MSNBC): they, too, barely acknowledge the anti-homosexual-”marriage” position as legitimate, as they stoke the “gay” story line that “same-sex marriage is inevitable” (despite 30 states passing anti-gay-”marriage” amendments). Here again note Hilton’s mindset, also representative of the GLBT movement: he is angry, stunned and horrified at Prejean’s answer — not because she disagrees with him on “gay marriage” (or so he says) — but because Miss California took sides and hence was “divisive.” This despite the fact that Prejean went out of her way not to alienate those who feel differently about this issue. Surely, the crazed Hilton would not have found Prejean “divisive” had she made an impassioned plea FOR “gay marriage.”

You see, it’s all about holding the “right” position — that is, the “gay” position — and shutting up or overriding your beliefs, or risk being smeared as a hateful “homophobe” if you dare to disagree. This is the emboldened Queer Lobby’s and their Amen Corner’s M.O. — whether it’s forcing a New Mexico Christian photographer to shoot a lesbian “wedding” against her convictions; trying to get Prop 8 thrown out and declared “unconstitutional” because you lost at the ballot box; equating opposition to “gay marriage” with rank bigotry, or moral opposition to homosexual behavior with “bullying gays”; or pressuring the media into rejecting ads featuring successful ex-”gays” (as GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has done).

God bless you, Carrie Prejean, for being, as you said, “Biblically Correct” and not “Politically Correct” when it came to sticking up for natural marriage — and for pleasing God rather than man in this defining moment of your young life. Yes, it’s sad that one state’s legislature has chosen to legalize homosexual marriage, but even if sizeable majorities of Americans turn against God and support these counterfeit, genderless “marriages,” that won’t make them right. Corrupt politicians can’t negate moral truth by a vote.

And as for you Perez, you need to ask this woman for forgiveness, but more importantly, you need to repent to a holy God for not only embracing sin in your own life, but shoving it down the throats of the rest of us with such callous arrogance.

One more request for Miss California: since you’re in the area, why don’t you pay a visit to Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren, or stop by the headquarters of eHarmony.com: they could use some of your courage and Biblical Correctness.

DOCTORED PHOTO FROM PEREZ HILTON’S WEBSITE: How Low Can You Go? — On his website, homosexual activist and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton doctors a photo of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answering a reporter’s question, by drawing a penis ejaculating into the mouth of Carrie Prejean over the microphone. How dare the media treat the hateful Hilton as a serious commentator!

Send To Phone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

The following is an account by my good friend Dave Smith of the Illinois Family Institute, on the leftist “queer” protest last night against my talk at the Christian Liberty Academy [listen to the speech or download it HERE]. I’ve been called a lot of nasty names in the last 15 years by loving and tolerant homosexual activists, but “Satan’s Lover” is certainly at the top of the list in terms of perverseness! Oh well, comes with the territory. Per the usual, Gay Liberation Network (GLN) — a far-left homosexual group in Chicago that once slandered Chicago’s historic Moody Church as a “House of Hate” — lied about the number of people who attended the talk (30 as opposed to 80-90).

Also note that GLN is on record supporting Wright State University’s banning of a Christian Bible group because it would not sign the university’s “nondiscrimination” policy — which would force it to violate its Christian teachings against homosexuality. Dave is right: the “Queer” Left is itching to take away our First Amendment freedoms, and it’s up to you and me to stop them. Stay strong. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

Dave Smith of Illinois Family Institute writes:

_________________________________________

Name Calling is O.K. for Anti-Christian Radicals3/24/2009 12:22:00 PM
By David E. Smith, Executive Director -Illinois Family Institute

Last night I joined approximately 80 to 90 other concerned citizens in Arlington Heights to listen to pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera talk about the homosexual agenda and our diminishing freedom of conscience. Peter is the President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, an organization dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda.

He did a fantastic job! (Listen to it online or download it HERE.)

As usual, there was a tiny group of homosexual protesters from the Gay Liberation Network. These activists follow LaBarbera to many of his speaking engagements in order to harass and intimidate anyone who dares to disagree with their pro-homosexual propaganda.

Ironically, some in the group chanted “love thy neighbor” while one of their compatriots carried a sign that said “LaBarbera is Satan’s lover.” [See the photos at top and bottom of this story.]

This is the same small group of intolerant, anti-Christian radicals who stood outside Bishop Larry D. Trotter’s Sweet Holy Spirit Church on Chicago’s South Side, yelling, “BORN AGAIN BIGOTS, GO AWAY” and other slogans designed to demonize people of faith who, like Trotter, stand up for God’s design for marriage.

This is the same small group who protested Moody Bible Church and Catholic Cardinal Francis George’s home as “Houses of Hate.” Defending biblical sexual morality is not prejudice, and defending natural marriage is not “hate.”

Make no mistake, radical, anti-Christian groups like the Gay Liberation Network would like nothing more than to use the heavy hand of government to censor LaBarbera’s work. They and other leftist groups are working to quash our First Amendment rights to freely exercise our religious faith.

The Lies of the Left: Bob Schwartz of the hard-left Gay Liberation Network’s (GLN) rails against Peter LaBarbera and Americans For Truth, outside the venue where LaBarbera discussed the threat that the “gay” agenda poses to religious liberty. Schwartz claims to be against censorship yet he applauded Wright State University for banning a Christian group from campus. Per the usual, GLN lied about the number of people attending the speech at Christian Liberty Academy, in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Listen to LaBarbera’s talk or download it HERE.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has escalated his homosexuality-affirming rhetoric in recent years, as he has sought to “expose” conservative Christians standing boldly against the GLBT agenda.

The following is an article sent out yesterday by veteran pro-family advocate Scott Lively, founder of DefendtheFamily.com, a branch of Abiding Truth Ministries, which Lively founded. Click HERE to see the blog of Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, who has criticized Lively for allegedly “enabling” Ugandan programs punishing homosexual behavior.  Click here for AFTAH’s article reprinting Lively’s initial report following his Uganda trip, in which he states that Throckmorton and others distorted his counsel to the Ugandans. Also see our reprint of the excerpt of Throckmorton’s 2007 interview with “gay” activist Mike Signorile in which he agrees with Signorile’s characterization that “being gay” is “natural, normal and healthy.” (Which begs the question: is Throckmorton helping to “enable” homosexual activists seeking to “mainstream” homosexual behavior?) — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com.

Lively writes:

___________________________________

Friends,

I was recently attacked by Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton on the false charge that I called for Uganda to force homosexuals into therapy. In recent months, Dr. Throckmorton has become the darling of the “gay” movement for his criticisms of ex-”gay” ministries and recovery methods. Without checking first with me, he took the word of “gay” activists about my recent mission in Uganda and blasted me on his blog. I exchanged e-mails privately with him about that matter, but a bigger issue deserves to be aired publicly, which is his endorsement of mutually consensual unions of principle of homosexuals who don’t want to change.

The following is my comment:

Warren,

Our job as Christians is to love God and our fellow man by affirming His truth through the witness of our own lives and by “casting down arguments” that contradict Him.

You apparently have turned against Him in the matter of sexual morality by embracing the lie that sexual freedom limited by mutual consent can be a workable alternative for individuals and nations. If it can be true for homosexuals, it must be true for everyone.

God is clear that sex belongs only in marriage, and the society that respects His will thrives. It guarantees a family-centered society.

The consequences of “sexual freedom” since Kinsey are manifest to anyone with eyes to see. That philosophy guarantees hedonistic individualism and family disintegration and that is what we have produced, not just here in our country, but around the world.

The “gays’” long-standing, necessary political objective is the overthrow of God’s standard and its replacement with “sexual freedom” as a central social value. They are using you as a patsy.

Meanwhile, you are betraying Christ and every parent who sent his or her child to GCC [Grove City College] to be inculcated with a Christian worldview.

I urge you to repent.

Scott

Veteran pro-family advocate Scott Lively.

WARREN THROCKMORTON: The aim of Sexual Identity Therapy is a satisfied life – a client who believes that they have come to an integration of their conflicts, and we’re, by the way, only talking about people who are in conflict.

MIKE SIGNORILE: So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as [strong emphasis by Signorile] “normal, natural and healthy” – that that is fine?

THROCKMORTON: Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile. The research–[Signorile cuts him off] …

We will provide further excerpts from this interview, and possibly the entire interview transcript, as soon as they are available. Look for more reports on Throckmorton and other Christian Left activists who are challenging Biblical orthodoxy on the homosexual issue.

Related Stories:

Higgins Responds to Throckmorton’s Criticism of Day of Silence Boycott

Why Is Grove City College’s Warren Throckmorton Picking on Sally Kern?
Lively Gives Report on Uganda Conference

Evangelical Gadfly or “Gay Activist”?: Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has directed his hostile “reporting” at NARTH, “reparative therapy,” former homosexual Richard Cohen, Sally Kern and now the pro-family coalition campaign to boycott the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools (April 17). But Throckmorton doesn’t like it when pro-family critics focus attention on his unScriptural positions, which are presumably at odds with Grove City’s Christian mission. In a 2007 interview with homosexual activist Mike Signorile, Throckmorton answered in the affirmative when asked directly by Signorile if it is “normal, natural and healthy” for people who “come out and accept that being homosexual” (”being gay”) is “fine.”

Dear AFTAH Readers,

We will have more in the coming weeks on controversial Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton, who has strayed far from a Biblical worldview on homosexuality, and far from the mission of his employer. (Grove City College’s mission statement affirms that the college “remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”) AFTAH has written previously on Throckmorton, including this story.

Throckmorton aims to steer Christians in a new (more ambiguous) direction on homosexuality, but many evangelical pro-family leaders active in opposing the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] activist agenda are wary of his alliances and ideas, finding them to be more serving of the pro-homosexuality movement than Christian truth. There is no more troubling example of that than Throckmorton’s July 2007 radio interview with well-known homosexual activist Mike Signorile, which includes the following excerpt:

 WARREN THROCKMORTON: The aim of Sexual Identity Therapy is a satisfied life – a client who believes that they have come to an integration of their conflicts, and we’re, by the way, only talking about people who are in conflict.
MIKE SIGNORILE: So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as [strong emphasis by Signorile] ‘normal, natural and healthy’– that that is fine?
THROCKMORTON: Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile. The research–[Signorile puts him off]

We will provide further excerpts of this interview, and possibly the entire transcript, which we will provide to Grove City College officials (who have already been contacted by pro-family leaders concerning Throckmorton’s controversial statements and tactics). We will be happy to report Warren’s response to our concerns in our future posts on this story. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

________________________________

Here is the letter by Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute responding to Throckmorton’s post accusing IFI and “avoiding the sinner” with its boycott of the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence”:

Open Letter to Warren Throckmorton:

We at Illinois Family Institute [IFI] are troubled by both the title of your article, “Illinois Family Institute Hates the Sin, Avoids the Sinner,” and its content. [The IFI press release to which Throckmorton was responding is reprinted below.]

I don’t know where in the text of our press release or in any of the documents we’ve posted on the Day of Silence Walkout you would get the idea that the coalition seeks to “avoid the sinner.” Our concern is with the exploitation and disruption of instructional time for political action.Contrary to the suggestion in your title, we actually want students–heterosexual and homosexual alike–to remain in school together pursuing their studies. We in no way seek to separate heterosexual students from homosexual students or to separate those students with conservative views on homosexuality from those who hold liberal views.

Illinois Family Institute finds your title not only inaccurate and wholly without justification but also irresponsible in that it contributes to the pernicious deceit that Christians hate, fear, or seek to separate themselves from those who identify as homosexual.

Furthermore, you made the statement regarding the Day of Silence press release that “the release first says the Day of Silence requires that teachers exempt students from speaking and then admits that the DOS does not mandate such exemption,” suggesting that statements in the press release were contradictory. The problem with your analysis is that the first statement addressed what the Day of Silence’s request for students to remain silent would require of teachers, while the second statement addressed what schools are legally required to do.

What the first sentence expresses is that the central defining feature of Day of Silence-—classroom silence-—necessitates that teachers who are permitted to accommodate student silence or are instructed to accommodate it either exempt students from speaking or create activities around their silence. The second statement regarding the ACLU and Lambda Legal document simply makes clear to confused administrators and parents who erroneously believe that schools must permit student silence that schools have a legal right to require verbal participation in the classroom. Perhaps your confusion arose because of the abbreviated nature of a press release necessarily precluded a full exposition of the issue.

Political protest does not belong in the classroom. Taxpayer-subsidized instructional time should not be manipulated, exploited, or disrupted for any social or political goals or messages. Our coalition has not asked for students to shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door. Day of Silence participants have the right to wear t-shirts and put up posters. But the important goal of ending bullying does not justify the means of intruding into and disrupting instructional time; nor does it justify the use of public money to transform society’s views on the nature and morality of volitional sexual conduct.

Finally, opposition to political action in the classroom and opposition to the efforts of activist educators to inculcate students with their unproven, controversial theories on the moral status of homosexual behavior do not constitute support for bullying.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins

Director of the Division of School Advocacy
Illinois Family Institute
www.illinoisfamily.org

_______________________________________________________________

OPINION: Illinois Family Institute Hates the Sin, Avoids the Sinner

By Dr. Warren Throckmorton, on his blog

The Day of Silence is coming — April 17 to be exact — and some conservative groups are already calling for students to walkout of school on that day.”

From the Illinois Family Institute: “A national coalition of pro-family organizations is urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.”

The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.”

The walkout is a new wrinkle. Last year, these same groups called for parents to keep the kids home. It sounds like the plan this year is to allow students to go to school and then tell them to walk out.

The article contradicts itself on at least one point. First, it reads:

“The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.”

And then a little later, says:

“Higgins further emphasizes that ‘The worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time.’ The First Amendment already allows DOS participants to wear t-shirts or put up posters, but according to a document co-written by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, a “school can regulate what students say. . . and it can also insist that students respond to questions, make presentations, etc.” Students and teachers should not be allowed to exploit instructional time to advance their socio-political goals.”

Note the two sentences in bold print. The release first says the Day of Silence requires that teachers exempt students from speaking and then admits that the DOS does not mandate such exemption. As noted in the release on my personal blog last year, DOS materials make this clear. In any event, it seems to me that a walkout will be more disruptive than silence in the hallways.
_________________________________________________

Below is IFI’s original release on the DOS Walkout (see AFTAH’s article HERE):

Parents: Keep Students Home — Schools: Stop Politicizing Our Classrooms

The Illinois Family Institute is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.

The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.

The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute explains that “While in the public school setting, it is legitimate to teach students that there exist diverse opinions on this issue, it is not legitimate to imply that one of those opinions is preferable to another. While it is appropriate to teach students that tolerance requires that society should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to teach that tolerance requires students to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral.”

Higgins further emphasizes that “The worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time.” The First Amendment already allows DOS participants to wear t-shirts or put up posters, but according to a document co-written by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, a “school can regulate what students say. . . and it can also insist that students respond to questions, make presentations, etc.” Students and teachers should not be allowed to exploit instructional time to advance their socio- political goals.

Parents are encouraged to call their children’s middle schools and high schools to ask whether the administration and/or teachers will permit students to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence. If so, parents can express their opposition by calling their children out of school on that day and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members.
________________________________________
Endorsed by: Abiding Truth Ministries; AFA Michigan; AFA Pennsylvania; AFA National; Americans for Truth; Association of Maryland Families; Called2Action; Campaign for Children and Families; Citizens for Community Values of Ohio; Coalition of Conscience; Community Issues Council; Concerned Women for America National; Concerned Women for America Washington; Culture Campaign; Faith2Action; Faith, Family & Freedom Alliance; Illinois Family Institute; Indiana Voice; Liberty Alliance Action; Liberty Counsel; Maine Family Policy Council; MassResistance; Mission America; Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34286

I stumbled upon this interesting seminar about American evangelicalism on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. The event was put on last year by the Pew Forum. A brief excerpt is below and the full transcript is HERE. Note Michael Lindsay’s dichotomy — not “left vs. right” but “cosmopolitan vs. populist” evangelicals.

The question with regard to homosexuality is this: insofar as acceptance of homosexuality (or, in politically correct jargon, the “gay and lesbian community”) has become a defining feature of modern big-city culture, how will the “cosmopolitan evangelicals” react as they seek to retain their influence in “elite” circles? So far we have seen left-leaning evangelicals like Jim Wallis embrace a “rights” framework regarding the pro-homosexual agenda — while still claiming fealty to the Bible. (Wallis favors “civil unions” laws for homosexual couples.) Homosexual activists have applauded the leftward evangelical shift, but Christians who take the Bible’s proscription of homosexual acts seriously view the Evangelical Left’s posturing on this issue as a capitulation to worldly forces, and a violation of Scripture.

Given the media’s unprecedented subservience to the homosexual activist movement, pressures will only grow on “elite”-sensitive evangelicals to water down their opposition to homosexuality as a sin — thus chipping away at a longstanding assumption of Bible-believing Christians. But can they do that and keep their evangelical “brand”? After all, evangelical Christianity is defined to a great extent by a strong allegiance to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and even most “gay”-affirming evangelicals do not try to argue biblically that homosexual sex is not sinful (not yet, anyway).

Will a more “gay”-friendly “Christianity” coming out of younger and “emergent” Christian quarters have staying power, or will orthodox views on sexual morality regain strength — just as pro-life momentum is on the rise after many cultural and political observers began writing off that virtuous movement over a decade ago (how wrong they were)?

Politically speaking, if you factor in a Republican Party with a very strong strain of libertarianism that naturally butts heads with “religious right” moralism, and it appears likely that the internal battles over homosexuality within evangelicalism (and the GOP) will only grow more intense in the coming years. — Peter LaBarbera

____________________________________

[Click HERE for full transcript of the seminar]

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Publication Date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life.

TRANSCRIPT: American Evangelicalism New Leaders, New Faces, New Issues By Michael Cromartie

Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2008

EVENT TRANSCRIPTS Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; publication date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life. D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, described eight fallacies or misconceptions he held as he began his book. In the three years of his extensive research, he made surprising discoveries about the true power brokers and centers of power in American evangelicalism. He also found that the deep divisions in this movement are not between the political left and right, not between young and old, but between “cosmopolitan” and “populist” evangelicals. Lindsay discussed the implications of his findings for this election year as well as the future of the evangelical movement. David Kirkpatrick, Washington Correspondent for The New York Times, added some history about “old-school” evangelicalism and ways of categorizing the changes that are occurring within the American evangelical movement.

[Michael Lindsay:]

And I began to realize that there is a whole segment of the evangelical movement –many of those folks who are in the elite — who were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the evangelical subculture. And so I began to think more about this and pay more attention to it. And the real divide, in my opinion, in evangelicalism is not between the left and the right; it’s not between the young and the old. It is between a group that I call the “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and “populist” evangelicals. And these are very, very significant divisions.

You see, populist evangelicals are what we oftentimes think about evangelicals. These are the folks who are culture warriors, who say that they want to take back the country for their faith. They see themselves as embattled against secular society. They are very much concerned that they are in a minority position, and they’ve got to somehow use very strong-arm tactics to win the day.

So that populist evangelicalism is alive and strong, especially in the evangelical subculture: the music, the publishing, the entertainment segment of the evangelical subculture. But there is a whole other segment. The people who I interviewed, by and large, fit more this cosmopolitan outlook. They are less interested in taking back the country for their faith. They really are more interested in their faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and winsome. So they still have an evangelistic impulse, but their whole modus operandi looks quite different. Because of that they have different ultimate goals of what they are actually trying to achieve. They want to have a seat at the table. They want to be seen as legitimate. They are concerned about what The New York Times or TIME magazine thinks about evangelicals because they [the cosmopolitan evangelicals] are concerned about cultural elites. They want legitimacy. Legitimacy is actually more important to them than necessarily taking back the country. And so that cosmopolitan-populist divide I find to be quite significant.

By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is. Click on photo to enlarge.

Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California. (Note the incredibly elastic, ever-expanding definition of homophobia.) Our favorite lesbian blog-stremist Pam Spaulding chastises Warren for his “sad bigotry” HERE and hits Warren for “bigotry, small-mindedness and downright ignorance” (Pam and friends know a thing or two about small-mindedness).

We agree with Bryan about the vaguely threatening nature of this quote by the hypocritical Joe Solmonese, head of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign:

Bizarrely, Solomonese says that Warren has “repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.” He appears blind to the obvious fact that that’s exactly what he is trying to do here – put a muzzle on one of America’s leading pastors, proving that it’s hardly a lie at all.

Ominously, Solomonese told Politico, “There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere.” If that sounds like a threat to you, I won’t disagree.

Also, note that Tolerant Joe embodies the evil nexus of the abortion and homosexuality movements: “Solmonese is the former Chief Executive Officer of EMILY’s List, where he oversaw one of the nation’s prominent pro-choice [read: pro-abortion] Democratic political action committees” (Wikipedia).

People are finally waking up to the truth: that the homosexual activist lobby is to tolerance and diversity what Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is to honest government. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Below is the Idaho Values Alliance release (write them at contact@idahovaluesalliance.com):

_________________________________________

Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Idaho Values Alliance, 12-18-09

Voices of Tolerance, Diversity, Multiculturalism Come Unglued

Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.

Liberals in general and homosexual activists in particular claim to be all about tolerance, diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism and respect for differences.

Well, their commitment to those values has just been challenged by President-elect Barack Obama, and they have failed the test miserably.

Obama’s criminal offense is that, in a move that ought be celebrated by all who claim that America’s strength is found in its embrace of diversity, he picked an evangelical pastor who supports natural marriage and the sanctity of life to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church has been tabbed for the task, despite the fact he openly supported Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage into the California constitution.

Said Warren during the campaign for Prop. 8, “For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity -has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue – it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.”

Warren also said, in a recent interview with Beliefnet, that he is opposed to those who say that abortion should be “safe and rare.”

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that’ – I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

A sample of what the press is calling “universally negative” outrage from the gay rights crowd:

Kathryn Kolbert of People for the American Way: Warren “doesn’t … deserve this position of honor.” She adds that someone who has “consistent mainstream American values” rather than someone so “radical” should have been picked instead.

Note to Ms. Kolbert: Prop. 8 got the same percentage of votes in California that Obama got nationwide. I guess that means natural marriage is at least as “mainstream” as Obama is, Kathryn.

Sarah Posner of the “Nation” magazine: “Now it (Democratic outreach to evangelicals) has gone too far.”

Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign to Obama: “[You] have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” The selection, he says, is a “genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” and added, “We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”

Bizarrely, Solomonese says that Warren has “repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.” He appears blind to the obvious fact that that’s exactly what he is trying to do here – put a muzzle on one of America’s leading pastors, proving that it’s hardly a lie at all.

Ominously, Solomonese told Politico, “There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere.” If that sounds like a threat to you, I won’t disagree.

Solomonese throws Warren’s support for the sanctity of human life into the mix as another unforgivable sin that should disqualify him from public prayer.

Gay rights activist Rick Jacobs: “It’s a huge mistake. (Warren’s) really the wrong person to lead the president into office. His presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him. This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians. The election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise.”

Gawker.com: Warren is “yet one more in a long and historic line of American Huckster Ministers, but he’s still a right-wing crank in mainstream clothing.”

The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper: “Obama’s first big mistake.”

Obama’s spokesman (generic use) gamely defended the choice, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”

(But lest evangelicals take too much encouragement from Obama’s decision, his spokesman was quick to say that “The president-elect certainly disagrees with (Warren) on [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] issues.”)

There are several lessons here.

1. One, the tolerance crowd has tolerance only for people who agree with them. They are blindly and hypocritically intolerant to the point of tyranny toward advocates of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
2. Two, homosexual activists really are out to silence the voice of evangelical Christians. They want Warren muzzled and driven off the platform, and my guess is that they will boo him off if Obama doesn’t pull him off first. Unless cooler heads prevail, we may see the exercise of a heckler’s veto like we have never seen before. Imagine the sound of 4 million people booing in unison, and you’ve got a picture of what may happen at the inauguration ceremony…We have only seen the beginning of this saga. There is just no way left-wing activist groups are done putting pressure on Obama to repent in dust and ashes. They will be relentless until he recants, and make him pay if he doesn’t.
3. Three, this shows the utter emptiness of homosexual advocacy of pluralism and multiculturalism. If they really believed that stuff, they would be celebrating the most inclusive inaugural ceremony in American history. But they won’t because they don’t. Their circle of inclusiveness is far too narrow, tiny and small to have a place in it for conservative Christians.
4. Four, it doesn’t matter how gracious you are, if you take a stand for natural marriage you will be labeled a hatemonger and a bigot. Warren is about as gracious, compassionate, jovial and kind as you can get. Fat lot of good that has done for him with the tolerance crowd.

In the worldview of homosexual activists, “loving the sinner, hating the sin” is simply Sunday School bigotry.

This affair gives the lie to the accusation – even shared by many naïve Christians – that Christians are hated on this issue because we are condemning and hateful. Warren is neither, and look what they’re doing to him.

We as Christians certainly should continue to be gracious, open-hearted and courteous to all, including homosexual activists. I have always treated them with kindness and friendliness, and I have a fondness and affection for many of them I’ve met. But it is foolish to think this will cause them to like us in return. Disagreement is not hatred – but try telling that to them.

Liberals Outraged Over Inaugural Preacher

Obama backers slam his pick of Rick Warren

Newsmax.com – Liberals Outraged Over Rick Warren’s Obama Invocation

Obama’s Rev. Warren Inaugural Pick Sparks Gay Fury – FOXNews.com

Obama’s inaugural choice sparks outrage

Gay leaders furious with Obama – Ben Smith and Nia-Malika Henderson – Politico.com

LAist: Inauguration Team for Obama Stirs Prop 8 Fears After Choosing OC Pastor

IVA IN THE BLOGOSPHERE:

Free Speech Blazing: Proof The Planned Parenthood Is A Racist Organization

If you value the work of the IVA, please consider a donation today. Information on how to donate, including online, may be found HERE. Thank you!

At right is a Newsweek graphic for its new, scandalous hit piece in support of homosexual “marriage.” It appears the magazine’s Religion Editor, Lisa Miller, is now a theological expert — declaring that — contrary to 2,000 years of Church history — the Word of God actually supports homosexual “love” and thus same-sex “marriages.” Albert Mohler takes Miller’s piece apart HERE. Readers might also check out Professor Rob Gagnon’s website to learn what the Bible really says about homosexual practice.

American liberal media bias is out of control. Somebody get Newsweek’s religion editor, Lisa Miller, a job with the “gay christian” (small “c”) activist group Soulforce, where she belongs. Kudos to Albert Mohler for refuting her nonsense. And once again, American Family Association (AFA) provides a valuable service by helping Americans confront liberal media bias — in this case, Miller’s embarrassing attempt t0 make a Biblical case for sodomy-based “marriage.” — Peter LaBarbera

______________________________________

AFA sent out this E-Alert:

Take Action! 
Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.
Forward this e-mail to your friends and family. They need to see how the media distorts scripture to support same-sex marriage. Ask them to send the e-mail to Newsweek.  Call CEO Thomas E. Ascheim at 212-445-5245. Please be polite.
If you subscribe to Newsweek, cancel your subscription and tell them why.

______________________________________

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
Newsweek trashes the Bible in support of homosexual “marriage”

Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.

December 8, 2008

Dear Gary,

Newsweek magazine has published a lengthy article stating that the Bible supports homosexual marriage. The article was written Lisa Miller, Newsweek religion editor.

Miller’s article is one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization. The article is much too long for this e-mail.

Dr. Albert Mohler has offered a response to the Newsweek article. I suggest you read Mohler’s article and then read Miller’s Newsweek article.

Mohler made a significant point in his response: “The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.”

This mob assault occurred following the passage of Proposition 8 restoring traditional marriage in California. Homosexual activists are deriding the successful ballot measure as “Prop H8″ (hate)  — but look at the hatred on display below in what is supposedly America’s most “tolerant” city. This criminal assault is also significant in that “gay” activists routinely charge Christians and pro-family groups — and most recently Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family — with fomenting “hate violence.” Clearly, “hate violence” and threats committed by vengeful homosexual militants against religious people and churches is on the rise following California’s electoral repudiation of “gay marriage” on November 4th. — Peter LaBarbera. www.aftah.org

The Eye-witness account of the incident is posted beneath the YouTube video:

Posted November 14, 2008

Eye-witness account by posted with YouTube video by member of Christian group:

I went to the Castro (the homosexual district of San Francisco) like we usually do on Friday nights.

Normally, we sit on 18th and Castro, and someone plays the guitar, and we all worship God.

Sometimes a person will yell at us, or maybe a few. Sometimes people will ignore us. Sometimes people will let us pray with them.

This time was not a normal night. It was the first time we’d been back in the Castro to do our normal outreach since California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as “one man with one woman,” was passed. We played the guitar and sang together and worshiped the Lord. After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

Someone (actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us whom he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the “No on 8″ campaign.

Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters — The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro — took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace,” and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus.”) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots.” Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us.

Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said, “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?” He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said, “No, tell him I forgive him.” Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart.

Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said, “I am going to kill you,” and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda’ graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants – basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them. Soon after, the cops came and stood between us and the mob.

When it was getting more heated, the cops [said warnings] like, “You guys should leave.” and Roger said “We want to stay.” Someone tried to steal my backpack, but I tapped a cop on the shoulder and said “Hey, that’s my bag.” and he got it from him and gave it to me. Others weren’t so lucky. Probably half our team got their jackets stolen. Eventually, as the crowd was getting more and more uncontrollable, the cops were afraid for our lives, so they escorted us to our van. (The cops were very nice to us from start to finish.) Our van was parked pretty far [away] because it was hard to find parking that day. As the cops escorted us, the mob followed us, until the cops formed a line and held off the people so we could drive away.

We took the long way home, just in case anyone tried to follow us. When we got home, we prayed and sang more, and then prayed over each other. Please know my heart. All of what we do is for the Love of Jesus Christ, and the love for those in the Castro. The Bible says to love God, and then love people. We can only love because He loved us first. We can’t hate the people because they are just broken and blinded by the spirit of this age. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities and Powers. It’s not a political thing, we just love the people. This is the raw footage of the walk from 18th and Castro Street to our car. It was only the very tail end of the night and says that we were all about Prop 8… when in reality we had nothing to do with Prop 8 this night.

Envelopes with suspicious white powder were discovered at two Mormon temples, including this one in Salt Lake City, and a Knights of Columbus printing plant in Connecticut — probable “gay” terrorist retribution for the Mormons and the Catholic group’s strong support for Proposition 8 in California. “Queer” intolerance for dissent is out of control — but where are the “gay” leaders reigning in their fanatics? When asked on FOX News today about the escalating anger and protests targeting churches, Joe Solmonese of Human Rights Campaign — which has sought to link Christian pro-family groups to “hate violence” against homosexuals — could barely bring himself to say a negative word against the radicals on his side. Americans need to know: are the Justice Department and FBI watching out for coordinated acts of homosexual “hate violence” and churches, synagogues and mosques?

Matt Barber, who is director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law — and  a Board Member of Americans For Truth — puts all the “queer” anger, intolerance, and even violence in perspective below. Send you comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net.

____________________________

WorldNetDaily.com; posted November 14, 2008

Counterfeit Marriage and its Counterfeit Movement

With a unified voice amplified several million-fold through the ballot box megaphone, African-Americans have spoken on the issues of marriage, family and human sexuality. Whether young or old, male or female, Democrat or Republican, blacks are justifiably fed up with the deceptive antics of the self-described and craftily contrived “gay rights movement.”

For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and highly influential “gay” political pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled “queers” have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil’ lavender wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

An illegitimate offspring of the ’60s sexual revolution, the newfangled “gay rights” cult is today’s postmodern, sex-centric cause célèbre. Its core tenets include, among other things, mandated moral relativism, social androgyny and forced acceptance of a pleasure-based, though demonstrably destructive, lifestyle. Apart from practitioners of “the sin that dare not speak its name,” its devotees are in large part institutional fringe elitists confined to blue-state America who almost universally suffer the insufferable pangs of white guilt.

Like an addict jonesing for a hit, they long for that rush of self-righteous affirmation associated with belonging to something perceived as larger than themselves. Central to the movement’s success is the ability to draft adherents who are easily manipulated through superficial slogans, appeals to emotion via anecdotal parades of horribles, and a mindless propensity to conform to nonconformity.

By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It’s dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color.

“Don’t compare your sin to my skin,” goes the African-American mantra. Or, as influential black pastor Ken Hutcherson notes, “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.”

Understandably, blacks want all this nonsense to stop. Exit polls indicate that in the Democratic stronghold of “left coast” California, African-Americans – 96 percent of whom voted for Barack Obama – also voted to pass California’s marriage protection amendment (Prop by an overwhelming 70 to 30 percent. As luck would have it, the unprecedented turnout of black voters for Obama very likely tipped the scale and restored the enduring definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. This has made “gay” activists mouth-foaming furious.

Click HERE to read the rest of Barber’s column in WorldNetDaily [AFTAH will be posting this piece in its entirety tomorrow]

Above, homosexual “Bash Back” protesters pose in jihadist-type garb, for online photo. The anarchist hate group stormed an Assemblies of God church in Lansing, Michigan, Sunday.

Below is a statement posted by an anarchist “queer” group called “Bash Back!,” which stormed the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan Sunday. You can read more about their carefully planned assault in WorldNetDaily, which reported: “Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.”

Note below the diversionary tactics that enabled the hate group to disrupt Mount Hope’s worship service. We want to know if the Michigan Attorney General is going to investigate and prosecute the twerps that organized this hateful attack — or is the whole “hate crimes” concept a one-way street that serves only politically correct causes like homosexuality? Imagine if a conservative or Christian group stormed a Sunday service of the Metropolitian Community Church, which caters to homosexuals — would there be media outrage and a sense of urgency to prosecute the perpetrators? You bet there would.

Veteran observers of the homosexual activist movement will know that this “Bash Back!” assault is only the latest of many “gay” direct action attacks over the years designed to intimidate conservatives and Christians into silence. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

‘Bash Back’ Statement on Mount Hope Church Assault:

Bash Back! Raises Hell at Anti-Queer Mega-Church

The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church in Lansing, Michigan. The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized “ex-gay” conferences and so-called “hell houses”, which depict queers, trannies and womyn who seek abortions as the horrors. Mt. Hope is complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.

Bash Back! ain’t down with that. And so on Sunday November 9th, about thirty radical queers from Lansing, Chicago, Memphis and Milwaukee disrupted the church’s most well-attended sermon.

At noon, a small group of folks dressed in pink and black, equipped with a megaphone, black flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross began demonstrating outside the church. The group was extremely loud and wildly offensive.

The demonstration drew a majority of Mount Hope’s security staff outside to watch them.

Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozen queers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church’s congregation. At the signal that the guards had been lured outside, the infiltrators sprung into action.

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went into action. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-off balcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”. Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entirety of the congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes.

Bash Back! operatives, still hidden among the congregation observed a person screaming that Satan had come to Mount Hope, that the end was here, that the queers were everywhere. She then began speaking tongues. The dumbfounded pastor, after regaining his composure, went on to speak of the of decadent, depraved wolves that menace his flock of sheep.

Let it be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!

We are everywhere. bashbacknews.wordpress.com

http://www.hamtramck.org/family/

Click on photo to enlarge. Opposition to homosexuality- and gender-confusion-based “sexual orientation” laws is something that all committed religious people can agree on — because these laws invariably oppress religious people’s freedom to live out their beliefs. At right is multi-religious, multi-ethnic rally held Oct. 12 in Hamtramck, Michigan against a proposed “gender identity”-inclusive homosexual law.

Press Release
Contacts: Jay McNally: 734 717-1174; Fr. Andrew Wesley: 313 892-1310;
Akm Rahman: 313 293-7343; e-mail:  HamtramckFamily@gmail.com

Dear Readers,

It always strikes me as odd to see homosexual activists aligning themselves with American Muslims, who oppose homosexual practice as sinful in accordance with the religion, like faithful Christians and Bible-believing Jews. These photos from a rally in Hamtramck, Michigan reflect the appropriate political/sociological equation against homosexual activism: religious people (and moral people who are irreligious) cannot abide “rights” based on same-sex misbehavior (sin). In fact, as we’re seeing in California (where Christian doctors will now be forced to perform artificial inseminations for lesbians) and across the nation, the very outworking of government-enforced homosexuality-based “rights” is to oppress religious freedom.

Americans will have to decide whether creating aberrant-sex- and gender-confusion-based “rights” — including “same-sex marriage” and its cowardly cousin, “civil unions” — is worth trampling on the historic religious and First Amendment freedoms that have defined the American republic since its beginning.  –Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here is the Hamtramck Citizens Opposing “Special Rights” press release put out before the rally; under that is an article on the coalition’s website explaining the coalition’s position:

__________________________________________________

Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Hamtramck Gay-rights Ordinance at campaign rally

HAMTRAMCK (Oct. 10) – Nearly a dozen religious leaders in the City of Hamtramck and a nationally prominent lawyer will speak at a campaign kick-off rally for the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination.

The rally will be held Sunday, Oct. 12th, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 9632 Conant St. Admission is free.

The speakers will all urge a NO vote on the Nov. 4 referendum concerning the city’s new ordinance that provides special protection to people based on sexual identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
The ordinance provides no new rights for anyone except for homosexuals, as all other rights are covered by state and federal law.

Speakers will explain – in Arabic, Bengali, English and Polish — why the controversial ordinance is a threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

The keynote speaker will be Brian Rooney, attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and legal expert on discriminatory “gay rights” legislation.

Below is a list of speakers scheduled…

Government officials:

•      Abdul Algazali, City Councilman.

Religious leaders (the imams represent various ethnic communities – Yemeni, Bosnian and Bengali}:

•      Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.

•      Najim A. Quddus, imam of the Al Islah Islamic Center in Hamtramck.

•      Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.

•      Rev. Dharmananda Bikkhu, Budhist monk and founder of the International Peace Community in Hamtramck.

•      Showrob Chudhury, secretary of the Hindu community in Hamtramck.

•      Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.

•      Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.

•      Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.

•      Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.

•      Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque

Community leaders:

Several community leaders will also speak, including Akm Rahman, community leader and co-chair of Hamtramck Citizens Voting No.

•      Kamal Rahman, community activist.

•      Roberts Zwolak, former city councilman and city clerk.

•      Gregory Kirchner, businessman and Polish community leader.

•      Mohammed Delaware Hussein, community leader. …

The group’s Web site is www.hamtramck.org/family.

==== 30 ===

———————————————-

Below is an article on the website of Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination:

Why Hamtramck’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” ordinance a
threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

In the 2004 election, 55 percent of Hamtramck voters voted in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution, helping preserve one-man, one-woman marriage for future generations of children.

But in June 2008, by a 6-to-1 vote of its politically correct city council, Hamtramck is now among the handful of cities in Michigan whose local ordinances – in conflict with federal and state law – treat homosexual behavior and cross-dressing as the moral, social, and legal equivalents of immutable characteristics such as race, color, and sex.

Obviously, many Hamtramck residents reject that comparison — based on religious, medical, and philosophical concerns.

For example, a compassionate society that rationally discourages smoking because of the clearly identified health consequences should not irrationally enact laws giving special protection to homosexual behavior that has been scientifically associated with a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, eating disorders, life-threatening disease — AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — and premature death by up to 20 years.

The Vatican expressed similar concerns in a 1992 letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church – authored by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI – regarding legislation to “Tmake discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal,” which according to Ratzinger, “may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.”

“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.  “’Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”

“Including ‘homosexual orientation’ among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate,” Ratzinger wrote, “can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights…(and)…to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”

The American Family Association of Michigan strongly agrees.  However, the practical effects of such legislation extend beyond medical or religious concerns.

Proving to have exactly the opposite effect of their supposed intent, so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances have a track record of being used to discriminate against individuals and organizations who don’t support homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Detective Richard Stern, a fifteen-year veteran and president of the Ann Arbor police officers union, was fired after the chairman of the city’s “rights commission” formally accused him of violating that city’s “sexual orientation” ordinance.  Stern’s offense?  On behalf of his union, in a public forum for police chief candidates, he “was accused of saying that one of the candidates had a gay-rights agenda,” according to Between the Lines, a Detroit homosexual advocacy newsmagazine.

“Stern’s comments were clearly in violation of a human rights ordinance that includes sexual orientation,” the newsmagazine commented, making clear that homosexual activists believe so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances outweigh our Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights.  Stern’s union disagreed, charging in a lawsuit that he was “illegally and discriminatorily” discharged by the city.

Also in Ann Arbor, the city council – once again specifically citing its discriminatory “sexual orientation” ordinance — banned donations to the United Way through city employees’ payroll deduction plan.  Why?  Because the United Way financially supported local Boy Scout troops, which appropriately refuse to allow adult males who engage in homosexual behavior to take 13-year old boys on overnight camping trips.

“A council majority believes its own anti-discrimination ordinance prohibits it from supporting Boy Scouts in any fashion, including using staff time and city computers for payroll deductions that go through the United Way to the Boy Scouts,” the Ann Arbor News reported.

In an Ann Arbor News commentary supporting the city council’s action, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said the Boy Scouts’ stand made them comparable to “white supremacist groups.”

Similarly, the homosexual activist group Triangle Foundation threatened to sue the city of Detroit, demanding that city officials cut all funding of local Boy Scout troops, deny the Scouts access to public parks and facilities, and prohibit sponsorship of Scout activities by the police and fire departments, the Detroit News reported.  The Scouts’ refusal to allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters, Triangle charged, “is in direct violation of the City Charter and Human Rights Ordinance…(that) expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

In Philadelphia, under authority of its “sexual orientation” ordinance, the city is currently evicting the local Boy Scout council from offices it has occupied in a city park for nearly 80 years.

In Chicago, Cook County officials refused to hire the Salvation Army to deliver services to low-income residents, saying “the county’s ordinance banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians bars it from contracting with the Salvation Army,” a traditional Christian denomination whose religious doctrine teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Under Massachusetts’ “sexual orientation” law, Catholic Charities was given an ultimatum: either agree to process adoptions of children to homosexual couples in violation of the church’s moral opposition to such adoptions, or abandon its century-old adoption referral service altogether.  To its credit, Catholic Charities chose the latter.

The “sexual orientation” language now included in the Hamtramck ordinance is disturbing even beyond its proven discriminatory effects in other cities.

The Oakland Press reported in March 2005: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies.  ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class.  He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”
Not content with adding the discriminatory “sexual orientation” language to city law, homosexual activists and their political allies succeeded in adding the words “gender identity” as well.

Simply put, “gender identity” refers to delusional men who claim to believe they’re really females stuck in a man’s body and insist on wearing a dress and high heels to work.

This “gender identity” language is so radical in its potential effects that even openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., refuses to include it in his federal “gay rights” legislation.

Rep. Frank said: “There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress.  I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Don’t take Barney’s word for it?  Consider the case of “Naomi Snyder,” a Lansing man who applied through the mail – using a female name – for membership at a women’s health club.  His membership approved, he showed up in person, and being obviously a man, was refused entry to the women’s locker room and shower.  According to Between the Lines, the Michigan ACLU threatened to sue for “discrimination,” but Lansing voters in a 1996 ballot vote had wisely rejected adding “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” to their local civil rights ordinance; thus, there was no legal basis for the threatened suit.  But in Hamtramck, now, there would be.

Thankfully, Hamtramck residents who want to protect the privacy of women and girls and prevent discrimination against people of faith and community groups such as the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and the United Way can by law conduct a petition drive to force this issue onto the ballot for a vote of the people.  On behalf of our supporters who reside in the city, the American Family Association of Michigan stands ready to assist in any way we can.