WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.

If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.

See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.

Event times and locations are as follows:

Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.

The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following is the “Conduct Unbecoming” article:

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And here is the military Enlistment Oath that every prospective serviceman and servicewoman must take:

Enlisted Oath

# 10 USCcode Sec. 502 (01/24/94) Enlistment oath, and who may administer
(Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 31, Sec. 502)

Sec. 502. – Enlistment oath: who may administer

Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: ”I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” This oath may be taken before any commissioned officer of any armed force.

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.

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ’support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”

"Stay at Home" Lesbian to Take Kids 1,800 Miles from their Dad? University of Illinois professor Karen Kelsky is one step closer to uprooting her children from their devoted father in Illinois and raising them with her lesbian lover in Oregon.

Folks, this is a tear-jerker — a real-world by-product of the cultural elites’ myth advancing the supposed equality of “gay parenting.” If this rancid decision is left unturned, these poor children will be forced to live with immoral role models and all the confusion that entails — far, far away from their devoted father. (Maybe a couple of homosexual “uncles” from Portland could replace him….) Also, note the perverted “scholarship” at the University of Illinois — your tax dollars at work, Illinoisans! God help us, and God help these poor children: that they won’t become guinea pigs in the Left’s latest social experiment: intentionally fatherless, lesbian parenting. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

I apologize for the lurid title, but this is a lurid story.

Every divorced father, every non-custodial parent, and every decent, fair, compassionate person should both tremble and be outraged by the recent feckless court decision of activist Illinois judge, John R. Kennedy.

The now-lesbian ex-wife of Mr. Taro Iwata took him to court in Urbana, Illinois in a successful attempt to take their two young children, with whom Mr. Iwata is very close, to Eugene, Oregon to live with her and her lesbian partner.

Eugene, Oregon–a stone’s throw from the lesbian mecca of Portland, Oregon–is 1,800 miles away from Champaign, Illinois, where both Mr. Iwata and his children currently live.

His ex-wife, Karen Kelsky, is a tenured associate professor of East Asian Languages and Culture and Anthropology at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). Kelsy has decided that her self-serving and disordered desire to live with a lesbian lover across the country trumps her husband’s natural and legitimate desire to be deeply and regularly involved in his children’s lives and trumps her children’s needs, desires, and rights to be deeply and regularly involved with their father.

And apparently Champaign County Judge Kennedy agrees, for he has decided that Kelsky may uproot her children, take them far away from their devoted father, and settle them permanently in a household defined by deviance.

According to attorney Jason Craddock, who represents Mr. Iwata, the Court found the following:
that the children’s best interests will be served by allowing the move because 1) the mother will be a “stay at home mom” (ah, yes, the quintessential picture of traditional domesticity: a fatherless home led by two lesbians) while her lover works (even though their standard of living here in Illinois is higher than their standard of living will be in Oregon); 2) the judge views the lesbian relationship as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage (even though neither the state of Illinois nor the state of Oregon views them as equivalent); 3) the judge found that the mother being with her lover will be a direct benefit that will enhance the children’s quality of life; and 4) the judge found that the presence in Oregon of the extended family of the lesbian lover was a factor warranting removal of the children in that neither the mother’s nor the father’s extended family lives close to Illinois or Oregon.

So now interactions with the extended family of a homosexual partner constitute a greater benefit to children than regular, frequent interactions with a loving, committed–and heterosexual–biological parent? That is a radical, subversive, insidious, pernicious, and stupefying idea. Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The Court went even further in its efforts to undermine the fundamental human right of both children and fathers to be intimately involved in one another’s lives: Kennedy decreased the remaining inadequate summer and holiday visitation times.

Attorney Craddock explains that,

Even from a “coldly” legal standpoint, this decision is subversive. It flies squarely in the face of decades of removal jurisprudence in Illinois, as Illinois courts historically and consistently give great weight to the relationship enjoyed between children and their non-custodial parents, and typically allow removal only where the visitation time would either remain the same or increase after the move. Also, Illinois courts have never allowed removal where a custodial parent desired to move to a place in order to move in with a paramour or when such a move would lower the family’s standard of living. Courts have without exception allowed removal only where the new spouse or fiancee of the custodial parent lived away from Illinois and where the standard of living would be increased.

This decision clearly constitutes an activist decision, with Judge Kennedy going boldly where the Illinois legislature expressly declined to go before: the Illinois “civil unions” bill presented in the House of Representatives was soundly rejected this past year. Our elected legislature apparently recognizes a legal distinction between heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples. Judge Kennedy has taken it upon himself to confer legal status where it decidedly does not exist.

This tragic, unconscionable, deliberate rupture in an essential relationship serves the unholy desire of Kelsky, who writes this about herself on the U. of Illinois faculty bio page (emphasis added):

My current work is on the lesbian community and the politics of transgenderism in Japan. I am at work on a book project entitled “The Personal is Personal: Reading the Lesbian in Contemporary Japan,” which is a cultural studies-based exploration of the major lesbian popular texts of the last twenty years, including autobiographies, zines, and pornography. I focus on the major sites of contestation around lesbian identity and subjectivity in this work, particularly around issues of butch-femme and sexual autonomy, coming out, privacy and visibility, and the question of sexual diversity. I have just finished a manuscript entitled “[Not] a Lesbian Feminist: Kakefuda Hiroko and the [Im]Possibility of the Lesbian Subject in 1990s Japan.”

Judge Kennedy’s findings reveal his likely underlying assumptions: he likely holds the unproven, highly arguable, a-historical theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, whereas in reality homosexuality is both ontologically and morally equivalent to polyamory or consensual incest.

He also likely holds the unproven, arguable, a-historical, erroneous theory that “gender” is irrelevant to both marriage and parenting.

Perhaps most troubling of all is that he has arrogantly decided that subordinating the relationship of father and children to the profoundly disordered relationship of mother and homosexual partner serves the best interests of the children.

It’s a wonder that Kennedy can sleep at night.

Mr. Iwata intends to appeal this execrable decision. Please pray for his victory.

ENDA Paves the Way: John Berry (left), President Obama’s openly homosexual director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, says that once the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is “enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time” before the rest of the administration’s sweeping homosexual and transsexual activist agenda will become law.

TAKE ACTION: write (preferably not just by e-mail) and call your U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose this radical big-government legislation that would strip away Americans’ foundational right to act on their religious and moral beliefs.

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade (emphasis added):

_________________________________

ENDA should be top priority – Berry

Says ‘Don’t Ask,’ DOMA repeal should also be pursued

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade
September 28, 2009

The highest-ranking openly gay appointee in the Obama administration is encouraging LGBT Americans to make passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act their No. 1 priority and said its success would place within reach other civil rights goals.

John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, called for greater focus on ENDA on Saturday following his keynote address at Out for Work’s national convention at the Westin City Center Hotel in D.C.

Berry advocated for the importance of ENDA — and identified repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act as other priorities — in response to an audience member’s question about possible legislative issues on the horizon and criticism that President Obama isn’t moving quickly enough on LGBT issues.

“The most important thing we can do right now is we got to … secure the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — and it’s got to include full transgender protections,” Berry said. “I believe that if we all concentrate our efforts where it needs to be concentrated, which is on the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, we can get the job done.”

Other pro-LGBT legislation can be more easily achieved, Berry said, if Congress were to pass ENDA.

“If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens,” he said. “It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there.”

Berry was confident that there are enough votes in the House to pass a fully inclusive ENDA, but said a question remains over whether there are 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster.

“We’re very close to the 218 [votes in the House],” Berry said. “We’re within spitting distance, and I think we will get it. We are not as close on the 60 in the Senate, but we will be, and this will happen, so I think it’s going to take that focal energy point.”

The OPM director commended Obama for being “clearly on the record” in support of ENDA. …

Berry said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has “an open mind” on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but that the secretary also has to work to “balance some things,” such as military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, the OPM director noted that administration support alone is insufficient to overturn the law.

“This administration strongly supports the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but in the end, having the president say that without 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate don’t get you far,” Berry said.

Also high among Berry’s priorities is overturning DOMA. The OPM director criticized Congress for passing the law in 1996 and said it was enacted for bad reasons.

“It was motivated only by hate, it was motivated by discrimination, it is a base law and it should be repealed,” Berry said.

Berry noted that Obama has called DOMA [discriminatory] and urged for its legislative repeal, but the OPM director added the best way toward overturning the law would be through the courts and not Congress.

“I will tell you personally I believe that I think the courts will strike this down before Congress will have to repeal it legislatively,” he said. “And thank goodness because, in this case, the backbone is not there in Congress.”

Support for repealing DOMA through litigation echoes the position of gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on the issue. Frank has not signed on as a co-sponsor to the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal DOMA, because he said Congress should tackle other LGBT priorities and a pending lawsuit against the statute better addresses the issue….

Rev. Kristopher Okwedy, a Nigerian immigrant, thought he would have the freedom to proclaim Biblical truth about homosexuality in the “the land of the free and home of the brave,” but alas, New York City politicians banned his billboard (left). Judge Sonia Sotomayor joined a Second Circuit order that denied Okwedy’s free speech. The ruling was obviously hostile to religion despite the Court’s claim otherwise. 

________________________

American Family Association Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 26, 2009

SOTOMAYOR: It’s okay for Government to ridicule Holy Bible

In 2003, Judge Sonia Sotomayor joined a Second Circuit order that excused government hostility toward religion.  In 2000, Rev. Kristopher Okwedy and Keyword Ministries, Inc. –– a Christian Church –– put up a billboard sign quoting a verse of the Holy Bible, Leviticus 18:22, that says, “Thou shall not lie with a male as with a female –– it is an abomination.”  The sign included the postscript, “I AM YOUR CREATOR.”  After three days and much public outcry, Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari called the display “mean spirited” and said the Bible verse “conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our Borough.”  He then attempted to have the sign removed or covered up.

Okwedy and Keyword Ministries sued in federal court, contending that Molinari’s statements violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, i.e., that the government must remain neutral in matters of religion.  The district court dismissed the case and Okwedy appealed.  A Second Circuit panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals that included Judge Sotomayor found no Establishment Clause violation because Molinari’s statement did not target a particular religious denomination or disapprove of religion.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that government must remain neutral in matters of religion,” said AFA General Counsel Patrick J. Vaughn.  “Judge Sotomayor joined a summary order that said it’s okay for government to condemn the Bible,” he added.  Don Wildmon, Chairman of American Family Association, observed that Sotomayor’s opinion “places a judicial stamp of approval on the comment of renowned communist Karl Marx that ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’ and further would permit a government official to say that the Bible is akin to Aesop’s Fables.”  Wildmon added that Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have “grave consequences for religious freedom.”

The case is Okwedy v. Molinari, 01-7941 (2d Cir. 2003) (unpublished summary order). To read a terrific albeit dated article about Okwedy and his billboard, see Stephen Crampton’s 2006 piece, “Okwedy’s Oddysey: The Bible as Hate Speech,” in Renew America.

American Family Association is a pro-family advocacy organization with over 2.5 million online supporters.

TAKE ACTION: call or write your U.S. Representative and Senators and urge them to oppose all efforts to homosexualize the United States Armed Forces. Call 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

Contact:  jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: June 8, 2009

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action issued the following statement today on news that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the military’s prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the armed forces. The high court refused an appeal from former Army Captain James Pietrangelo II, who was discharged after his superiors learned that he self-identified as “gay”:

“This is a military victory of a different sort,” said Barber. “Today our armed forces triumphed over the enemy of moral relativism; an enemy that seeks to replace military wisdom with San Francisco vice. This is a victory for our fighting young men and women and for the nation.

“The military is no place for such radical social experimentation; especially during a time of war. As polls continue to prove, the vast majority of military leaders and personnel agree. It has long been established that to enlist those who define themselves as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ would both disrupt unit cohesion and harm troop morale.

“In an age of rampant judicial activism it’s refreshing to witness some commonsense judicial restraint. This decision by the Supreme Court should once again remind everyone that, contrary to the propaganda fomented by the organized homosexual lobby, homosexual temptation and the destructive but changeable homosexual lifestyle must not be confused with neutral and immutable characteristics such as race or gender for purposes of assigning special government minority status or protections.

“It is properly illegal, for instance, to ban African-Americans from serving in the armed forces. It is neither illegal nor discriminatory, however, to disallow an African-American who ‘loudly and proudly’ chooses to engage in distractive, destructive and deviant sexual behaviors. Today’s decision hammers home that reality.

“I’m speaking from personal experience,” continued Barber. “I served twelve years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.

“A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.

“Still, although today’s news is good news, the battle is far from over. For the good of the country and in the interest of national security, President Obama should heed the wisdom of the high court and our military leadership. He should cease his ill-advised efforts to force the military to implicitly sanction sexual deviancy by allowing it to occur. He should leave Don’t Ask Don’t Tell alone.”

My friend Randy Thomasson (left) of SaveCalifornia.com expects at partial victory for pro-natural-marriage forces on Prop 8 Tuesday. — Peter LaBarbera. Randy writes:

As you’ve probably heard, the California Supreme Court will file its Prop. 8 ruling on Tuesday at 10 a.m. There’s no more praying or influencing you can do to effect the decision, because the seven justices’ opinions are already in writing.

SaveCalifornia.com expects a “half right, half wrong,” convoluted decision that allows some 18,000 homosexual “marriages” performed before Nov. 4 to remain legally valid, but after Election Day permitting the granting of marrriage licenses only to a man and a woman.

Our [Save California] news release from Friday afternoon is below. To be reminded of what the justices said during the Prop. 8 hearing on March 5, click HERE. Full Save California release follows:

_________________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 22, 2009

California Supreme Court Expected to ‘Half Uphold’ Prop. 8
Thomasson: “This voters’ rights case, which never should have gone to court, will likely be decided half right and half wrong.”

Sacramento, California — The March 5 hearing on Proposition 8 provided the strongest indication of how the California Supreme Court is going to rule this Tuesday, says a pro-family veteran of the war for marriage in California.

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, has been steadfastly defending marriage rights for one man and one woman since 1994. Nearly three months ago at the Prop. 8 hearing in San Francisco, Thomasson was inside the Supreme Court building to witness what the justices said during three hours of oral arguments.

“This voters’ rights case, which never should have gone to court, will likely be decided half right and half wrong,” Thomasson said. “During oral arguments, Justices George and Kennard made it clear that, like it or not, they had to go with the voters, which would put them with three other justices — Baxter, Chin and Corrigan — who upheld man-woman marriage last year. At the same time, nearly all of the judges ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California ‘is’ between a man and a woman, ‘regardless of when’ the marriage was performed.”

“Bottom line,” Thomasson said, “it’s virtually guaranteed that the court will rule that only man-woman marriages could be performed after the vote on Prop. 8, but that nearly four months of homosexual ‘marriages’ performed before the election day will still be recognized. This would be half right and half wrong, not giving the Constitution or the voters the respect they deserve.”

Prop. 8 proponents’ rebuttal arguments in the voter information guide stated: “Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed.” “‘Regardless of when…performed’ obviously means that pre-existing same-sex ‘marriages’ are not valid in light of Prop. 8,” Thomasson said. “Why is it so hard to understand what the words ‘is’ and ‘when’ mean?”

Prop. 8 was approved last November by 52.3% of California voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California State Constitution, reading, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The vote of the people overruled the California Supreme Court, which, on a 4 to 3 vote, had invented “same-sex marriages” in May 2008.

– end –

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

Will Obama Nominate a “Gay” Supreme Court Justice? Liberal opinion-makers like Mark Halperin of MSNBC (left) now treat homosexuality as an element of “diversity” that should be celebrated by society. See YouTube video and interview transcript below. TAKE ACTION: Urge Sen. Sessions (202-224-4124) to oppose the confirmation of pro-homosexuality (activist) justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courts.

By Peter LaBarbera

Welcome to the new “Sexual Diversity” landscape created by decades of homosexual activism — with its essentially anti-Christian, anti-Biblical ethos. Liberal opinion-making elites like MSNBC’s Mark Halperin below now treat homosexual perversion (oops, sorry, “sexual orientation”) as part of America’s “minority” tapestry — eligible for all the “diversity” demands — read: quotas — of other (genuine) minority groups. Identity politics and affirmative action are bad enough with real minorities; they will become unbearable once expanded to include advocates and practitioners of changeable sexual sin — which is what an open and proudly “gay” Supreme Court justice would be.

Please watch the YouTube video clip below of an interview yesterday morning (May 7) between Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the new highest ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee following the party switch of Sen. Arlen Specter. Note how Halperin eagerly pushes the “homosexuality-as-diversity” line — which Sen. Sessions attempts to fend off with his “gay tendencies” remark. With all due respect to the senator, if that’s the best that conservatives can do, we will be squashed by liberal and libertarian advocates of proud homosexuality in this debate.

Imagine: what Senator is going to have the guts to challenge the idea that it is “wrong for a justice to be disqualified because of ‘who he is’” — to quote the now widely accepted but biblically false homosexual-activist cliché? There is a deeply personal and emotional level of activism in anyone who self-identifies as “openly gay” — as opposed to one who struggles against the unwanted pull of homosexuality — because that person flips timeless morality on its head. The unapologetic “gay” person has his or her whole life and, indeed, eternal destiny invested in the idea that Judeo-Christian teachings against homosexual behavior as sinful should be discarded. An openly homosexual judge “not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral” — how absurd and naive!  A transcript of the MSNBC exchange between Halperin and Sessions follows the video:

Transcript of MSNBC “Morning Joe” interview between Mark Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), May 7, 2009:

MARK HALPERIN: Senator, big opportunity for you here in the national spotlight coming up when these hearings get underway.  You told Neil Cavuto — we just saw just now — that you could vote for a pro-choice nominee, in theory. A couple of people at least supposedly under consideration are openly gay. Could you vote for an openly gay justice, which we’ve never had before?

SEN. SESSIONS:  Well, … it depends on their personal ethics and standards, and their legal skill and ability. I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se [from] the job. We’ll just have to see–

HALPERIN: Would you welcome that as a diverse thing that we haven’t had in American history?

SESSIONS: Well, I don’t think that we should be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court. We need to be looking for a person that can gain full respect of the American people, who can apply the law fairly, when they put on that robe will be non-partisan and non-biased — not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral, and follow the law faithfully. Those are critical components in this magnificent rule of law we have in the Supreme Court.

Contact: Matt Barber: jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: April 27, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iowa Governor Should Tell Court ‘Thanks but No Thanks’

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.

“In Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to imagine there exists a ‘constitutional right’ to ’same-sex marriage.’ It held that if the Court were to create such a right, it would amount to an unconstitutional act of ‘judicial legislation.’ With its recent opinion charging that such a right exists and ordering that, starting today, marriage licenses be given to homosexual duos, the Iowa Supreme Court has done just that. It has co-opted the role of both the legislative and executive branches of government and has presumed to unconstitutionally create and administer law from the bench.

“This presents the perfect opportunity for Iowa Governor Chet Culver – who publicly opposes ‘gay marriage’ – to give the Iowa Supremes and the American people a much needed lesson in ’separation of powers.’  The constitutional process cleverly provides intrinsic checks and balances to avoid tyrannical governance from any one branch of government,” said Barber. “The Iowa Supreme Court has attempted to fundamentally redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage in direct conflict with the constitutionally codified will of the people and the legislature. It doesn’t get much more tyrannical than that.

“For any new law to be properly implemented, either the people of Iowa – through ballot initiative – or the state legislature would have to affirmatively create that new law. And, of course, if such a law arrived on the Governor’s desk by way of the legislature, he has every right to either sign it or veto it.

“In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an ‘opinion’ and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?” asked Barber.

“Governor Culver has an opportunity to do what former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney refused to do when given the same chance. That is, to uphold his state Constitution and become a champion to ‘we the people’ in the process. Culver should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, ‘thanks but no thanks’ and immediately order that no further marriage licenses be given to any couple that does not meet the common sense requirements properly in existence since the day the Iowa Constitution was drafted.”

*Titles provided for identification purposes only.

###

Contact: Matt Barber: jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: April 27, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iowa Governor Should Tell Court ‘Thanks but No Thanks’

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.

“In Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to imagine there exists a ‘constitutional right’ to ’same-sex marriage.’ It held that if the Court were to create such a right, it would amount to an unconstitutional act of ‘judicial legislation.’ With its recent opinion charging that such a right exists and ordering that, starting today, marriage licenses be given to homosexual duos, the Iowa Supreme Court has done just that. It has co-opted the role of both the legislative and executive branches of government and has presumed to unconstitutionally create and administer law from the bench.

“This presents the perfect opportunity for Iowa Governor Chet Culver – who publicly opposes ‘gay marriage’ – to give the Iowa Supremes and the American people a much-needed lesson in ’separation of powers.’  The constitutional process cleverly provides intrinsic checks and balances to avoid tyrannical governance from any one branch of government,” said Barber. “The Iowa Supreme Court has attempted to fundamentally redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage in direct conflict with the constitutionally codified will of the people and the legislature. It doesn’t get much more tyrannical than that.

“For any new law to be properly implemented, either the people of Iowa – through ballot initiative – or the state legislature would have to affirmatively create that new law. And, of course, if such a law arrived on the Governor’s desk by way of the legislature, he has every right to either sign it or veto it.

“In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an ‘opinion’ and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?” asked Barber.

“Governor Culver has an opportunity to do what former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney refused to do when given the same chance. That is, to uphold his state Constitution and become a champion to ‘we the people’ in the process. Culver should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, ‘thanks but no thanks’ and immediately order that no further marriage licenses be given to any couple that does not meet the common sense requirements properly in existence since the day the Iowa Constitution was drafted.”

*Titles provided for identification purposes only.

###

It’s comical to watch homosexual activists call others liars — even as they promote the colossal falsehood that denies the “queer” threat to Americans’ religious liberties and freedom of conscience. Heck, HRC staffers have cut their teeth demonizing faith-based pro-family advocates as bigots on a par with vile racists of the past — while working to squelch our voice in the public square. (I wonder if HRC staffer Darryl Herrschaft got bonus pay for kicking me off a “DiversityInc” panel discussion on “Religion in the Workplace” in 2007.) Worst of all, they maliciously link pro-family and church speech to violence against homosexuals in their cynical campaign to pass “hate crimes” legislation. Make no mistake: if HRC’s agenda is enacted at the federal level, your freedom to live by your beliefs will take a big hit. Please support NOM’s work. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it. … Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

Note in the Michigan Messenger article that Illinois is viewed as a likely state for a court challenge like Iowa that produced the “gay marriage” decision:

—————————

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 3, 2009

Michigan gay rights advocates praise Iowa’s same-sex marriage court ruling

by Todd A. Heywood

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday morning struck down a state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman, and many Michigan residents are hailing the ruling that makes the Hawkeye State the first in the Midwest to OK same-sex marriage. However, the case will have little direct impact on Michigan.

“This is a great opinion,” said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s Gay Lesbian Project. “This was a unanimous decision from Iowa’s Supreme Court and the first time we have a favorable opinion in the Midwest.”

“While the ruling itself is significant, the reasoning behind the unanimous decision is insightful, fair, and thorough,” said Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, a Lansing-based LBGT rights organization.

“It’s a different scenario there,” Kaplan said. “Iowa doesn’t have a constitutional amendment like we do. Its civil rights laws cover LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] people, and the make-up of its Supreme Court is different than what we have here. We’d have to repeal our constitutional amendment, replace several justices on the Michigan Supreme Court before we’d be able to see a decision like this here.”

Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 that banned gay marriage and other same-sex unions.

Still, Kaplan said, other states can look to Iowa’s ruling. “I think it sets a good template for states that are similarly situated to Iowa (in terms of laws, courts, etc.), and we may see more developments in marriage equality in the Midwest (possibly a successful challenge in Illinois in the future) — so that the successes are not just limited to the coasts.”

As gay rights groups across the country hail the ruling, opponents are not as happy.

Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, opposed the ruling.
“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it,” he said. “Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

According to Lynda Waddington over at Michigan Messenger’s sibling site, The Iowa Independent, state law there does not have any residency requirements for marriage. This means same-sex couples could begin going to the Hawkeye State to get married, as was seen last year when California legalized same-sex marriage.

The Iowa Supreme Court judges are appointed by the governor, approved by the state Senate, then serve one year. At the end of the year they face a judicial retention election.

April 3, 2009                    Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

CHICAGO– Today’s Iowa Supreme Court decision imposing “same-sex marriage” as a constitutional “right” is an assault on not just the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of that state, but also on the God we ask to “Bless America” — and the common-sense, pro-family values of the Midwest, said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.

LaBarbera, who is also on the board of Protect Marriage Illinois, issued the following statement regarding the court’s reckless decision:

“Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors.

“Homosexual ‘marriage’ is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive – as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men. We must shake loose of the secularists’ and libertarians’ amoral nonchalance regarding ‘same-sex marriage’ by asking questions like this: how exactly would two men consummate their ‘gay marriage”’ Answer: by engaging in what one Founding Father, Noah Webster, writing in saner times, rightly defined as a ‘crime against nature.’

“’Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ said abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and the evidence keeps pouring in that the entire homosexualist agenda is at war – not just with our nation’s Biblical heritage – but with the freedoms that made the United States of America great and blessed among nations. When the courts order society to effectively pretend that changeable sexual misbehavior is a ‘civil right,’ the law itself becomes perverted by punishing people of faith for their proper opposition toward deviant sex. The battle between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom is a ‘zero-sum’ game – as even lesbian Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum admits.

“I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism in our midst.  Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children. This same God graciously provides a way out of this sinful lifestyle through His son Jesus Christ, a path many former homosexuals have taken – including those now living in real (man-woman) marriages.

“It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans – Christian and non-Christian alike — about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, and sex outside marriage in general.”

March 4, 2009; www.LC.org

San Francisco, CA – [Today, March 5] the California Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Shortly after the amendment passed, three lawsuits were filed at the California Supreme Court by same-sex marriage advocates, claiming Proposition 8 is itself unconstitutional. Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families defending the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels. Liberty Counsel also filed an amicus brief at the California Supreme Court in defense of Proposition 8.

The legal question is simple, as the California Supreme Court previously stated:

1. Is the amendment “an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions?”; or
2. Does the amendment “change … the basic plan of California government, i.e., a change in its fundamental structure or the foundational powers of its branches?”

The answer to both questions is “No!” The California Supreme Court also stated: “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” And as the California Supreme Court said in its May 15, 2008, decision, “the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will.” In re Marriage Cases, (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 852.

Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that invalidating Proposition 8 would have a devastating effect on the constitutional rights of those who exercised their right to vote on the initiative. The California Supreme Court should continue to honor a cornerstone of California’s constitutional foundation – separation of powers. If the Court does not uphold Proposition 8, it will no longer be anchored to the bedrock principles that have held this state republic together for 150 years. Instead the court, legislatures, and voters would be left standing on shifting sand to be tossed about by the winds of social and political change. Liberty Counsel’s brief also argues that Proposition 8 invalidates all same-sex marriages entered into prior to November 4, 2008, because Prop 8 states that only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized in California.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Constitution cannot overrule itself. When the people passed Proposition 8, it became part of the state Constitution and no judge, irrespective of how high or mighty, may stand above the rule of law. After the passage of Proposition 8, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In the same way that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished a slaveholder’s title and the Prohibition Amendment divested the right to sell liquor, Proposition 8 makes same-sex marriage licenses invisible and void.”

How Many More eHarmony “gay” sellouts under ENDA? Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony.com, lost his courage and settled rather than fight a homosexual lawsuit filed under New Jersey’s “sexual orientation” law. So now Warren and eHarmony.com are facilitating immoral homosexual unions. If a federal ENDA bill becomes law, it will greatly enhance the power of homosexual activists to force businessmen and employers to accommodate and subsidize homosexual relationships against their will. The very freedom of Christians, Muslims and other moral-minded citizens to disagree with homosexuality hangs in the balance. 

TAKE ACTION: Answer the pro-homosexual lobby campaign! Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and have them connect you to your Representative (based on your zip code). Tell them: “I am a constituent and I would like you to please tell Representative _______ that I strongly OPPOSE the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — which threatens Americans’ basic freedom to live out their faith and disagree with homosexual behavior. I also oppose expanding federal “hate crimes” law to add “sexual orientation” and opening up our Armed Forces to open homosexuality — especially during a time of war. Then, call back and leave messages with your two Senators too! Contact their local offices, which you can find through www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. 

__________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

OK, everyone, vacation is over. Americans For Truth is back on the beat, fresh from being denounced and mocked by various pro-sodomy “queer” blogs at the end of 2008 (what an honor — more on that later). Below, please read an appeal for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) from a major homosexual activist group — and then DO THE OPPOSITE by calling your U.S. Congressman and Senators and urge them to vote AGAINST the ENDA bill.

We’re calling ENDA — a top priority for the Homosexual and Transsexual Lobbies — the “ENDA’ Our Freedom” Bill because it poses a severe threat to Americans’ First Amendment freedom to disagree with homosexuality. ENDA would be used to force small- and medium-sized businesses to subsidize immoral homosexual unions — and that’s un-American!

Here’s a paper I wrote for AFTAH on ENDA, but if you’re too busy or too lazy to read that, here’s how to think of ENDA:

Remember the recent outrage over eHarmony.com’s sellout to homosexual activism — when evangelical Christian founder Neil Clark Warren agreed to create a “gay” dating website under the auspices of eHarmony? Well, that sellout, unnecessary and misguided as it was, came at the point of a gun. And the “gun” was New Jersey’s state version of ENDA: a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” law. That very same New Jersey “sexual orientation” law was used to launch the legal assault against the Boy Scouts of America’s fundamental right to live by its own creed and NOT allow homosexual (or atheist) Scoutmasters.

Thankfully, the Boy Scouts (unlike eHarmony.com) did not capitulate and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately preserved their freedom of association in a 5-4 decision that surely would have gone the other way if just one more liberal justice of the sort favored by President-elect Obama (and many other powerful Democrats) were seated on the Court.

Like the Boy Scouts’, our freedom to disagree with sexual immorality hangs in the balance. We must work hard against ENDA and the entire “queer” legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. The other side sees this as their moment and is engaged heavily in the fight to make homosexuality and gender confusion a “civil right.” And they have a new, pro-homosexual president, the liberal media and increased Democratic strength in Congress on their side. But never forget what they lack: the truth.

Let’s be blunt: the effort to mainstream homosexuality in American law and culture is evil, destructive to faith, marriage and the natural family and — like abortion-on-demand — part of an anti-God agenda. President-elect Obama is a deeply conflicted man on the homosexual issue — or at least he should be if he’s not. Obama professes Christianity but he has distorted Scripture (or minimized its importance) on the sin of homosexuality. However, he was elected with the overwhelming support of religious African Americans and many others who profoundly disagree with the homosexual “civil-rights” paradigm. (In California, Blacks carried both Obama and Prop 8 to victory.) Always remember: there are zero “former” African-Americans or “ex-Hispanics”; there are lots of happy ex-”gays” and former “lesbians” — evidence that homosexuality is about changeable behavior, not some inborn identity. (See former lesbian Charlene Cothran’s heartwarming testimony HERE.)

I was a poll-watcher on Election Day and I saw the tremendous pride of Blacks voting for the man who would become the first African-American president to lead these United States. One Black woman in her late-thirties was beaming as she voted for the first time. A tall African-American man came in and pronounced to the whole room (standing in front of the befuddled election officials): “I’m here to vote for BARACK OBAMA!” I did not vote for Obama due to his liberal agenda (I’d vote for a Black conservative in a heartbeat) but applauded in my heart the symbolic shattering of the idea — stoked by the Left — that America is a racist nation. We are not.

But racism and homosexual conduct do have something in common: they are both destructive sins, yet changeable through God’s grace.

Now we at AFTAH call on all Obama supporters — especially people of faith — who disagree with the notion that homosexuals’ supposed “right” to be affirmed supersedes the liberty of the rest of America to live by their our own moral and religious beliefs — please make your voices heard! Let President Obama know that the oppressive homosexual activist and “gay marriage” is not part of the “change” you wanted.

The clear reality is this: the homosexual agenda is more about AFFIRMING HOMOSEXUALITY and UNDERMINING JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES than correcting injustice. There is no epidemic of homosexuals being fired; in fact, they are increasingly being courted by major corporations –  while it is faith-based employees like Matt Barber (an AFTAH Board Member, fired by Allstate in 2005) who face reprisals for opposing homosexuality and who are forced to endure faith-assaulting, pro-homosexuality/pro-transsexual “diversity” propaganda on the job.

_____________________________

TAKE ACTION: PLEASE DO THE OPPOSITE OF THIS “GAY” ACTIVIST ALERT FROM THE RADICAL LEFTIST “NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE”:

Congress Swears In Today! Let them know you care about ENDA!
Filed by: Guest Blogger
January 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Editors’ Note: Guest blogger Rea Carey is Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund.

Today, January 6, Members of Congress raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution as they begin the new legislative session.

Let’s make sure the first thing they hear about is the importance of an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that protects all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

In DC, make their phone ring! Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and have them connect you to your Representative (based on your zip code). Tell them: “I am a constituent and I would like you to please tell Representative _______ that I strongly support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would ban discrimination against all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Then, call back and leave messages with your two Senators too!

At home, set up a visit!
Request an in-person meeting for you and other community members with your two Senators and your Representative (or their staffs) in their home district offices. You can call the district offices to request these meetings but they often want you to fax a meeting request. To find contact info for district offices, go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov.

Sample meeting request letters, and other talking points and resources for your meetings, are available in the following toolkits [Note: the following are pro-homosexual resources]:

The Task Force ENDA Grassroots Toolkit [pdf]
National Center for Transgender Equality’s Making Your Voice Heard [pdf]
PFLAG’s Bringing the Message Home

Let us know!

Let us know how your meeting went. Go to unitedenda.org and fill out the Lobby Report Form to tell us whether your Representative and Senators expressed support.

Barack Obama has promised a lot to self-styled “queer” activists: open homosexuality in the military, a federal “civil unions” law, “hate crimes” legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacting ENDA, etc. He has also pledged to use his bully pulpit as President to advocate for homosexual goals. Will pro-family Americans be able to put the brakes on Obama’s “gay agenda”?  Help AFTAH reach its goal of $5,000 in online donations by midnight tonight (central time) by making a tax-free gift at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/. Or become a monthly AFTAH Truth Team giver HERE.

Below are 10 good reasons to support Americans For Truth about Homosexuality as we head into a New Year.  Before we get to the 10 points, though here’s how to help us reach our goal of $5,000 in online donations by midnight tonight — we are three-fifths of the way there:

YEAR-END MATCHING GIFT: Go to our user-friendly giving page — ww.americansfortruth.com/donate/ — to make your tax-free donation using PayPal or your MasterCard or Visa.  ALL ONLINE GIFTS MADE BY MIDNIGHT CENTRAL TIME WILL BE COUNTED AS A TAX DEDUCTION ON YOUR 2008 TAXES! Or mail a gift here (postmarked by 12/31 if you want it to count for 2008; Jan. 1 and after will go toward 2009):  AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

TRUTH TEAM MEMBERSHIP:  To sign up as a Truth Team member by pledging $25, $50, $100, $250 or more per month to sustain AFTAH’s critical work, go HERE.

_____________________________________

Ten Reasons to Support Americans For Truth in 2009

By Peter LaBarbera

1. President-elect Barack Obama’s support for radical, pro-homosexual federal “hate crimes” legislation. Will homosexuals rise to the top of the politically correct hierarchy of victims in the United States?  Will pastors who teach correctly from the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful be brought up as “accomplices” if someone who attends their church attacks a homosexual? All crimes involve hate at some level and all Americans — including homosexuals — deserve equal protection under the law without regard to special criteria.
2. Obama’s support for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which would use federal power to force businesses to support homosexuality and subsidize homosexual employees’ relationships regardless of their faith- or morality-based opposition to homosexual conduct. Why should homosexuality-based “rights” (mandates) take precedence over Americans’ historic religious and First Amendment liberties?
3. Obama’s call to allow open homosexuality in the military — during wartime no less — and Obama’s promise to use the bully pulpit to advocate other pro-homosexual agenda goals such as homosexual adoption of children.  Will our Commander-in-Chief become the Gay-Propagandist-in-Chief? And what sort of homosexuality-affirming “Christianity” is Obama going to espouse (as he does in his book, Audacity of Hope)?
4. Obama’s pledge to work for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” Mr. Obama: please forget this radical promise and defend marriage as president if you truly believe that it should remain between a man and a woman!
5. Obama’s support for a federal “civil unions” bill – essentially “gay marriage” by another name.  Honoring homosexual unions and rewarding them with government benefits only undermines genuine marriage in society.
6. Obama’s promise to sign the radical “Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eviscerate pro-life reform laws across the country that have helped save thousands of innocent unborn children’s lives.
7. The real possibility that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Proposition 8 – passed by the people of that state Nov. 4.  Do citizens’ votes count and do they have a right to stop liberal judges from imposing a radical redefinition of marriage by fiat?
8. Homosexual activists’ intolerance and anti-democratic behavior as exhibited following their loss on Prop 8 in California.  If homosexual militants behave like this now – declaring their counterfeit “marriages” a “constitutional right” and demonizing religious opponents as “hate-filled bigots” analogous to the KKK — imagine the potential for abuse should they gain federal power through passage of federal hate crimes and employment legislation (ENDA).
9. The ongoing, aggressive lobbying by the Gender Confusion Movement. Having learned well from their “gay’” allies, “transgender” activists seek to turn “gender nonconformity” into a legal civil right.  This would include the supposed “right” of a very young boy to come to school in a dress if he thinks he should be a girl.  (Now there’s an agenda item sure to be popular with most parents of school-age children….)  Memo to the Transgender Lobby: women do NOT want biologically-born men (wearing dresses and high heels) with male genitalia in their public restrooms—period.
10. The socially leftist media’s and Hollywood’s increasingly bold and arrogant promotion of all things “gay.”  When it gets so bad that Newsweek magazine runs a cover story positing (out of nowhere) that the Bible supports homosexuality-based “marriage,” the media has lost all perspective on this issue.  They are taking their cues directly from the homosexual lobby — which means increasingly they will be demonizing people of faith as “haters.”  And then they wonder why newspaper and magazine sales are down.  AFTAH will continue to speak out against the media’s and Hollywood’s secular bigotry.

There are many more reasons to support AFTAH but all involve our unshakable commitment to you to defend the truth against the homosexual activist agenda — boldly and without apology. The main question on this issue should not be: “What’s wrong with gay marriage?” or “How does my ‘gay marriage’ affect you?” but rather: “Why are all relationships built around unnatural, changeable, immoral and often unhealthy homosexual behavior somehow deserving of taxpayer-subsidized government recognition?  Or perhaps: “Why is it wise for our government to elevate and reward natural marriage and the mom-and-dad-with-children family over destructive, unmarried and unnatural relationships?”

The side that frames the issue wins the debate — and the pro-family side often loses because we allow radical, pro-homosexuality activists to frame the issue. Let’s get back to basics in 2009!

Thank you for supporting our important work! To give to AFTAH:

YEAR-END MATCHING GIFT: Go to our user-friendly giving page — ww.americansfortruth.com/donate/ — to make your tax-free donation using PayPal or your MasterCard or Visa.  ALL ONLINE GIFTS MADE BY MIDNIGHT CENTRAL TIME WILL BE COUNTED AS A TAX DEDUCTION ON YOUR 2008 TAXES!  Or mail a gift here (postmarked by 12/31 if you want it to count for 2008; Jan. 1 and after will go toward 2009):  AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

TRUTH TEAM MEMBERSHIP:  To sign up as a Truth Team member by pledging $25, $50, $100, $250 or more per month to sustain AFTAH’s critical work, go HERE.

Demonizing Christians in the name of “Tolerance” – The current “gay” activist campaign to demonize “Purpose Driven” pastor and author Rick Warren exposes the homosexual lobby’s totalitarian, anti-Christian impulse: this is is one sin movement that cannot be appeased and which is willing to destroy or silence ANYONE who gets in its way — be it Anita Bryant, Dr. Laura Schlessinger or now Rick Warren. America needs a fearless voice like Americans For Truth that UNAPOLOGETICALLY exposes the lies and bigoted, hardball tactics of the Homosexual Lobby. Help us make the most of a new matching gift by making your online gift of $100 (or whatever you can give) before midnight tomorrow: www.americansfortruth.com/donate/. Sign up to be an AFTAH Monthly Truth Team giver at www.americansfortruth.com/membership.php. Click on photo to enlarge.

______________________________

YEAR-END MATCHING GIFT: A generous Illinois supporter has just offered to match a limited number of $100 gifts to Americans For Truth through year’s end. Would you consider making a tax-deductible gift to Americans For Truth of $100 — or  $25, $50, $250 or even $500 or $1,000 — to help sustain AFTAH’s unique mission of standing boldly against the aggressive Homosexual Lobby’s lies?  Our goal is $5,000 in online gifts by year’s end. Go to our user-friendly giving page — www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ — to make your tax-free donation using PayPal or your MasterCard or Visa.  Or mail a gift here (postmarked by 12/31 if you want it to count for 2008; Jan. 1 and after will go toward 2009):  AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

TRUTH TEAM MEMBERSHIP:  To sign up as a Truth Team member by pledging $25, $50, $100, $250 or more per month to sustain AFTAH’s critical work, go HERE.

___________________________

“Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be … married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.” – Lisa Miller, Newsweek Religion Editor

HA HA …  CA Supreme Court rules the ban against same sex marriage is unconstitutional. – E-mail sent by “Matt Autio” to AFTAH May 15, 2008. Six months later, the high court ruling was overturned when California voters passed Proposition 8 re-establishing marriage as between a man and a woman. Now homosexual lawyers are appealing to the California Supreme Court to once again overturn the will of the people by invalidating the historic Prop 8 vote.

Dear Friend of Americans For Truth,

I hope you are enjoying the Christmas holiday as we ready ourselves for another New Year.  I’m writing to ask you to consider making a tax-free, year-end gift to Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) –– a leading group specializing in exposing and opposing the rich and powerful homosexual activist movement.  All gifts to AFTAH are tax-deductible for 2008 if postmarked by Dec. 31st or for 2009 if postmarked Jan. 1st or later.

Americans For Truth is known and respected by leading family advocates worldwide for our fearless truth-telling on the homosexual issue.  Long before the homosexual activist threat to our religious liberties became a hot issue in pro-family circles, AFTAH was warning Americans about the dangerous implications of reinventing “civil rights” based on destructive –– and changeable –– homosexual behavior.  We have been blessed as our website (www.americansfortruth.com) received over 600,000 page hits in November alone and over 6 million page hits in 2008. We now have faithful, daily readers all over the world — such as Leo from Italy — who rely on us for information on the homosexual agenda that they cannot get from the liberal, pro-“gay” media!

Because of our work, we are despised and hated by homosexual militants – although as Christians we do not hate them back!  (Check out this ongoing, nasty attack on me by just one of thousands of homosexual websites dedicated to justifying immoral behavior; this particular activist was infuriated that we had the audacity to link the tragic death of a 26-year-old homosexual man from AIDS to his embrace of the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle.)

Every day, AFTAH receives awful and often vulgar or blasphemous letters from homosexual zealots [see this "Kill. Christians" AFTAH article for a few examples.]  Many — including the vicious “queer” activist Wayne Besen — accuse me of being a closeted homosexual pervert (I’ve got many problems; that’s not one of them), and some say I will go to hell for opposing what in reality is a sin.

All this is very strange behavior for a movement espousing “tolerance.”  Nevertheless, despite all the liberal lies and hatred directed our way, Americans For Truth will never back down in defending marriage and your freedom to live by your Biblical or moral convictions.  I would sooner go to jail than deny God by celebrating what the Bible clearly calls sin (Romans 1). Hopefully it won’t come to that.

With Barack Obama coming to power, we defenders of moral truth will face many challenges.  Few Americans understand the depth of Obama’s commitment to the homosexual agenda.  He even called for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Bill Clinton) and pledged to use the bully pulpit to promote homosexual adoptions.  I pray that Obama will NOT keep his promises to the ‘Gay’ Lobby but if he does, we will be ready to mobilize Americans in defense of marriage and freedom of conscience.

We must answer the media’s deceptions –– Newsweek even ran a cover-story making the absurd claim that the Bible supports homosexual “marriage”! –– as many brainwashed young people are buying into this agenda.  May God bless you as together we stand boldly for truth, speaking in the love and grace of Christ, who IS the Truth (John 14:6).

Thank you to all who through your generosity make AFTAH’s work possible. God bless. 

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
President, Americans For Truth
americansfortruth@comcast.net
www.aftah.org
630-717-7631

P.S.  Everywhere you turn, Christians like Pastor Rick Warren are being demonized for defending marriage and God’s truth that homosexuality is wrong yet changeable behavior — as proven by the many ex-”gay” and former lesbians leading happy lives.  We are trying to match a generous $10,000 grant to AFTAH: could you help us with a year-end gift of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or whatever you can give to support our vital work as a lonely voice for sanity on this issue?  To give online, go to www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.  Become a monthly Truth Team donor at: http://americansfortruth.com/membership.php.  All donations to AFTAH, a 501(c)3 charitable organization, are tax-deductible.  Thank you and God bless you!

REFERENCE ARTICLES:

‘Kill. Christians.’ and Other Nasty E-mails: Why they Hate Americans For Truth
http://americansfortruth.com/news/kill-christians-and-other-nasty-e-mails-why-they-hate-americans-for-truth-help-aftah-raise-5000-online-by-years-end.html

Obama’s Doublespeak on ‘Gay Marriage’
http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-doublespeak-on-%E2%80%98gay-marriage%E2%80%99.html

Besen Promotes Pray-Away-the-Gay Line to Discredit Ex-Homosexuals
http://americansfortruth.com/news/besen-promotes-pray-away-the-gay-line-to-discredit-ex-homosexuals.html

Tyrants of Tolerance Go after Obama for Inaugural Choice of Rick Warren
http://americansfortruth.com/news/tyrants-of-tolerance-go-after-obama-for-inaugural-choice-rick-warren.html

Transgendered Twirlers and “Porno Pete”: Why AFTAH Does not Allow Comments on this Website
http://americansfortruth.com/news/transgendered-twirlers-letter-and-why-aftah-does-not-allow-comments-on-this-website.html

Leading Expert on Bible and Homosexuality Rebuts Newsweek Article Claiming Bible Supports Gay ‘Marriage’
http://americansfortruth.com/news/leading-expert-on-bible-and-homosexuality-rebuts-newsweek-article-claiming-bible-supports-gay-marriage.html

Homosexual Parenting Advocate Dan Savage on Homosexual ‘Three-Ways’ and Nonmonogamy
http://americansfortruth.com/news/dan-savage-on-homosexual-threesomes-and-nonmonogamy.html

As we [celebrate] Christ’s birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.

America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:

“In the name of God, Amen. … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

The sentiments and statements of America’s founders make it clear that this nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No other people have such a heritage.

One thing America’s founders could not envision was–after they had paid so terrible a price to purchase our liberties–that the time would come when their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a state constitution protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school, or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.

I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism. Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central government so large that it would be unrecognizable by any Founding Father. In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country down the proverbial river, as surely as there is a sun in the sky. Truly, our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone altogether.

Merry Christmas!

_________________________________

Chuck Baldwin is a pastor, columnist and radio broadcaster who was the 2008 presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. His website is www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081223.html. If you appreciate this column and want to help Baldwin distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

__________________________

“Down with Prop 8!”
Angry “gays” said it was all about “hate.”
Their hypocrisy uncanny,
They roughed up a granny
As for liberal court activism they wait.

– by Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com