Folks, below my friend Laurie Higgins ably rebuts the spurious, ongoing “gay” activist attempt to blame Christians and religious people for tragic, violent attacks on homosexuals, like the August 1 slaughter at a “gay youth” center in Tel Aviv. Many homosexual activists apparently are compelled by their rejection of Biblical morality to lie in such a way about Christians. (At the same time, they malign us for highlighting gay-on-gay violence and for pointing out the obvious: that homosexual practice threatens longevity.)  The claim that Christian, conservative and religious speech causes “anti-gay violence” will continue to be used to advance a totalitarian homosexualist agenda, here and abroad. All lovers of freedom must fight this Orwellian agenda that has as its end game the very destruction of liberty as we know it — all in the name of “civil rights.” Please send this article to your friends. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S. Unlike the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, I would support the death penalty for the Tel Aviv murderer (though Israel abolished the death penalty for such crimes). That would be far more effective than “hate crimes” laws in deterring such attacks in the future.

_________________________________

Higgins writes:

Are Christians Responsible for Anti-Homosexual Bloodbath in Tel Aviv?

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute, 8/3/09

Yet another tragic, horrific, and utterly unjustifiable murder of homosexuals has taken place, this time in Tel Aviv, Israel at a youth center for homosexual teens. Saturday night [August 1], two were killed and thirteen wounded when a gunman opened fire in a club where homosexual teens meet. The unspeakable carnage exposes how very dark the mind of fallen humans can become.

And this recent mind-numbing crime provides yet another occasion for homosexual activists and those who support their social and political goals to lay an unbiblical, unchristian, indefensible crime at the feet of all Christians who hold biblical views on the nature and morality of homosexuality and who deplore murder.

Mourning for those young people whose lives were violently taken had not even begun before attacks on Christians could be found in the comments section of homosexual blogs. For example, last night one blog comment read, “The extremist religious people in our society, especially those like [National Organization for Marriage] and other anti-gay religious organizations (Pat Robertson, et al) are the cause of this kind of violence against the GLBT community. Members of these organizations spew their hatred on television and in their churches, and the weak-minded grab hold of their hateful words and act on them.”

Another read, “Last night I was at evening Mass in my home town. The priest began his sermon by talking about the ‘culture of death’ and his disapproval of euthanasia. How did he get from that to an attack on gays and lesbians? I don’t know, but somehow he did. He ranted about the introduction of civil partnerships for gays and lesbians in the UK and the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, and said that God had shown his attitude to ‘active homosexuality’ once and for all by his destruction of those ‘wicked people’ of Sodom and Gomorrah. We see from the events in Tel Aviv exactly where that kind of thinking leads.”

In an exploitative effort to silence Christians, homosexual activists rush in to impute culpability directly and speciously to orthodox Christian teaching on the morality of homosexual acts.

Can any homosexual activist provide evidence that those who are responsible for crimes associated with hatred of homosexuals are or were serious, committed followers of Christ who loved the Lord and His Word, knew Christian doctrine, and sought to live a life that would bring glory to God?

How specious to claim that the deaths of Nir Katz and Liz Trubeshi in Tel Aviv, Sakia Gunn, Sean Kennedy, Lawrence King, Jose Sucuzhanay (who was presumed to be but was not homosexual), Scotty Joe Weaver, or Carl Walker-Hoover and Jaheem Herrera (who were not homosexual but called anti-homosexual epithets) were caused by the orthodox beliefs of those who desire nothing more than that all should come to Christ so that they can know “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” and the “fullness of joy.”

How specious to claim even implicitly that the convicted offenders Richard McCullough, Stephen Andrew Moller, Brandon McInerney, Hakim Scott, Christopher Gaines, Nichole Kelsay, Keith Phoenix, and the schoolyard bullies who harassed children were true followers of Christ who believed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

One of the problems with the line of reasoning manipulated by homosexual activists is that they make the error of claiming that because two disparate groups of people share one idea in common, they must share all ideas in common. In other words, homosexual activists falsely claim that because orthodox Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong and anti-homosexual haters believe homosexual acts are wrong, both groups share all ideas in common and are equally culpable for the acts of violence that only one group endorses and in which only one group engages.

That would be like saying that Quakers who opposed the war in Viet Nam but rejected violence and the Weather Underground that opposed the war and endorsed the use of violence were equally culpable for the violence committed only by the Weather Underground.

Or it would be like saying that all people who oppose the exploitation of the environment are culpable for the acts of ecoterrorism engaged in by the Earth Liberation Front.

It’s exactly the same kind of charge that pro-abortionists level at all pro-lifers. Pro-abortionists offensively claim that those who oppose the killing of the unborn and reject murderous vigilantism are responsible for the murderous acts of vigilantes.

Are homosexuals who believe that polyamory, or “swinging,” or adult consensual incest is immoral guilty of creating a climate of hatred and danger to those who are in plural relationships, open relationships, or incestuous relationships? Do all moral claims about behavior constitute hatred toward people and contribute to climates of danger and fear, or is it just the moral claims with which homosexuals disagree that create climates of hatred, danger, and fear?

The kind of reasoning employed by homosexual activists is akin to the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” Homosexual activists are attempting to coerce orthodox Christians into either self-censorship or outright rejection of the belief that homosexuality is immoral by associating it with a group with whom no one, including orthodox Christians, would want to be associated. But as one writer explains, “the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).”

This line of reasoning also employs the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization” in which all members of a group are assumed to have all the characteristics of one or a few of its members.

In the book After the Ball [see MassResistance analysis HERE], homosexual tacticians Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, architects of what is referred to in the book’s acknowledgments as a “gay manifesto,” urge homosexual activists to “learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign. . . .We’re talking about propaganda” which “relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, since its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public’s feelings.”

Kirk and Madsen’s goal is to “make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” What must be made clear is that what Kirk and Madsen mean by “homohating beliefs” are any negative views of homosexual acts, including even those that involve no hatred whatsoever. They go on to say that they “intend, by this tactic, to make the very expression of homohatred so discreditable that even Intransigents will eventually be silenced in public.”

Then they offer their truly pernicious tactic:

“The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. These images might include:

• Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;
• Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;
• Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have based or would like to bash;
• A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

I’m sure Kirk and Madsen would have liked nothing more than to be able to associate the Tel Aviv masked gunman’s bloodbath with orthodox Christianity.

Christians ought not to fall victim to this tactic. Christianity teaches not only that homosexual acts are sinful but also that no person shall commit murder; that hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses; that we are to love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God; that anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love; that we are to do good to those who hate us and bless those who curse us and pray for those who mistreat us; and that all are created in the image and likeness of God.

Orthodox Christians who are living out the entirety of Scripture do not hate, commit acts of murder, or endorse acts of murder.

Now is the time to pray for those who were injured and for the loved ones of those lost in Saturday’s carnage and to administer the full weight of civil justice to the guilty party: the man with the seared conscience who opened fire on a group of teens.

By Laurie Higgins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate Crimes Amendment Will Face More Hurdles After Passing Senate in Late Night Vote

July 17, 2009

Senator Harry Reid’s bullying tactics paved the way for the Senate to pass the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill late last night. The cloture vote taken late last night was 63-28, with every Democrat voting for the amendment, except Senators Byrd (WV) and Kennedy (MA), who were not present. Approval of the cloture motion meant that the hate crimes amendment was adopted.

The hate crimes amendment will not become law unless the $680 billion Defense Authorization bill passes and the amendment is reconciled with the version of the hate crimes bill passed by the House. The Senate Defense Authorization bill includes funding for F-22 jets. President Obama has threatened to veto the Defense bill if it funds the F-22.

Read our News Release for more details.

Call to Action on Hate Crimes

See how your Senator voted and then call their office (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) to express your approval or disapproval of their vote.  Call Reid’s office and tell him you disapprove of him burying this amendment in the defense bill and forcing a late night vote. Call Reid’s Majority Leader office at  202-224-5556 and his D.C. Senate office at 202-224-3542.

Below we reprint the first of an excellent three-part series on the “Hate Crimes” bill (S. 909) by Pittsburgh Theological Seminary professor Robert Gagnon (left), probably the world’s foremost expert on the Bible and homosexuality from an orthodox (Bible-believing) perspective. S. 909 could be voted on as early as Thursday in the U.S. Senate. (So says the extremist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) For those who can’t wait on AFTAH for Parts II and III, go to this page on Gagnon’s website and scroll down for the full series.

TAKE ACTION: call or write your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121 or 202-225-1321; www.congress.org) today and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill, which is likely to be tacked on as an amendment to the defense appropriations bill for a vote as early as Thursday. Federal “hate crimes” legislation including homosexuality and gender confusion will lay the groundwork for the persecution of religious Americans or anyone who acts on the belief that homosexuality is wrong — as well as pro-life activists working to save unborn babies and those who fight jihadist Islamo-fascism. Every red state with no “sexual orientation” laws will instantly be affected by this federal power-grab that guarantees unequal treatment in the law by awarding homosexuals, bisexuals and the gender confused specially protected “civil rights” status.

_____________________________

Gagnon writes:

Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You

Part 1: Promoting hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

May 28, 2009

To print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf version HERE.

The so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among the groupings slated to receive special protection.

Supporters of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward homosexual and transgendered persons?

The real objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)

Supporters of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.

So why pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:

• It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
• This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
• It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.

The foot in the door

This “hate crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible —— indeed inevitable —— all future laws involving “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crimes” bill does most of its damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability —— an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.

Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the other (i.e., the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is always made with race and gender.

The thought crime of “prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior

Make no mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill. Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!” while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a sexual pervert!”

This “hate crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a “prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go HERE) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive federal intervention.

However, the bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.

Recent cases in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for example, go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of “gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.

The analogy of other sexual orientations

This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred —— hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would.

Sadly, this may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and “polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are “sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation” provision.

Conclusion

So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press). See www.robgagnon.net for more information.

The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:

June 16, 2009

Re: S. 909

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)

We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm.  Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution  But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.  We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties.  There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict.  It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.  Consider:

• *Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims.  They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.
• *A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.  Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA, some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage.  Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage.  If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a “hate crime” in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have “two bites at the apple” for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions.  They have cited a Texas case from over a decade ago involving an attack on a black man by three white hoodlums.  Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately.  By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together.  As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags.  It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.  The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women are not punished.  No one was claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or female or gay.  And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime.  Why interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you so desire.  Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with your questions or comments.

[Addressed to:]

The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr., President, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Majority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Jon Kyl, Minority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Russell Feingold, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

_____________________________________

Media Advisory

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 16, 2009; Contact: Angela at 847-722-5330; americansfortruth@comcast.net

Coalition Press Conference: Obama’s Appointments and Policies Reflect Extreme Homosexual Agenda

CHICAGO, Ill. – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is organizing a news conference Wednesday, June 17th at 11:00 AM, to highlight President Obama’s radical homosexual appointments and overall “gay” agenda:

Where: 29 South LaSalle Street, Suite 610, Chicago, IL
When: Wednesday., June 17, 11:00 AM
Who: Scheduled speakers:

Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel;
Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R);
Hiram Crawford, pro-family, pro-life advocate, Chicago;
Mary Ann Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois;
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania;
David Smith, Illinois Family Institute;
Pastor Larry Rogers, Israel Methodist Community Church, Chicago;
Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Pro-Life Law Center;
Pastor Calvin Lindstrom, Church of Christian Liberty, Arlington Heights, IL

What: press event drawing attention to Obama’s emerging homosexual- and transsexual activist agenda:

• Obama’s radical appointments including anti-traditional-Catholic Harry Knox (of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign) and Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) founder Kevin Jennings;
• Hate Crimes bill;
• Obama’s radical promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Clinton in 1996);
• Obama’s ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) plans to force businesses to approve of homosexuality;
• Obama’s plan to homosexualize the U.S. military (repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”);
• Obama’s confusion about Christianity, the Bible and homosexual practice;
• Obama’s lack of mandate to push the envelope on homosexual and transsexual issues

“Americans are largely ignorant about President Obama’s extreme pro-homosexual goals, which includes repealing DOMA and homosexualizing the U.S. military,” said AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera. “We are thrilled that these organizations and leaders are coming together to expose Obama’s ‘gay’ and transsexual agenda –– for which he has zero mandate because these issues were almost completely ignored in the general election campaign.”

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel attorney and AFTAH board member, said: “By pledging his support for every demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, President Obama has revealed himself to be out of step with those he serves. For example, he has promised to homosexualize the military supplanting sound judgment with San Francisco vice. It’s dangerously irresponsible for the President to place political correctness above national security. Now is not the time for sexual revolution in this nation. Now is the time to return to the family values that made America great.”
_________________________________________

Americans For Truth Needs You! … Give $25 and Get a Free Book

We need your financial help and prayers to keep fighting the powerful “queer” lobby.  If you will help Americans For Truth with a tax-deductible gift of $25 or more, we will send you a free copy of the hard-cover book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, by the late Dr. Charles Socarides, who dedicated his life to understanding homosexuality and helping people overcome it.  Will you consider a gift of $25, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more to help Americans For Truth fight the powerful, well-financed Homosexual Lobby?  You can make your gift online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate, or mail your gift to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Posted on WorldNetDaily, May 14, 2009

By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

A longtime pundit and supporter of the homosexual lifestyle choice has admitted online that the so-called “hate crimes” bill now pending in the U.S. Senate is totally unnecessary, according to a report.

“The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that – and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time,” wrote Andrew Sullivan in his “Daily Dish” column.

“The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings,” he continued.

“Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool – which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”

The comments came in an article titled, “Intent vs. Motivation” that discussed the “hate crime” law that has been proposed.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually “signed” by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and the Liberty Alliance Action, commended Sullivan, whom he described as “one of the foremost leaders in the homosexual activist movement worldwide,” for admitting S. 909 is “a money making scheme.”

“Well, the cat’s out of the bag,” said Barber. “I almost never, if ever, agree with Andrew Sullivan on anything. But I must give credit where credit is due. Sullivan’s admission that S. 909 is both a ’symbolic’ and ‘meaningless … money-making tool’ devised by the extremist homosexual lobby is both refreshing and stunning at the same time.”

Barber continued, “I hope Sullivan will now join me in calling for his fellow homosexual activist leaders, such as HRC’s Joe Solmonese, to exhibit the same kind of candor relative to this anti-American ‘hate crimes’ charade, do the honorable thing and come together to request that the Senate withdraw S. 909 from consideration.”

Read the rest of the story, “‘Gay’ pundit says ‘Hate Crimes’ a scam,”  on WorldNetDaily.com

_________________________:

Liberty Counsel

April 30, 2009

Hate Crimes Passes House and Heads to Senate

Yesterday the U.S. House passed H.R. 1913 and elevated “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the same federal legal status as race. The vote was 249 to 175, with 10 not voting. You can see how your representative voted by checking the roll online.

Senator Ted Kennedy has  introduced a similar bill (S. 909) in the Senate. The bill, which has 34 cosponsors, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is still time to combat this bill, and here is how you can help:

• Sign the Petition to Congress against “Hate Crimes” laws.
• Contact Your Senators and request them to vote NO. They will listen to constituents. Call the Capitol Switchboard number, (202) 224-3121, and ask to be connected to your Senator.
• Continue to pray against this dangerous piece of legislation. Together we can make a difference.

50 Ways to Lose Your Freedom

We are providing a link to a document compiled from various organizations that overviews the appointments and actions taken by the President in his first 100 days in office. Please read it and draw your own conclusions about the State of the Nation. Then, pray for a reversal of each of the alarming and destructive anti-life, anti-family policies that are being implemented.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Representative and Senators in opposition to H.R. 1913, the “Hate Crimes” bill that will likely be voted on by the House tomorrow, Wednesday, April 28. Call 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or contact your representatives through www.congress.org.

Editor’s Note: we delayed in making a change in copy desired by the author, in paragraph I.A. (”Characteristics”), giving the proper credit for a description of the Hate Crimes bill, HR 1913. That paragraph was corrected on May 1, 2009.

Following is an outstanding analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913, which could be voted on by the House of Representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, April 29). Shawn Akers is a relative newcomer to the pro-family movement but is shaping up to be a future all-star. He serves as a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and as Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  Akers is a close friend, colleague and former Regent Law classmate of Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and current Culture War heavyweight also with Liberty Counsel. (Barber will keynote AFTAH’s fundraising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 10 — save the date.) Keep an eye on Shawn. The Lord will be using him mightily as the heated culture war reaches a boil. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com.

Click here for the text of H.R. 1913, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009; emphasis is author’s below:

__________________________________________

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009″

By Shawn D. Akers

I.    Characteristics

A.     “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
B.    The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define.  It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
C.    As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
D.    The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II.    Status

A.    The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH  passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote.  It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH,  was the dropping of the original section 2 –  the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.
B.    Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated.  One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.
C.    If Rep. Barney Frank is to be believed, the bill will likely go to the floor of the house very quickly, probably within the next few weeks. [A House floor vote is expected to come as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, April 29--Editor.]

III.    Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection.  Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act.  On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality.  The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A.    Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.
2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members.  Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.  Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold.  This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B.    Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1.    Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required.  Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class.  Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act.  The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim.  In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed.  As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C.    Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added).  This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener.  Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence.  This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D.    Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States.  This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute.  Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim.  This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off.  Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E.    Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1.    The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups.  Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2.    Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement.  The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality.  The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3.    Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4.    Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity.  The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result.  The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic.  The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people.  For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5.    The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6.    Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7.    Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism.  The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition).  Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F.    Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1.    All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association.  This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive.  Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.” (emphasis added).

IV.    Action Steps

1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; www.congress.org).
2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.
3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.
4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.
5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

___________________________________

1  Shawn D. Akers is a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and an Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  He can be reached via email at akerslaw@aim.com.

“Passage of ‘hate crimes’ legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of ’sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable ’suspect class’ characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender. This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism.” – Matt Barber

By Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that.  It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous “hate crime” of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who reportedly was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it’s needed to curb an epidemic of so-called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby.  The alarmist propaganda simply doesn’t square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as “hate crimes” motivated by “sexual orientation” bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of “hateful” words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by “sexual orientation” bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.

The entire push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very “hate crime” (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News [PDF].) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated “hate crimes” continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of “hate crimes” legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable “suspect class” characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publicly express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual.  If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.” The FBI has included mere words – “insults” and “intimidation” – in calculating “hate crimes” statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there’s every reason to believe they’ll subjectively consider “insults” and “intimidation” (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting “hate crimes.”

Yes, it’s a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell’s 1984.

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. He also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. This column is printed with permission.

Send To Phone

Bob Schwartz of the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network supports Wright State University’s ban against the Campus Bible Fellowship. The Christian campus group opposes Wright’s “nondiscrimination” code, which would force it to abandon its faithfulness to Scripture by allowing unrepentant homosexuals as members. Schwartz previously claimed to oppose laws criminalizing Christian speech — yet he favors banning groups because he  considers them “bible bigots.” Would Schwartz and GLN (which AFTAH considers to be an anti-Christian hate group) allow a tax-supported public university to dictate ITS membership standards if it operated on a college campus?

AFTAH was copied on the following e-mail letter from Bob Schwartz of the left-wing Gay Liberation Network, based in Chicago, to Wright State University President David Hopkins. Schwartz sent his letter following Americans For Truth’s reprint of a press release by the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) , which is fighting to overturn Wright State’s oppressive policy of forcing Campus Bible Fellowship to violate its faith creed in order to stay on campus. Note at bottom Schwartz’s clarification in response to a question from this writer.

Please study this series of e-mails and links [Wright State story HERE and Schwartz's previous statement against censorship HERE] and see if you can comprehend how Schwartz can simultaneously hold two seemingly contradictory positions:

1. he “opposes” government censorship against Christian speech (for which AFTAH wrote that “we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship”);
2. while he supports a government-funded school banning a Christian group for, effectively, sticking to its Biblical faith creed.

Hint: if you love the First Amendment, you won’t like Bob’s “clarification.” By banning Campus Bible Fellowship, Wright State has censored CBF’s speech. [TAKE ACTION HERE, or contact Wright's President, David Hopkins, at david.hopkins@wright.edu.] All of this begs the question: why would anyone expect the American Left — which has carried water for totalitarian governments the world over — to understand and honor religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms in the United States?– Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth, www.aftah.com

Here is Schwartz’s letter to Wright State President David Hopkins and BCC’d  to Americans For Truth, sent following AFTAH’s posting of the FIRE press release:

_________________________________________

From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 1:55 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Bible Bigots at Wright University

[To Wright State University President David Hopkins; link added]

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

No doubt you have received angry messages from bible bigots claiming that “religious freedom” is being compromised by the banning of the hate group from campus.

Racists and women haters have claimed religious sanction for their beliefs and discriminatory acts.  Gay and lesbian people deserve the same respect and protection accorded to other groups.

Please maintain the ban on the Campus Bible Fellowship.

BOB SCHWARTZ [of Gay Liberation Network]

Chicago

_________________________________________

Here is our follow-up with Schwartz and then his “clarification” equating a group maintaining Biblical standards against homosexuality with “hate speech”:

—–Original Message—–
From: Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth, americansfortruth@comcast.net
To: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 8:35 am
Subject: RE: Bible Bigots at Wright University

…. And this does seem like a retrenchment from your other email (which I posted on AFTAH) in which you say you defend opposition speech.

_________________________________________

From: [Bob Schwartz]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:23 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Bible Bigots at Wright University

I am opposed to government imposed restrictions on free speech, as such restrictions are historically directed at left-wing oppositionists.  I consider bible based bigotry against gays to be hate speech subject to antidiscrimination policies as in the case of Wright State University.

_________________________________________

By Laurie Higgins
First published Feb. 25, 2009 by Illinois Family Institute

Wayne Besen said this visual target graphic representing homosexual activists targeting traditional marriage — in a video produced by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia — turned the video into a “violent ad.” At bottom is an excerpt of the narration of the video surrounding the portion with the “target” graphic.

Wayne Besen, former spokesman for the subversive homosexual activist Human Rights Campaign and founder of the hate organization Truth Wins Out, apparently can’t make a distinction between a domestic terrorist threat and — a metaphor.

Besen has a West Virginia marriage initiative in his sights. He sees in this utterly benign video by The Family Policy Council of West Virginia a nefarious sniper threat. Please watch the video that has so terrorized Besen and that is more like an episode of The Waltons than 24:  http://www.wvformarriage.com/ [Click on YouTube above to watch video.]

His claim is both idiotic and comical. In one frame of this video, we see the nuclear family through the sight of a gun, which is a commonplace metaphor that means that someone or something is taking aim at or opposing something.  Is Besen actually claiming that society should prohibit the use of this metaphor? Will society tolerate this kind of intrusive censorship? And is Besen claiming that he and his collaborators don’t have traditional marriage and the natural family in their crosshairs?

I can’t think of a more serious domestic threat to fundamental First Amendment rights than that which is posed by homosexualists who seek to circumscribe both speech and religious rights if the exercise of those rights impedes their unholy march toward compulsory approval of homosexual behavior.

As I’ve mentioned before and will likely mention again, Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum, has stated that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Public school libraries engage in virtual absolute censorship of all books that espouse conservative perspectives on homosexuality, all the while accumulating a horde of pro-homosexual books that would make Midas envious.

Public schools expose students to resource after resource in context after context that affirm the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality while never offering resources that challenge that view.

Anti-discrimination policies that include the term “sexual orientation” are being used to prohibit people of faith from acting according to their consciences. Because we, in our ignorance, apathy, and cowardice, permitted this term to be included in anti-discrimination policy, schools can’t fire administrators and teachers who have elective amputations of healthy body parts and cross-dress.

And now, homosexual activists have metaphors in their sights.

____________________________________

Here is an excerpt of the narration from the pro-traditional-marriage video by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, in the portion surrounding the “target” graphic:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is held up as the ideal in all of civilized society because its profound stabilizing effects on our culture, as well as the important economic benefits of strong and intact families. ["Target" graphic begins here] But today that ideal is under an unrelenting attack as same-sex marriage in West Virginia is a closer reality than you may think [target graphic ends]. Thirty states have already passed constitutional amendments defining marriage but activists outside our state are aggressively targeting the remaining 20, including West Virginia — working tirelessly to redefine marriage away from God’s design to favor the desires of adults over the needs of children for the naturally balanced model of a mother and a father. The push for SSM has produced an historical crisis for the church. Today in courtrooms across the country in decisions as recent as last month, our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty is going toe to toe with an aggressive social agenda, and the Church is losing….”

Send To Phone

“Recent court decisions in other states have similarly made clear that providing benefits to same-sex couples, no matter how minor and even if accompanied by statement of intent meant to protect marriage, will be treated as evidence that the legislature does not object to redefining marriage.

“In each of the State high court decisions mandating a redefinition of marriage (in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut), the majority opinions have pointed to the extension of benefits to same-sex couples in those States in support of its conclusion.[3] This was the case in Massachusetts even though the legislature had specified in one bill that “[n]othing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a ‘homosexual marriage’, so-called.” – William Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation

TAKE ACTION:  “Civil unions” and “domestic partner” bills are used by activist judges to legalize “same-sex marriage,” as Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation shows below. Such bills are being considered in several states. “Sexual orientation/Gender Identity” bills create the foundation for artificial, homosexuality-based “rights,” culminating in homosexual “marriage.”  A “civil unions” bill just advanced in Illinois, and several pro-homosexual bills will be considered soon in Florida. Take action in the following states (this list is not comprehensive):

TO FIND OUT WHO YOUR STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE, go to www.congress.org and plug in your zip code.

FLORIDA: OPPOSE the pro-homosexual/-transsexual “Civil Rights” bill (HB397); the “Domestic Partnership” bill (SB1642); and the pro-homosexual-adoption bills (SB500, HB413); also, OPPOSE the repeal of Abstinence Education (S268,  H0019); here is the Florida legislature website;

ILLINOIS: Oppose the “civil unions” bill, HB 2234, that just passed out of the Youth and Family Committee; urge House Speaker Mike Madigan to stop blocking the marriage amendment (HC002); for more information and an action letter template on HB2234, go to Illinois Family Institute’s website; here is the Illinois General Assembly website;

MICHIGAN: Gary Glenn, head of AFA-Michigan, reports that the following bills are under consideration in Michigan: state-level ENDA (HB 4192); state-level hate crimes; State-level bullying bill (SB 0159 and SB 0275); State-level authorization of homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children. All the bills include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” language. Click here for the Michigan legislature website;

NEW MEXICO: Americans For Truth provided crucial information that helped defeat SB12, a “civil unions” bill in New Mexico — read about the pro-family victory HERE. Thank the state senators who voted against SB 12; you can find a roll call at the end of this article; click here for the New Mexico legislature’s website;

NEW YORK: Urge your legislators to OPPOSE efforts to legalize counterfeit (”gay”) “marriage”; homosexual activists in New York hope to make it the first state to pass “gay marriage” legislation; read a homosexual magazine account HERE; and go here for the New York State Assembly website.

OHIO: OPPOSE SB 55 and 57, pro-homosexual “comprehensive” (anti-abstinence-based) sex-ed bills; here is the Ohio legislature website;

PENNSYLVANIA: Diane Gramley of AFA of Penn. reports that yesterday H.B. 300 was introduced – adding ‘sexual orientation and gender identity or expression’ to the PA Human Relations Act.  Also, one senator has indicated he will reintroduce a hate crimes bill in the near future. So OPPOSE HB300 and “Hate Crimes” legislation. Here’s the Pennsylvania General Assemby website;

UTAH:  Oppose “Common Ground InitiativeWe” legislation; for more information, go to the Southerland Institute website’s “Legislation” page; here is the Utah legislature’s website;

WEST VIRGINIA:  the West Virginia Family Foundation lists the “sexual orientation” bills (OPPOSE) and the state marriage amendment (SUPPORT) in the legislature; go here for the West Virginia legislature website.

 _________________________________________________

Here’s a very important article by Bill Duncan, who has put in many years of good work defending marriage:

Utah’s “Common Ground” Package a Trojan Horse

By William C. Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation

A group called Utah Equality has proposed a package of legislation meant to increase the rights of same-sex couples in Utah. The package has been presented against a backdrop of widespread intimidation directed towards supporters of marriage as the union of husband and wife, including churches.

One of the bills this group includes in its package (expanding eligibility for unmarried people to pursue wrongful death actions) is currently pending in the Utah Legislature. The most significant part of the package would repeal a provision of the Utah Constitution that prevents the creation of legal statuses—such as civil unions– equivalent to marriage that have been understood as a prelude to redefining marriage in California and Connecticut.

Supporters of the package have presented this legislation as the only way for supporters of marriage to show they are acting in good faith.

For instance, a recent article in the Los Angeles Times says: “If the LDS [Latter Day Saints] Church were to support McCoy [the legislative sponsor of the currently pending bill] it would show that it really does believe in love, compassion and equal rights. If it does not, the church’s supposedly conciliatory stance would simply be one more obfuscation in support of truly bigoted intentions.”[1]

While there may be a particular measure included in the package that may not be objectionable taken in isolation , the sponsors of this package have precluded individual consideration of the ideas by creating a package of “bundled” measures and declaring an intention of “incremental advances” on gay rights while the “marriage dialogue” is “set aside . . . for a while.”[2]

Don’t be Fooled

Recent court decisions in other states have similarly made clear that providing benefits to same-sex couples, no matter how minor and even if accompanied by statement of intent meant to protect marriage, will be treated as evidence that the legislature does not object to redefining marriage.

In each of the State high court decisions mandating a redefinition of marriage (in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut), the majority opinions have pointed to the extension of benefits to same-sex couples in those States in support of its conclusion.[3] This was the case in Massachusetts even though the legislature had specified in one bill that “[n]othing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a ‘homosexual marriage’, so-called.”[4]

Sound legal and public policy does not require the Utah Legislature to support legislation as a way of rebutting attacks on the integrity of defenders of marriage. If a measure is necessary it should be accompanied not by accusations of bad faith but by evidence of a need for that measure, including a showing that the measure’s purposes cannot be accomplished in a way that provides no threat to marriage (such as by private contract).

Thus, Utah Equality describes the need for wrongful death legislation as “help[ing] families [of those killed as a result of negligence or malpractice] stay in their homes by removing existing barriers to inheritance and insurance.”[5] At a minimum, then, sponsors of the legislation should be able to show that:

1. people are losing their homes because of the absence of the legislation; and
2. these goals could not be achieved through joint ownership of a home, life insurance policies or other private arrangements including wills, that are currently accessible to any person.

These showings will require study and deliberation. It is neither necessary nor wise for the legislature to endorse a package of legislation meant to change the State’s sound public policy in regard to marriage.

Notes
1 Rick Jacobs, “Why We’re Mad at the Mormon Church,” Los Angeles Times , December 8, 2008 at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oew-jacobs8-2008dec08,0,3004487.story.

2 Steve Gehrke, “More Than Mischief: Are Recent Acts of Church Vandalism Tied to Bigotry?,” Salt Lake Tribune , November 24, 2008; Aaron Falk, “Gay Rights Battle Heads to Capitol,” Deseret News , December 10, 2008, B4; see also Kirk Johnson, “Gay Leaders in Utah Plan 5-Bill Attack in Legislature,” New York Times , November 11, 2008, A15.

3 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 962 & 967 ( Mass. 2003); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 428 ( Cal. 2008), Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, 2008 WL 4530885, *15 ( Conn.
2008).

4 Mass. General Laws Ann. 151B §4; see Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 977 ( Mass. 2003) (Spina, J., dissenting).

5 Equality Utah , “Common Ground Initiative” at http://www.equalityutah.org/CommonGroundInitiative.html.

From our good friend and youth advocate Linda Harvey, founder of Mission America. TAKE ACTION by calling your Congressman and U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or through www.congress.org; politely urge them to oppose all new “Thought Crimes”(Hate Crimes) legislation.

HATE CRIMES BILLS predicted to move fast in U.S. House

There are two bills now in U.S. House of Representatives on so-called hate crimes, and both need to be OPPOSED for lots of reasons but the most egregious element is the “sexual orientation” language and opportunities for violation of religious freedom and further legitimizing of ‘gay’ behavior. They are also  pork-laden, social engineering bills that are unnecessary in a time of what should be budgetary conservatism.

Just remember,the key problem with hate crime legislation is that the crimes supposedly only covered through such bills are, in fact, already crimes, and can already be prosecuted under current laws. All the “sexual orientation” category does is add extra penalties if opposition to homosexuality (the “wrong” attitude) is determined to be a factor.

Both have been referred to the House subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. They are likely to be reconciled at some point into one piece of legislation.

H.R. 256 The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

This is a gun control bill, but it also would add the sexual orientation language to our existing hate crime statutes, for crimes involving interstate and foreign commerce.Just think about the Internet and the free speech about homosexuality that might now be interpreted as “inciting hate crimes” especially if the site sells anything (the “commerce” requirement).

H.R.262 The David Ray Ritcheson Hate Crimes Prevention Act

This is a pork bill, providing victim’s assistance, housing, tax breaks and even family leave to victims of hate crimes. Will act as an incentive to be labeled a victim of a hate crime.

This bill also adds the “sexual orientation” category.

This bill grants $10 million for the next five years for the federal Department of Education to make grants to local schools for “hate crime prevention education.” Imagine what this will open up regarding anti-Christian teaching.

What can you do? Call House members from your state. Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121.

Thank you–we need LOTS of calls on this! Forward to your e-mail contacts.

——————————-

More from Mission America:

Why are American kids being drawn into primitive practices and weird sexuality? Find out in Linda Harvey’s book,”NOT MY CHILD: Contemporary Paganism and the New Spirituality.” Order it from AMG Publishers today by clicking HERE.

Get your children out of the public schools NOW, or start today fighting anti-Christian, pro-homosexual teaching!

For the latest news about the homosexual agenda in our schools, go to our companion web site, www.truthatschool.org/news.htm

Please help support our work!

Mission America
PO Box 21836
Columbus, OH 43221

Mail list service for Mission America provided by afo.net and totalnetguard.com filtering service, the Internet service that protects your family on the internet.

Mission America
www.missionamerica.com

MEDIA NOTE:  I will be the guest on Liberty Counsel’s outstanding new radio program, “Liberty Live” – airing today at 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern Time (3:00-4:00 Central).  The host (in Liberty Counsel Founder Mat Staver’s absence) will be my good friend, Matt Barber, LC’s Director of Cultural Affairs and an AFTAH Board Member.  (Matt is the guy who was fired by Allstate a few years back after writing a private web article against “gay marriage”– on his own time; this was God’s way of launching him into full-time pro-family work!)  “Liberty Live” airs on more than 150 stations through the American Family Radio Network.  You can also stream the show live and take part in the interactive blog discussion at www.afr.net or www.lc.org.  We’ll be discussing the Obama Administration’s and Log Cabin Republicans’ shared homosexual agenda.  Click HERE to listen to the archived show shortly after the program, and HERE to find AFR radio stations in your area.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST OBAMA’S “QUEER” AGENDA:  Meanwhile, please understand when you read the story below this one on AFTAH’s front page (”So Many Gender Identities, So Little Time”) that all major “queer”-oriented legislation on Capitol Hill – i.e., President Obama’s pro-homosexuality agenda, which was barely discussed in the general election – has a radical transsexual component.  That means, for example, if ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) becomes law, federal “discrimination” lawsuits and government prosecution could be brought against businesses and faith-based business owners and entrepreneurs who oppose using their private company resources to promote and subsidize gender confusion (and homosexuality).

Call Congress at 202-224-3121 (www.congress.org) to oppose:

1. “Hate Crimes” (Thought Crimes) bills HR 256 and HR 262;
2. Transsexuality-Promoting ENDA (think men in dresses entering corporate female restrooms);
3. Allowing open homosexuality in the military (Obama’s plan to overturn “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); and
4. The pro-homosexual immigration bill euphemistically called the “United American Families Act of 2009” – which would allow Americans caught up in immoral homosexual relationships to sponsor their foreign-living homosexual lovers for immigration into the United States.  We might rename this last bill the “Foreign Homosexual Lovers Importation Act of 2009.”

Thanks for taking action!  And thanks for the thousands of supportive phone calls and e-mails that have poured into the office of RNC Chair Michael Steele (202-863-8700; chairman@gop.com) urging him to reject the divisive “Log Cabin Republicans” homosexual agenda! (See this incredible article highlighting one LCR leader’s extremism and anti-Christian bigotry, and the other Log Cabin stories below on the main page of the AFTAH website.) God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

DATE: January 21, 2009, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lynchburg, VA – Literally within minutes after President Obama took the oath of office yesterday, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of “The Agenda: Civil Rights” – to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.”  His stated plans include the following:

• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage;
• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
• Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy;
• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;
• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law; and,
• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel [and a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH)] released the following statement today in response to Obama’s stated pro-homosexual agenda:

“Well, the high-sheen veneer and ‘cult of personality’ euphoria surrounding Barack Obama looks to be dissolving rather quickly.  While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’

“For all the talk of ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and ‘coming together,’ it’s becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama’s administration will likely be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory.  I suspect the immediate, stark and ‘in your face’ changes made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of policy, from his administration.

“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.  Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.  The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space.  It’s a zero-sum game.  When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority.  People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it’s going to be a bumpy four years,” concluded Barber.

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

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

__________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us know!

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

1. the more liberal version of ENDA that includes “gender identity” (transsexual “rights”);
2. changing immigration law to treat homosexual couples (i.e., same-sex lovers abroad) like married couples;
3. expanding federal AIDS spending despite the disproportionate government monies spent on this behavior-driven disease compared to other serious maladies such as Alzheimer’s and heart disease;
4. federal recognition of homosexual “civil unions”; and
5. using the president’s bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption and other homosexual activist policy goals.

I’m sure we’ve missed some homosexual agenda items. But if you are a Christian and/or consider yourself pro-natural-family — and you voted for Mr. Obama — perhaps it’s time to start contacting him to urge him NOT to pursue these misguided policies. (We assume that many strongly religious Obama voters were at least partly — and perhaps willfully — ignorant of his liberal-left plank on the moral issues of homosexuality and abortion.) We don’t know if the messages will get to him, but here’s a contact page for the Obama transition team: http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

The Citizenlink story is below:
________________________

Citizenlink reports:

11-19-2008

President-Elect Obama Lays Out Pro-Gay Agenda President-elect Barack Obama is committed to creating special rights for homosexuals and trampling on traditional marriage. He laid out his agenda on his Web site [http://www.change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda]:

• Expand hate-crimes legislation (which would create a new category of crime for actions said to be motivated by bias toward a person’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Sexual-orientation hate-crimes laws have been used to prosecute speech in the U.S. and abroad);
• Support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which would create special rights based on an employee’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and could force Christian employers to hire against their religious beliefs);
• Oppose a federal marriage-protection amendment;
• Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which would open the door to forcing all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriage”)
• Expand gay adoption (which would leave vulnerable children without either a mom or a dad);
• Repeal the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which would jeopardize military readiness by allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces).

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said: “We need to support our men and women in the military and not expect them to carry the heavy burdens of social engineering.” She said no one has a “right” to serve in the military, as Obama seems to suggest. “To say that the armed forces should accept any and all people is a little absurd,” she told Family News in Focus. “Should we throw out all distinctions?”

I haven’t seen any of it yet, but I’ve heard from others that this Coral Ridge panel on the dangers of “Hate Crimes” laws is superb. It features Bob Knight of the Culture & Media Institute; Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel (Matt is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth); Tristan Emmanuel (an honorary American to be sure for his energetic fights for truth in that Thought Police State to the north otherwise known as Canada); and Coral Ridge Ministries’ Jerry Newcombe, another great American.

I strongly urge you to do like I’m going to do and order the Coral Ridge DVD and book set based on this panel (for a $30 recommended donation to Coral Ridge Ministries). As with so many other critical issues, “hate crimes” laws and their implications for American freedoms are hardly being discussed in this presidential campaign season. That’s too bad, but you need to get informed and then educate your network of friends about these dangerous laws. 

Coral Ridge states:

Sometimes the “cure” is worse than the condition. That’s the case with “hate crimes” laws. In the 1980s, they were called the solution to America’s “rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed.”

That tide never came in, but hate crimes laws did. Now they’re on the books in 45 states and at the federal level, posing a clear and present danger to free speech, religious liberty and equal justice. Find out how and why “hate crimes” laws silence Christians, tear the social fabric, burden law enforcement, and lead to same-sex “marriage.”

Get the facts. Get the truths. Discover why hate crimes laws threaten you, your family and Christians everywhere.

Click HERE to order this excellent resource from Coral Ridge Ministries.

By Allie Martin – OneNewsNow – 7/29/2008; listen to the story online HERE

Alleged church shotgun murderer Jim Adkisson had a problem with the Bible and the church, liberals and homosexuals, according to reports.

The president of Americans for Truth says homosexual activists will use the recent church shooting in Knoxville, Tennessee, to advance their agenda and call for “hate crimes” legislation.

According to police reports, Jim Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville on Sunday and opened fire — killing two and wounding five others. Authorities believe Adkisson selected the congregation because of its liberal social stance, including support for homosexual causes.

Shortly after the shootings took place, pro-homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign were offering assistance to the church. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality thinks groups with agendas similar to HRC’s will use the tragedy to continue their push for federal hate crimes legislation.

“The fact is, this case will get the attention it deserves — and I believe this man could be given the death penalty, without any extra help from the feds and any sort of hate crimes prosecution,” he explains. “If he’s guilty of murder, and [if] the facts are true, he should get the death penalty.”

Click HERE for the rest of the story at One News Now