Enough already. Lt. Dan Choi (activist website HERE) is more than a distraction to the military: he’s a misguided “gay” militant who needs to follow his true calling — crusading for the acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. We’re quite sure there’s a job waiting for him at the leftist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or perhaps the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The liberal media may love Choi (note CNN’s Rick Sanchez’s somber and deferential tone) but I’d hate to count on the media to defend America. See additional comments after the break and following the video:

The spectacle of Choi protesting his own Commander-in-Chief and Choi’s self-aggrandizing crusade against the Armed Forces — which by law cannot allow open homosexuals — helps explain to the public why celebrated homosexuality has no place in our military culture. Imagine all the pro-”gay” activism that would follow an official governmental shift toward mandating that the military affirm homosexuals. This must never happen. Homosexual behavior is incompatible with good morale and military discipline — and “gay”-affirming “diversity” policies would offend religious and moral-minded servicemen and drive good men and women out of the military. Somehow we think the United States Armed Forces can thrive in their true mission — fighting wars and protecting our shores — without being diverted into the dubious business of homosexual “pride.” – — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

AFTAH Board Member and Liberty Counsel Cultural Affairs Director Matt Barber adds this:

“Through Choi’s juvenile fit of civil disobedience, he obtusely undermines his own cause. As a former veteran with twelve years of service, I can say with authority that the military is only as strong as each link within its chain of command. Radical homosexual activists like Choi are weak links within that chain.

“Civil disobedience such as Choi’s must not and cannot be ‘tolerated’ within our Armed Services.  Choi has proven himself an insubordinate. I have no sympathy for this reckless, self-serving ideologue. His demonstrated disobedience and disregard for orders (Article 10, Section 654 USC) bolsters the case against both homosexual conduct and sexual militancy in the Armed Forces.”

Note: here is the CNN Youtube URL in case the version on our website does not work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbYQ8oxqFg4

[To listen to the ONN story online, click on "HEAR REPORT" button at upper right corner of the ONN story; to subscribe to ONN's "Daily News Brief," click HERE; to subscribe to ONN's Web Alerts, click HERE. ]

______________________________________________

LaBarbera: UNAIDS has ‘backwards’ thinking
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/17/2010

A United Nations Aids agency complains that homosexuals, drug users and prostitute don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize their practices.

Michel Sidibe of UNAIDS is quoted as saying it is unacceptable that 85 countries still make homosexual conduct illegal, but Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), does not accept that thinking.

“They’ve got everything backwards,” he contends. “Rather than have a campaign – for example an anti-sodomy campaign, an anti-prostitution campaign, an anti-drug abuse campaign that targets the bad behaviors themselves – instead they target countries that are trying to implement conservative policies that target homosexuality.”

In compatibility with his logic, Sidibe suggests that laws against the immoral behavior be changed.

“Mr. Sidibe is just completely confused,” LaBarbera notes. “He says that in states where there are not repressive laws, HIV is contained. Then he goes on to express shock that more than 50 percent of infections in the United States are among homosexuals. So he contradicts himself.”

Homosexual behavior is not illegal in this country, but the AFTAH president believes the answer to the issue is to launch an all-out campaign to educate people and change the behavior that results in infection. That is what reduced smoking in this country.

_____________________________________

Excerpts from the Associated Press story:

“New HIV infections increasing among homosexuals”

By EDITH M. LEDERER (AP) – March 16, 2010

NEW YORK — New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.

Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS, said “it is unacceptable” that 85 countries still have laws criminalizing same sex relations among adults, including seven that impose the death penalty for homosexual practices.

He called a proposed Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty for some gays “very unfortunate” and expressed hope it will never be approved.

At a time when UNAIDS is scaling up its program and seeking universal access to HIV treatment, Sidibe said he was “very scared” because bad laws are being introduced by countries making it impossible for these at risk groups to have access to services.

“You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared,” Sidibe added….

Sidibe told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.

By contrast, he said that in the Caribbean where most countries don’t have repressive laws, only between 3 and 6 percent of HIV infections are in male homosexuals.

Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is “shocking” that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.

“It seems like we have come full circle” in the United States, he said. “After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed.” …

In Nigeria, where there are 1,000 new HIV infections every day, over 30 percent are in vulnerable groups — drug users, sex workers and homosexuals, he said.

Sidibe called for “a prevention revolution” including a campaign in major cities around the world like the anti-smoking campaigns launched in recent years.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC

"Where the boys are": homosexual bathhouses lure young men into anonymous sodomies. The CDC and Obama Administration should shut down these perversion centers or at least hit them with a large "sin tax." Above is taken from the Steamworks bathhouse chain's website.

Dear Readers, once again the reality that Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality breaks through the bureaucracy’s official political correctness on this issue. Note how the CDC admits that anal sex is  a much higher risk activity than other sexual practices. Yet to teach the special risks of sodomy in schools would be to invite a “discrimination” lawsuit by the ACLU! Homosexual oral sex also is mentioned as a risk factor for syphilis. So why don’t the nation’s “Best and Brightest” on this issue launch an educational, pro-health campaign against “gay” sex, especially sodomy?

A less bold option might be to levy a heavy “sin tax” on homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs where dangerous, anonymous, “queer” sex proliferates, or — God forbid — actually to shut down these perversion centers as public health hazards. (Instead, “gay” bathhouses like “Steamworks” (right) are flourishing and even offering “Spring Break discounts” to lure young men.)

We understand that such ideas are anathema to the “gay”-pandering fraternity of the enlightened who run the country’s incompetent “war on AIDS” — you know, the types who truly believe their own propaganda that “homophobia” helps spread HIV. But the folly of their failed approach is revealed by press releases like that below. Common sense dictates that our government get out of the “gay” advocacy business and start aggressively targeting homosexual practices linked directly to disease — rather than trying to make those inherently unsafe practices “safe.”

If you have any other ideas on how to target destructive homosexual behaviors rather than “homophobia,” write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NCHHSTP – National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Press Release [emphasis added]

All Findings Embargoed Until: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
Contact: NCHHSTPMediaTeam@cdc.gov [the NCHHSTP is the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention within the CDC]; (404) 639-8895

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

“While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President’s upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

“Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross).” –FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration), “Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - Questions and Answers”

War is bloody, yet men who have practiced homosexuality cannot give blood. Writes Barber: "If 'gays' are allowed to serve openly ... how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?"

Another informative piece by Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Studies at the Liberty Counsel. To read about the current FDA policy banning blood donations from MSM (“men who have had sex with men”) — and women who have had sex with MSM — go HERE. Homosexuality is not about “human rights,” but rather (changeable) human wrongs — and human wrongs often have public health consequences. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ALL efforts to force open homosexuality on the military. Oppose S. 3065 in the Senate and HR 1283 in the House — bills that would homosexualize our Armed Services and force our nation’s conservative military culture to become one that celebrates homosexual “pride.” 

______________________________

Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed

By J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

• The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
• Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
• The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
• The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
• There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.”

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.”

Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.

_______________________________

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. Barber is a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

CBN story on Perkins being disinvited: no, it's not homosexuality that's "incompatible" with military service under Obama; now it's the expression of Christian faith -- opposing homosexuality -- in the public square.

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel, writes: “I believe those few of us remaining who are willing to take a stand on God’s natural design for human sexuality and morality will eventually be completely marginalized and persecuted by both the government and private industry. This is a chilling example of things to come.”

We agree. Christians and all those who oppose the normalization of sexual immorality through the force of law: are you going to stand by and just take it or will you defend your liberty to live out your religious and moral beliefs? This is only the latest proof that homosexual “rights” (so-called) are incompatible with America’s historic protection of religious freedom and First Amendment liberties.

I suppose there are many more craven acts to follow as our men in uniform scramble to appease their left-wing, pro-”gay” Panderer-in-Chief. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here’s Breitbart linking to Pat Robertson’s CBN interview with Perkins:

http://www.breitbart.tv/prominent-minister-is-disinvited-from-military-prayer-luncheon-over-gays-in-service-issue/

Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."

Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.

Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com

TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information.  Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.

WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.

We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services.  I seriously question the wisdom of your position.  As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue.  Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain.  I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program.  In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.  I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships.  I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College.  After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law.  Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.  Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval.  I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps.  Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities.  In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties.  But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison.  There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell.  That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot.  They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder.  Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.  The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.  Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer.  There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement.  Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale.  If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.  Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.  At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks.  I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.  Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew.  Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in  the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders.  Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se.  Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct.  But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals.  Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies.  However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual.  I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law.  But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion.  As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him.  He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public.  However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse).  It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron).  In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.  I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.  And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal.  I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.  There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment.  Again, I must ask “why?”

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual.  That can’t be true.  It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy.  But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment.  Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment.  Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted.  Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy?  Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards.  The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun.  But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals!  Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals?  If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument?  If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore?  Carnal Knowledge?  I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.  At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.  Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions?  When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.”  We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis.  Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV?  Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources?  Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits?  Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?  And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures?  I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.  It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders.  Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense.  But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges?  Will they be entitled to military housing?  Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”?  Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?  Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police.  While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered.  The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me.  During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring.  They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco.  They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.  CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors.  Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships?  I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s.  An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.  When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge.  After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem.  Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.  I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source.  I have not walked the mile in your shoes.  But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine.  I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.  In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals.  It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance?  I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.  Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye.  Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect,

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

TAKE ACTION: Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission HERE (Commissioners’ names are at bottom). The Civic League writes:

___________________________________

Private and Public Schools Subject to Transgendered Guidelines
By Staff of the Christian Civic League of Maine
Feb 19, 2010

The Record wishes to share news of urgent importance to all Christians in Maine. The Maine Human Rights Commission is preparing educational guidelines which will apply to schools across Maine, both private and public. The guidelines will require schools to allow transgendered students access to facilities of the opposite sex, including bathrooms and locker rooms. The  guidelines will be discussed at a public hearing in Augusta on Monday, March 1st.

The Maine Human Rights Commission has reassured the public that the guidelines are merely intended to give guidance to schools. But a document recently obtained by the Christian Civic League of Maine reveals that the Commission is being less than candid.   The new document shows that the Commission has already promised homosexual rights advocates that the guidelines will eventually be re-issued as regulations with the force of law. In an April 1, 2009 memo to Mary Bonauto of the organization GLAD, and other homosexual rights activists, the  attorney for the Commission, John P. Gause, writes,

“We will now move forward with submitting the Guidance to the Commissioners….If there is anything else you would like us to consider before that, please email or send that to me…On the regulations front Pat (Pat Ryan, Executive Director of the Commission) and I have decided to give the Guidance some time before moving in that direction. We do plan to promulgate, together with the Department of Education, further regulations in education (perhaps addressing more than just sexual orientation), but we want to give the Guidance some time before doing that. Of course, because that process is going to take some time when we do start it, it is never too early to be thinking about what the regulations will include. We would welcome your thoughts and suggestions on that at any time.”

A second memo by Gause states that the Commission is “in the beginning stages of promulgating regulations in education” similar to those regulations which cover sexual orientation in employment.

The League has also learned the startling news that the effort to introduce the new guidelines fell through in an August 2009 meeting because of resistance from the Commissioners themselves.  An August 10, 2009 memo from Gause to various homosexual rights leaders shows that the Commission put off a vote on the proposed guidelines until representatives from schools and colleges could speak on the issue.  The memo reveals that the March 1st meeting is the result of opposition from Commission members who wanted to hear more on the issue of requiring boys to play on girls’ sports teams.

The guidelines are based on Maine’s “Sexual Orientation Law” passed in 2005. The Christian Civic League vigorously opposed the law in a hard-fought referendum campaign. At the time, Mike Heath, the former Executive Director of the League, warned that the law would eventually require schools to grant transgendered children access to facilities of the opposite sex. Despite the best efforts of the League, the referendum was rejected, setting the stage for the eventual application of the law to public and private schools.

The Maine Human Rights Commission first applied the Sexual Orientation Law to schools in a case involving a transgendered student at Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. The case arose when the parents of a transgendered boy demanded that their son  be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom. The school offered the boy the use of the teachers’ unisex bathroom, a compromise the boy’s parents rejected. The MHRC ruled in favor of the boy’s parents, who then sued the school in Penobscot Superior Court.

In early February, the League learned information about the proposed new guidelines which up until now has not been disclosed to the public. This new information reveals that the guidelines will apply to all schools in Maine, with the exception of Christian and parochial schools, and will have the force of law. Schools which violate the guidelines will receive a summons to appear before the Commission. The procedure for bringing a charge of discrimination against a school consists of filling out a simple one-page document. If the Commission rules in favor of the Complainant, the case can be used to bring a lawsuit against the school for monetary damages.

The League has also learned that the Boston-based homosexual rights organization GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) was given a major role in writing the proposed guidelines, which are based in part on existing guidelines used by schools in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Maine Principals’ Association, the Maine School Management Association, and a representative of the University of Maine at Orono have already opposed the guidelines.  They have expressed their concern that schools will be forced to allow boys to participate in girls’ sports, giving an unfair advantage to teams with transgendered players. The League has also learned that GLAD is still vigorously advocating sending transgendered boys to girls’ teams, saying that to fail to do so is discriminatory.

The public hearing will be held at the Senator Inn in Augusta on Monday March 1st. The League urges all concerned citizens to attend the meeting to express their opposition to the proposed guidelines. If you are not able to attend the meeting, we urge you to write the Commissioners and submit your written testimony in advance. The names of the Commissioners and the contact information for the Commission is listed below. The mailing address of the Commission is 51 State House Station – Augusta, Maine 04333-0051.

Commission Members

Patricia Ryan, Executive Director

Paul K. Vestal, Jr.

Sallie Chandler

Joseph Perry

Kenneth Fredette

A. Mavourneen Thompson

Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission by clicking HERE.

Kathleen Parker

Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us.  I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”

__________________________________________

Homosexuals in the Military 

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ‘93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

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.”

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain -- a man -- won his quest to get a tax deduction for his "sex-change" operation.

Folks, America’s rapid descent into post-Christian chaos continues. The 11-5 U.S. Tax Court decision below now gives a (sizeable) monetary incentive for men and women steeped in gender confusion to go through grotesque and horrifying, body-disfiguring “sex-change” operations. I’m saying this as someone who attended a “female-to-male” “transgender” conference where I witnessed young, early-twenties women showing off their newly-flattened chests — after their healthy breasts were surgically removed in their quest to be like men.

Yes, in the Brave New “Transgender” World, trans women cut off their healthy breasts while their male counterparts seek to grow a feminine-like pair in a pathetic attempt to become like women. (And “pathetic” doesn’t begin to describe the MtF — male-to-female — transsexual’s effort to create a makeshift “vagina” from his surgically-dismantled, once-healthy penis.)

Note the last paragraph in the AP story below: this poor man – yes, he is still a man — Rhiannon O’Donnabhain — actually sought a deduction for his follow-up boob job, after he had already grown fake breasts by taking female hormones. (The latter “augmentation”  deduction was denied.) Who could make this stuff up?

Men were never intended to have sex with men, nor were they intended to try to turn their bodies, as God made them — into female bodies, as God made them. Wake up, America: your judicially-approved tax code is now creating incentives for one of the most tragic manifestations of rebellious man’s claim to know better than God. In the meantime, Mister O’Donnabhain needs our prayers. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Does this mean that parents, too, are going to receive a tax break for pushing aggressive “transgender” treatments on their gender-confused children?

___________________________________________

Here is a second, follow-up AP story: “Woman Says Sex-change Tax Battle also Helps Others”; and below is the original, biased AP story with its politically-correct, “transgender”-approved pronouns and descriptors:

Tax Court Allows Deduction for Woman’s Sex Change

(Boston) The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain (oh-DON’-oh-vin), who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

The IRS said the surgery was cosmetic and not medically necessary.

In its decision Tuesday, the tax court said the IRS position was “at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances” that is “thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence.”

The legal group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented O’Donnabhain, said the ruling could potentially affect thousands of people a year in the U.S. who undergo similar operations.

“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,” said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney.

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge declined to comment on the ruling.

In a 2007 interview with The Associated Press, O’Donnabhain said she underwent sex-reassignment surgery at age 57, after a tormented existence as a father, husband, Coast Guardsman and construction worker.

She wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes, but the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling that the procedure was not a medical necessity.

O’Donnabhain, now 65, said she brought the lawsuit in an attempt to force the IRS to treat sex-change surgeries the same as appendectomies, heart surgeries and other deductible medical procedures.

“It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me,” she said.

O’Donnabhain’s lawyers argued that because gender-identity disorder is a recognized mental disorder that is generally treated with hormones and surgery, the costs are legitimate medical deductions.

The tax court agreed.

“The evidence amply supports the conclusions that petitioner suffered from severe GID, that GID is a well-recognized and serious mental disorder, and that hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are considered appropriate and effective treatments for GID by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are knowledgeable concerning the condition,” the court said in its ruling.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

The tax court said O’Donnabhain could deduct as a medical care expense the costs associated with treating her gender-identity disorder, including sex-reassignment surgery and hormone therapy. But the court said she could not deduct the costs of breast augmentation surgery because it found that she had achieved breast enhancement through hormone treatments.

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "gay" activists to homosexualize the military -- like much of his far-left agenda -- did not receive wide coverage in the general election. Will Congress now allow him to unilaterally undermine the law banning homosexual servicemen?

TAKE ACTION: Oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces.  One homosexual lobby group plans to spend $2 million to pressure Congress on “gays in the military.”  Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act.”  The act, mischievously titled the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces.  Also, tell your representatives to resist President Obama’s reckless plan to homosexualize the military non-legislatively — as the release below describes.  President Obama does not have the right to do an end-run around Congress and undermine U.S. law on military conduct!

BACKGROUND NOTE: Did you know that “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land?  Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

_____________________________________

News Release: see http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7965812944.html

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

February 3, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

AFTAH Condemns Sec. Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s Capitulation to Obama’s Radical Plan to Homosexualize the Military

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued the following statement in response to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s testimony yesterday in favor of President Obama’s plan to allow open homosexuals in the military:

“At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis — and the ongoing national security crisis presented by worldwide Islamic terrorism — most Americans do not view homosexualizing our military as a top priority. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama, and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers, have chosen.

“With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s pro-homosexual military objective — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers (third-party reports on illegal same-sex behavior) — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding, unnecessary, Left-driven policy debate.

“The problem for Obama — and Gates — is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Implementing a pro-homosexual plan in the military will:

• devastate morale and unit cohesion in our Armed Forces;
• lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers — and discourage religious men and women of high moral character from seeking military service;
• violate the privacy concerns of normal (straight) servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at all U.S. bases?;
• ultimately subject millions of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to pro-homosexual “diversity” training that undermines historic Judeo-Christian teachings;
• further alienate the United States from a Muslim world that already regards us as a decadent nation.

“This anti-military, left-wing policy misadventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective “NO!” to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.

“If Sec. Gates (who also served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense) and Adm. Mike Mullen – the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who strongly backed Obama’s plan — were men of courage and principle, they would resign rather than consent to this misguided sexual experiment that will weaken our military. Instead, they have become complicit in the escalating degradation of the homosexual exclusion law under President Obama, who is beholden to his homosexual activist allies.

Reprinted from Republicans For Fair Media; to support RFFM, go HERE

By Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director, Republicans For Fair Media; e-mail: dan@rffm.org

Social conservatives have noticed that FOX's Bill O'Reilly has tilted steadily further left on the homosexual issue.

As expected, during his first State of the Union address, Barack Obama called for the lifting of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The only problem for Obama and the far left wing of the Democratic Party is this would take an act of Congress because the Uniform Code of Military Justice would have to be twisted to allow Obama’s plan to be implemented.

Most members of the U.S. Armed Forces, especially those in command positions, recognize that homosexuals openly serving in the military would have a negative impact on morale, esprit de corps and, subsequently, combat readiness.

Amazingly, those who participated in a Jan. 28 segment that Bill O’Reilly (FOX News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor) refers to as “The Culture Warriors” made clear that they agreed with Obama’s proposal to rescind “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).  The segment usually includes pro-family conservative Gretchen Carlson who tackles issues from a conservative perspective in contrast to Margaret Hoover who argues the liberal point of view concerning political and social issues.

But on Thursday, January 28th, FOX business anchor Cheryl Casone (who stepped in for Carlson) and FOX News analyst Margaret Hoover both agreed America was ready to have homosexuals openly serve in defense of our nation [Transcript available HERE].  It was a shocker for me to hear this on FOX News–the “fair and balanced” network.  Even O’Reilly fed into the liberal line which suggested it was time for this social experiment to take place.  It has become all too evident the network seems to be leaning to the left, in order to appease and attract more liberal viewers.  FOX would not want to offend this new demographic which has helped the FOX News Channel’s ratings go through the roof.

Mr. O’Reilly, the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to defend America.  It is not a place for social experiments or political correctness.  Indeed, the  Constitution does not apply in many cases to the U.S. military and FOX News should not be advocating Barack Obama’s far-left policies.

Unfortunately, the tack to the left is evident, especially on O’Reilly’s highly popular primetime program.  But, as I wrote in a related column, FNC also seems to have a penchant for supporting moderate Republican candidates.  This was made clear in 2008 when Sean Hannity seemed to be shilling for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and eventual GOP presidential nominee John McCain.  At the same time, Hannity took every opportunity to ignore the highly effective and energized grassroots campaigns of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.  Is FOX News becoming MSNBC Light?  You  certainly couldn’t tell what network you were watching on Thursday evening during the Culture Warriors segment.  Very sad.

“Gay rights groups were already mobilizing Thursday to make the subject [of homosexuals in the military/ending "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"] a campaign issue before congressional elections in November. The Human Rights Campaign announced plans to start a more than $2 million national grass-roots and lobbying campaign targeting lawmakers whose votes would be needed to pass a repeal.” – Washington Post, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress”, Jan. 29, 2010

"Gay" military porn ad. Homosexual military pornography is a huge business. Many "gay" men are attracted to "macho" (masculine) guys in uniform. The last thing our Armed Forces need is to welcome in more men and women with disordered sexuality.

BACKGROUND NOTE: Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION:  Dedicate yourself to actively oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces (pro-”gay” “diversity” is political). As the Washington Post above reveals, homosexual activists will be going all out to pressure Congress to impose their radical agenda on our Servicemembers. Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act” — which is mischievously named by liberals as the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.” This act would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces. In other words, it would radically force a change in ethos in the military to one of approving of homosexuality — including through one-sided “diversity” programs that would undermine servicemembers’ faith and morals (as happens today to people of faith in major corporations implementing pro-homosexual ”sexual orientation” agendas).

Also oppose all efforts by the President to advance his misguided agenda of homosexualizing our military non-legislatively (i.e., by various executive actions). Already, military leaders are laying the groundwork for a plan to gradually open up the military to homosexuality — the Washington Post reports. Obama must NOT autocratically launch this revolutionary change to our Armed Forces without legislative action and oversight.

__________________________________________

Two points about the 2006 FOX story below on a homosexual porn bust at Ft. Bragg:

1) There is a huge market for “gay” military porn because lots of homosexual men are turned on by “straight-acting,” “macho” (masculine) men. I realize it’s a sick comparison, but just as many women like a “man in uniform,” so do homosexual men. On Jan. 29, 2010, a Google search on the three words “gay military porn” (no quote marks) yielded “about 1,300,000″ entries. “Gay Military Porn” (in quote marks) yielded 34,300 entries. This is a huge (and very twisted) business, and obviously the demand is high among men with a homosexual problem.

The last thing our fighting men and women need is to have the military floodgates opened up for homosexual men and lesbians to join as open practitioners of homosexuality. That would put men who are sexually attracted to men, and women to women, in tight bunking situations, showers, etc., with servicemembers of the same sex. Remember: homosexuality is not an “identity” issue (sorry, Warren Throckmorton) or a “civil rights” issue; it’s a BEHAVIORIAL issue, and welcoming in men and women who are tempted to practice – or inclined to practice — disordered same-sex behavior is wrong and detrimental to the morale, effectiveness and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Of course, there is a huge straight pornography problem, too, of course. But men do not bunk and shower with women in the Armed Forces (except married couples). The sexes are segregated. [And then there is this peculiar logic by a homosexual activist, Dale Carpenter, who argues that allowing open homosexuality in the military would help identify the “gay” soldiers — making it harder for them to leer at naked straight soldiers!  “Under present policy, the straight soldier doesn’t know who might be leering at him in the shower. So he has to wonder about everybody — hardly a reassuring prospect,” Carpenter writes. “Under a policy of openness, he’ll have a better idea who might find some of his 2,000 body parts especially appealing. Thus, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure.”  How absurd. To even discuss such folly in a time of war is a needless distraction — and showering/privacy issues are just one of the many problems caused by homosexualizing the military.

2) Read the second to last sentence of the Fox story below: “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” What kind of a nonsensical policy encourages “homosexuals” to join the armed forces but then bars homosexual conduct? This is a triumph of “gay” activists’ “sexual orientation” ideology — skewing the debate toward “civil rights” and away from aberrant behavior. And it is very bad public policy. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness constantly reminds anyone who will listen, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land, but rather a political compromise driven by a previous president”s (Bill Clinton’s) desire to pander to homosexual activists. We must go back to following the actual law passed by Congress, which bars homosexuals from serving. But that can only happen after the Obama presidency is over. Meanwhile, we must resist Obama’s plan to homosexualize and politicize our Armed Services.

__________________________________________________ 

Army Paratrooper Pleads Guilty in Gay Porn Case
April 27, 2006, FoxNews.com

FORT BRAGG, N.C. —  An Army paratrooper pleaded guilty Thursday to engaging in sex acts on a military-themed gay pornographic Web site and was sentenced to prison.

Pfc. Richard T. Ashley, one of seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division charged with appearing on the site, pleaded guilty to sodomy, conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit, and drug use.

He was sentenced to 90 days in prison, but was given 15 days credit. Ashley also was demoted to private, will receive a bad conduct discharge and will lose two-thirds of his pay.

“I’ve embarrassed the entire Army, my country and most of all, dishonored God,” Ashley said during the hearing.

Pfc. Wesley K. Mitten and Pvt. Kagen B. Mullen were charged with pandering, sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit. Mitten and Mullen, who also faces adultery charges, have pleaded not guilty.

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

The 82nd Airborne says that four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishment for appearing on the Web site. They were reduced in rank to private, forfeited half a month’s pay for two months, performed extra work and were restricted to Fort Bragg for 45 days.

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the Army’s most elite soldiers, having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose all legislative efforts to homosexualize the U.S. Military.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center For Military Readiness, the leading pro-family advocate opposing the effort to homosexualize the U.S. military, writes:
__________________________

Walking the Plank for Military “LGBT Law”

President Barack Obama is expected to push for acceptance of professed gays in the military, a goal that can only be achieved legally by passage of a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. In response, the Center for Military Readiness predicted that the effort would fail for three basic reasons:

1. Members of Congress are becoming aware that repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in our military. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”
2. A decision by the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath of office by suspending enforcement of the law would alienate members of Congress and break faith with the troops he leads.
3. Political dynamics of the issue could develop in ways similar to 1994, when Republicans regained majority control of Congress, and no GOP incumbents were defeated.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly noted that even if President Obama keeps pushing for a new LGBT Law for the military, some members of Congress may be more concerned about lessons learned in the recent Massachusetts special election, as well as in 1994. Said Donnelly,“Voters are concerned about national security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any purpose other than national defense.”

1. In 1994, a survey done for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by Stanley Greenberg, President Clinton’s own pollster, indicated the second most important factor that shifted control of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 mid-term election was President Bill Clinton’s 1993 push for gays in the military.
2. That finding was reported by Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled “Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds.” Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue as the number one reason they cast a “vote of dissatisfaction” in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. Greenberg also identified a second issue, called “cultural liberalism,” which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.
3. Greenberg’s survey was significant because gays-in-the-military was not even an issue in the 1994 elections. Congress had already settled the issue in 1993, and bipartisan veto-proof majorities had approved current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The voters punished Democrats anyway, due to a lingering impression of what Greenberg called “cultural liberalism.” Those concerns could emerge again if President Obama and LGBT Left liberals in Congress insist on votes for gays in the military.

In 2010, the Massachusetts special election detected public opposition to similar issues involving what is usually called “political correctness in the military.” In an article titled “It’s the Enemy, Stupid,” Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online quoted Senator-elect Scott Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign’s internal polling showed “terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants” to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Said Donnelly, “Liberals and Blue Dog Democrats can dismiss the national security message sent by Massachusetts, as well as Stanley Greenburg’s post-1994-election analysis, but they would do so with political risk.”

To arrange an interview on these and related military/social issues, please call CMR President Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430 or CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears in Washington D.C. at 202/347-5333.

* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

Frank Kameny (center) holding one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in 2007. President Obama has hailed Kameny as a "civil rights pioneer" and thanked the homosexual activist for his "leadership."

Folks, there is no shortage of sinful pride and presumption among “gay” activists and their allies, that’s for sure.  How appropriate is this coming from the hero of a movement that redefines changeable sexual sin as a “civil right”? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S.  If you wish to write Frank Kameny, send your letter to me at americansfortruth@comcast.net, and I will pass it on to him.  May the living, holy, omnipotent, omniscient — and merciful — God bless you in 2010!

________________________

Frank Kameny, a “pioneering” homosexual activist celebrated by fellow homosexuals the world over — and honored by President Obama and his administration — says the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to “repent of his sinful homophobia.”

The octogenarian Kameny (born in 1925) made the assertions about the Judeo-Christian God in a letter to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, October 13, 2009:

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.” wrote Kameny to LaBarbera. “It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner….”

An astronomer who was fired from his federal government job in 1957 due to his homosexuality, Kameny led the first public homosexual protest in America (over his firing), in 1965. Kameny, who gained notoriety with his aggressive, counter-cultural slogan “Gay is Good,” was a leader of the organized homosexual activist campaign to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders (which succeeded when the APA capitulated in 1973). He says that he is an atheist but curiously also claims that “Gay is Godly”; he now adds “for those who so believe” to the latter slogan after being questioned as to how someone who rejects God could make definitive statements about Him.

On June 17, 2009, Kameny received the official White House pen from President Obama in a White House signing ceremony enacting Obama’s executive order providing domestic partner benefits for certain federal employees. The ceremony was intended to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City that homosexual and transgender activists claim were the catalyst for the modern “gay rights” movement.

Later, at a June 29 White House speech honoring “gay pride month,” President Obama praised Kameny with the following words:

[Describing the history of the homosexual rights movement:] “That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — [applause] Frank [Kameny] was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. [Applause.]

Kameny was also honored by John Berry, Obama’s openly homosexual Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in a special ceremony June 24, 2009 sponsored by the OPM “gay” employees organization. There, Kameny received the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the OPM’s highest honor, “For More Than a Half-Century of Leadership in the Struggle for Civil Rights.” Berry also issued a formal U.S. government apology to Kameny for his firing over 50 years ago.

Responding to Kameny’s letter asserting that God needs to repent, AFTAH’s LaBarbera said:

“Of course Frank Kameny’s outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God’s plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone.”

The following e-mail letter was sent by Kameny to Americans For Truth on October 13, 2009. Various typos in the original letter have been corrected:

Peter [LaBarbera]

You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, “on the wrong foot”.  It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole)  himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia.

Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia.

Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years.

It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)..

Your claim that advancement of the gay agenda would deprive you people of your religious and other rights is flatly untrue.  If you disapprove of homosexuality, you will remain free to abstain from involvement with it.  That is the proper limit of your freedoms.  You do not have a valid right to impose your disapproval upon those of us who disagree with you, as you people endlessly seek to do.  Those whose beliefs in a round earth prevail do not in the least deprive the Flat Earthers of their rights to believe and speak as they wish.  So with gay rights and you homophobes.  You can continue freely to make intellectual and rational fools of yourselves, just as the Flat Earthers continue to do. — and, in your case, un-American and anti-American ones as well.

Gay is Good, Godly (for those who so believe), and American.  You homophobes are not.

Franklin E. Kameny
Washington, DC

More AFTAH stories on Kameny:

• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’;
• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981;
• Your Tax Money at Work: Preserving Homosexual Activist Frank Kameny’s Papers;
• Frank Kameny Responds to AFTAH Report that He Spoke at NAMBLA Event in 1981;
• Will PETA Respond to Frank Kameny’s Endorsement of Sex with Animals?;
• ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist;
• WATCH IT: Video and Transcript of Obama’s White House Speech Celebrating ‘Gay Pride’ Month: (President Obama heralds Kameny as a “civil rights pioneer” and thanks him for his leadership; see full quote above)

"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.