Congratulations to the vigilant pro-family activists over at MassResistance for stopping this proposed “hate speech” provision in an “anti-bullying” bill (see the proposed text in box at right). It is victories like this that made it easy for me to praise this gutsy organization and its founder, Brian Camenker (and MR blogger Amy Contrada) as a speaker at their recent fund-raising banquet.

For years — no, decades — homosexual activists have been telling us that their agenda (oops, I forgot…there is no “gay agenda”) does not pose a threat to freedom. Then we watched in Canada as religious critics of homosexuality were forced to defend themselves against “discrimination” suits brought through Orwellian government “human rights” tribunals — simply for expressing their beliefs against homosexuality. To label these state-sanctioned spectacles  “nuisance suits” would be to trivialize the great harm they have done to their innocent victims. Meanwhile, in Britain and Sweden, Christians also faced government oppression for opposing homosexuality. Other countries stand poised to criminalize “homophobia.”

The silence among American homosexual activists against this escalating PRO-”gay” oppression has been deafening. After all, justifying state censorship of your critics isn’t easy when you’re playing the victim card.

And now we see the first, rudimentary attempts at legislating a “hate speech” regime here in the United States. Consider the removed paragraph above in light of the common homosexualist accusation that groups like Mass Resistance and Americans For Truth “hate gays.” Self-described “queer” militants routinely equate traditional religious tenets or moral beliefs with hatred (all the while demonstrating consistent “malice” of their own with abundant lies and nasty smears against pro-family opponents).

Faithful Christians and other religious/moral foes of homosexuality will never agree with homosexuality advocates on a definition of “hate.” So imagine the folly of the government stepping in to make that determination — and then enforcing it through clumsy bureaucratic maneuvers that are destined to oppress everyday citizens whose only “crime” is to run afoul of political correctness.

Thanks to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, who gave us the First Amendment, “hate speech” laws likely would not pass a constitutional challenge in the United States. But that won’t stop arrogant liberals from trying to pass them anyway. Thank God (and thank Mass Resistance) that at least this time around, they failed in Massachusetts. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

MassResistance writes:

VICTORY: Draconian language removed from bill in Mass. Senate

Posted by MassResistance, March 14, 2010

At the last minute a Senate committee removed draconian language that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality with fines and imprisonment from a bill, just before the Massachusetts Senate voted on it on Thursday. The language had been slipped into a school “anti-bullying” bill. This is a clear victory for the pro-family movement!

This would have been very extreme. (And apparently it was intended to target MassResistance in particular, given our outspokenness at the State House and online.) Similar laws have been used in Canada and other countries to snuff out free speech and religious expression regarding the homosexual movement, and severely prosecute offenders. This has been a goal of the homosexual movement in America. They will likely attempt this again — and spread it to other states.

(The text of the new version of the bill is HERE.)

As we reported last week, the Education Committee chairmen consolidated 16 “anti-bullying” bills into one main bill, S2283. But they also had added this completely unrelated section that would apply to all Massachusetts citizens:

The section near the end of S2283 bill read:

“Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”

As soon as we saw that language, MassResistance put out the word that we considered it extremely offensive and that we would fight it. (As we mentioned, the phrases “false material” and “hatred” can be very subjective. It’s an open door to harassment of free speech and religious expression.)

We made sure there was a flood of phone calls and emails by activists to the Senate leadership and other legislators. And although the Boston Globe and Boston Herald declined to write about it (no surprise!) we made sure their State House reporters knew where we stood. We were even told that at least one liberal Senator intended to introduce an amendment to take the language out!

Shortly before the Thursday vote the offensive language was removed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which re-wrote S2283 into a new bill, S2313.   Last year MassResistance had met personally with the Senate Ways and Means Chairman and showed him the horrific homosexual activism that taxpayer funds were being used for in the schools. Soon afterwards the funding for the homosexual programs was eliminated from the budget. Obviously, they clearly understood the value of free speech in this regard — and that it had nothing to do with “anti-bullying.”

The new version, S2313 with amendments, is HERE.

Passed unanimously. Thursday afternoon “anti-bullying” bill S2313 was debated, amended, and passed unanimously by the Senate. It now goes to the House.

Interest across the country regarding freedom of speech

MassResistance was interviewed on two national radio networks, the Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, and other media regarding the freedoms of speech and religion that this bill would affect. It’s been known for a long time that the homosexual movement wants to criminalize criticism of their activities, and Massachusetts is a likely place to start that. The question has been when and where.

WorldNetDaily article: “Jail for dissing ‘gays’ pulled after publicity–Massachusetts plan would have allowed year behind bars”

Additional victory: homosexual programs excluded from anti-bullying bill!

This was a huge victory — and a big loss for the homosexual lobby. (The MassResistance testimony at the public hearing obviously had an effect.)

All language that would require homosexual programs has been excluded from the bill. That had been the main objective of the homosexual and transgender lobby for this bill, and this was a clear defeat for them in that regard.

Using “anti-bullying” legislation as a vehicle to mandate homosexual and transgender programs in public schools has been a major goal of the homosexual movement around the country. MassResistance began tracking that earlier this year, and it became clear that Massachusetts was one of the main targets. At the public hearing for the “anti-bullying” bills held on November 17 it appeared that most of those testifying were homosexual and transgender activists.

But luckily at that same public hearing, MassResistance gave powerful testimony exposing that agenda which apparently resonated with several legislators.

Homosexual groups (and ADL) angry at outcome!

On the morning of the Senate vote, the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows essentially conceded defeat and complained bitterly that their objectives failed, despite their unending efforts to tie “bullying” and “homophobia” together. They wanted to weave this into what they call “enumerated categories” which would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression.”

Here’s what the Bay Windows article said:

While the Anti-Bullying Bill would, if passed, work to make schools safer, several LGBT advocacy organizations are disappointed in the lack of language specifically referring to “enumerated categories”, said Arlene Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Coalition. . .

While several groups lobbied strongly for the addition of this language, it was not included the version of the bill released from the Education Committee. “Though we are disappointed by the absence of enumerated protections, MassEquality believes this is a meaningful bill that will give all students in the Commonwealth the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment,” Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, said . . .

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) struggled to convince the House of Representatives to add LGBT-inclusive language in the list of “victim-specific characteristics” that could be targets for bullying to their version of the Senate bill (HB 483) . . .

While the current version of S. 2283 aims to combat all types of bullying, many activists are concerned that LGBT-motivated bullying will be overlooked by school personnel — with potentially tragic consequences.

The usual propaganda, but it didn’t quite work this time thanks to citizens fighting back….

To read the rest of the MassResistance article, click HERE.

Mass Resistance founder Brian Camenker (left) with Mike Huckabee

Folks, I am delighted to be a speaker at the Mass Resistance banquet this Saturday evening. Mass Resistance founder Brian Camenker and MR blogger Amy Contrada are good friends who do critical work for the movement opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and gender confusion in our culture — especially among students. Both have demonstrated remarkable tenacity and dedication in pursuit of that mission. Brian is a longtime veteran of the pro-family movement who never backs down from a principled stance — a quality that, sadly, has led him to be held at arm’s length by other, more politically correct, “pro-family” groups that are quite willing to use MR’s research but can’t seem to match MR’s integrity.

The reason Brian and Amy are hated so much by the Libertine Left is that they — perhaps better than anyone in the country – chronicle the radical activities of the homosexual/transsexual movement using firsthand “gay” sources. And there is no shortage of material in Boston, where Mass Resistance is based. Camenker exposed the notorious GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) “Fistgate” scandal in 2000 — which jaded homosexual activists now love to make fun of but which shows precisely why parents must never trust their children to “gay”-affirming educators. And Amy has a wealth of information on the MR blog — including various exposés on the transsexual agenda and GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings, whose lifelong crusade has made schools across America “safe” for homosexual advocacy. (Jennings, now Obama’s “Safe Schools” chief, cynically uses student safety to advance GLSEN’s extreme agenda.)

I hope to see some of you at the MassResistance fundraising banquet Saturday, but whether you come or not, please donate to this outstanding organization. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Focus on the Family web ad rejected by the NCAA.

Behold the latest pathetic capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby by a “mainstream” American institution, the NCAA. It is corporate cowardice of this nature that breeds homo-fascism, a term describing aggressively intolerant homosexual activism that will come to be understood by Americans — as larger and larger portions of the culture cave into the idea that disagreeing with or offending homosexuals (people practicing homosexuality) is beyond the pale. From a logical, historical and spiritual perspective, such an assertion is preposterous, but in the current zeitgeist, emotion, secularism and sheer intimidation trump reason, tradition, and spiritual truth.

Whoever would have thought that 1-3 percent of the population — united around the practice of deviant, unhealthy sex — could command such power? (Only in a declining society, we maintain.) Focus on the Family employs a “soft” resistance to the aggressive “queer” movement (too soft, in our view); if they can’t place an innocuous ad on the NCAA website, then no group defending traditional sexual morality can.

And the hucksters (homosexual and straight) who push the “gay” agenda do so in the name of “diversity.” What a sham. Memo to homosexual extremists: keep demanding such bans on opposing viewpoints — and cheer loudly whenever a pro-normalcy group is silenced! The more you do, the more the American people will see your true colors — which do not match a rainbow’s but rather the oppressive black of a censor’s pen. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.ogl

__________________________________________

– The following is reprinted from OneNewsNow, the news ministry of American Family Association; subscribe to ONN’s daily news briefs HERE and their e-alerts HERE.

NCAA nixes family ad, Focus ‘befuddled’

The NCAA has withdrawn Focus on the Family’s banner ad on its website, apparently because of the organization’s stance on homosexual relationships.

Associated Press reports the National Collegiate Athletic Association heard from some of its members that the banner conflicted with the organization’s policy of inclusion, regardless of sexual orientation. The ad — part of the pro-family group’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign — was pulled without any notice, according to Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeburger.

“We’re a little befuddled, I guess is the best way to say it, that an ad that clearly that was not controversial,” he responds. “It was not even political — it was simply about a father wanting the best for his son….”

The ministry spokesman suggests the banner ad was taken down “not…because the ad itself was offensive, but because the very existence of Focus on the Family apparently to some people is offensive.”

The major governing body of college sports says ads must be in agreement with NCAA principles, and its own standards allow it to exclude advertising and advertisers that it deems “do not appear to be in the best interests of higher education and student athletes.”

“What that tells us,” says Schneeburger, “is that we’re not allowed to advertise our family help services because we have biblical values on issues like marriage.” And if such material were “all of a sudden labeled hate speech,” he says “we have deeper problems in our country than we even know.”

Schneeburger points out that Focus spends 90 percent of its budget on parenting and marriage resources, and only 10 percent advocating on behalf of the unborn and for traditional marriage. The supposedly controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, was part of Focus’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.

Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH story: “Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

____________________________________

By Ed Whelan, National Review Online’s “Bench Memos”

Reprinted from NRO Online, February 07, 2010

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.

And so on.

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Homo-Supremacist at the EEOC? Obama EEOC Commissioner appointee Chai Feldblum says there is a "zero sum" game, legally-speaking, between "gay rights" and religious freedom (people who oppose homosexuality as morally wrong) -- and that homosexual "rights" usually should win. Feldblum is now backpedaling from her more radical statements and affiliations.

Take action: call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to: 1) Put a hold on the nomination of radical homosexual activist Chai Feldblum as Commissioner of the EEOC; and 2) oppose S. 1584, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Also call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 and urge him or her to oppose the House version of ENDA, HR 3017.

Note: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) has signed on to a pro-family coalition letter to the Senate HELP Committee expressing concern over EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum’s extreme record. Thanks to Traditional Values Coalition for taking the lead on the letter.

___________________________________

The Discriminatory ‘Non-Discrimination Act’
By Matt Barber

Today’s Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They’ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It’s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked-tongue test.”

If Dems say “Fairness Doctrine,” expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” we know that the patient gets hosed, and the “care” breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the “No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,” bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.

And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination.  But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force –– under penalty of law –– Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.

This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It’s a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” noted the statement. “The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.”

The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred Constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.

Chai Feldblum (pronounced “high” as in “stoned”) is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum –– ENDA’s chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement –– has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.

Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, “gay rights”) is a “zero sum game,” meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: “Gays win; Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of “gay rights,” Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Of course Feldblum’s analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.

In fact ENDA would –– for the first time since the Constitutional Convention –– extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it well when he said, “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better, stating rather incisively: “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.”

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War.” He serves as director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.

Millions of young Americans saw this simulated homosexual oral sex act on ABC thanks to Adam Lambert pushing his "queer" lifestyle choice on the rest of us. Lambert deliberately sought to be provocative and characterized criticism of his vulgar stage act as "discrimination."

Folks, we’ll have much more on Adam Lambert and his calculated use of his nationally broadcast American Music Awards stage act to advance homosexual immorality and sadistic perversions in the name of “nondiscrimination”:

Liberty Counsel Files Complaint with the FCC for Indecent Acts of Adam Lambert

November 24, 2009
From the Liberty Counsel website:

Liberty Counsel has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) for airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance by Adam Lambert on November 22, 2009 during the 2009 American Music Awards.

Prior to going on-air, Lambert explained that his motive went beyond performing. According to the Associated Press, Lambert “wanted to break down a double standard that existed where female performers are often sexually provocative while men don’t do it that often.”

When faced with the opportunity to edit the performance before airing it on the West Coast, ABC’s reaction was to promote Lambert’s indecent acts and actually tease and tout his actions as “what everyone will be talking about tomorrow.” This shows that ABC used Lambert’s obscene sexual conduct and not his vocal performance to promote its show.

Contact ABC about their indecent decision at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521. You can also call ABC at 818-460-7477, or, you may contact ABC on the web through their Audience Relations Department.

Read Liberty Counsel’s FCC letter requiring decency in broadcasting here.

WARNING: Offensive photos depicting San Francisco’s perversion of “tolerance”

Me: Naked Black Slave on leash; You: White Master: Is this what big city liberals and pro-”gay” activists mean when they extol “diversity” and “sexual freedom”? (Note the two cops in the background who took no action against this public nudity.) We covered up the exposed genitals of the African-American man at left, who with his white, female “master” (holding leash) attended the 2009 Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco Sunday afternoon. Despite the SFPD’s promises earlier this year to crack down on public nudity at such events, police and city (and state) authorities again “tolerated” full frontal nudity at Folsom. (More firsthand Americans For Truth photos to come from our man on the scene.)

Consensual “master-slave” “relationships” are just one of the demented perversions that fall under the sadomasochistic (“leather”) umbrella.  Powerful homosexual groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force promote such deviance — see our stories HERE and HERE on the Task Force’s annual “Leather Leadership Award.” The same Task Force — which purports to support “monogamous” values for homosexuals as it injects itself into Maine’s current battle over  “same-sex marriage” — manages to vilify Christian pro-family groups as “extremists” despite its own promotion of twisted and dehumanizing “S&M” perversions.

Daddy “Master,” Boy “Slave”:  Below, another “master-slave couple,” this one homosexual, poses for the camera at Sunday’s Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. Note that the “slave” — who appears to be considerably younger than his “master” — is bound by a leash to the older man. We had to cover it up, but the younger man also is wearing a “sex toy” contraption that hangs from his shoulders and attaches to the base of his testicles.