Teenage boy in McDonald's-France TV ad pines after another boy in his all-boys school. McDonald's COO Don Thompson says the ad will not run in the USA. But as a Christian he should be concerned that the corporation is promoting sinful, unhealthy sexual lifestyles to young men in any country.

TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald’s HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald’s Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald’s Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, perhaps you’ve seen the YouTube of this wicked McDonald’s TV commercial in France, featuring a homosexual teenage boy in love with another member of his all-boys school. (His out-of-touch, hopelessly ‘heterosexist’ father still thinks of his son as a potential lady’s man.) Since I saw the ad a while ago, I have stopped eating at McDonalds — which has had the added bonus of helping to keep my already protruding gut from officially being designated as “super-sized.”  

To a significant degree, McDonald’s with its high-calorie fare has always been in the business of promoting unhealthy lifestyles; now it has added unhealthy sexual lifestyles to the mix. To be sure, McDonald’s does not include promoting wholesomeness and time-tested Judeo-Christian morality among its “core values.” In a contorted defense of the fast food giant’s marketing practices, McDonald’s Chief Operation Officer Don Thompson told the Chicago Tribune in March that the French ad will not  be running in the USA. But the “Come as You Are” commercial has received wide publicity and gotten over two million hits on YouTube, so that’s a small comfort to Americans who have no interest in promoting youth homosexuality when they buy a Big Mac, or a Happy Meal for their young children.

Here’s FOX’s Bill O’Reilly segment on the French commercial — note how O’Reilly repeats the old homosexual-activist myth that “gays are ten percent of the population” — followed by more commentary and a McDonald’s-France letter defending it:  

As you can read in the Tribune interview, excerpted below, Thompson is a very public Christian, which is a good thing. But I find it deeply disturbing and hypocritical that he apparently is not troubled by McDonald’s’ promotion of sinful and deviant behavior to young people — as long as it occurs in France where homosexuality is much less controversial than in the United States.

Of course, Thompson is a company man, so he has to toe the line in his public statements. But Christianity is not divided by national borders and he must know that promoting wrong and unhealthy sexual lifestyles to French teenage boys is every bit as evil and reckless as promoting sinful lifestyles to American boys. (Are you getting a feel for how post-modern, pro-homosexual Corporate America is corrupting the souls of its devoted employees?) 

[TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald's HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald's Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald's Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.]

McDonald's COO Don Thompson

Changeable, male homosexuality is not “who you are” but is more rightly understood as a high-risk perversion – as evidenced by its disproportionately high linkage to various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. (The “rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men,” the CDC reported in March. “The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men,” it reported.) Getting by on the technicality that this youth-corrupting ad is only running in another (more decadent, less religious) country is the coward’s way out of a shameful PR disaster for the fast-food behemoth. And that defense has only alienated both sides of the debate: pro-”gay” advocates are upset that the McDonald’s-France commercial is not running in the U.S.   

McDonald’s and its CEO, Jim Skinner (and COO Don Thompson) owe an apology to French moms and dads — and French young people — for promoting the unnatural, disease-producing homosexual lifestyle to French boys as some kind of innocuous, natural — and “cool” — identity. Until that apology comes, I am avoiding the famed Golden Arches. If you join me, it will be one of the healthiest corporate boycotts you ever engage in — but please make sure that you pay a visit to your local McDonald’s manager and franchise owner — to personally inform them of the reason that you are not eating there anymore. (Show them the YouTube ad.) Then they can relay your message of concern up the corporate ladder.

Thanks for standing up for moral sanity and truth against Corporate America’s increasingly brazen promotion of sexual immorality, in the name of that modern, Orwellian euphemism, ”diversity.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org   

P.S. Memo to pro-homosexuality activists: if you want to negate our boycott: have at it! The Big Macs, fries and Quarter-Pounders, dripping with grease and loaded with fat-producing calories, are there to be eaten. Here’s a caloric rundown of some popular McDonald’s menu items, courtesy of Shapefit.com:

Big Mac: 570 calories
Quarter Pounder: 430 (w/cheese: 530 c.)
Large French Fries: 540 c.
Crispy Chicken Deluxe Sandwich: 500 c.
File-O-Fish Sandwich: 470 c.
Big Xtra! Hamburger: 710 c. (w/ cheese 810 c.)
Oreo McFlurry: 570 c.
Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg Sandwich: 440 c.
Chicken McNuggets 9-piece: 430 c.

_______________________________________________________

Here is a clearer YouTube version of the McDonald’s ad (after it starts playing, you may need to close the “Google Ads” box so you can better view the English subtitles):

_______________________________________________________

Tribune Interview with McDonald’s COO Don Thompson:

Excerpt from Chicago Tribune reporter Michael Oneal’s June 13, 2010 interview with McDonald’s COO Don Thompson. Note that Thompson’s response begs the question: just what are McDonald’s “core values” if they include promoting the acceptance of youth homosexuality to the wider culture? (Emphasis added below:)

Tribune: A French TV ad featuring a gay teen and his father has stirred some controversy — not there, but here. Can you talk about that?

Thompson: It is an example that markets, cultures are very different around the world. (For instance), I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian. I have my own personal beliefs and I don’t impose those on anybody else. I’ve been in countries where the majority of the people in the country don’t believe in a deity or they may be atheist. Or the majority of the country is Muslim. Or it may be the majority is much younger skewed. So when you look at all these differences, it’s not that I’m to be the judge or the jury relative to right or wrong. Having said that, at McDonald’s, there are core values we stand for and the world is getting much closer. So we have a lot of conversations. We’re going to make some mistakes at times. (We talk) about things that may have an implication in one part of the world and may be the cultural norm in another part of the world. And those are things that, yes, we’re going to learn from. But, you’re right, that commercial won’t show in the United States.

Tribune: How has it done in France?

Thompson: Interestingly enough, there have been no negatives coming out of France. The brand is a local brand and different things will occur in different parts of the world. We just have to make sure that we understand the impact one action may make on another part of the world.

_________________________________________________

[TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald's HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald's Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald's Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.]

_________________________________________________

McDonald’s-France Reply to American Customer Concerned over Pro-Homosexual Ad

The following letter was sent by McDonald’s France in response to an  American customer who wrote to express his concern over the corporation’s homosexuality-affirming TV ad:

July 5, 2010

Mr. ________________,

I have received your letter regarding our advertising film “Come as You Are.”

The ad you’re referencing is one of a series of ads called “Come as You Are” which recognizes the diversity of McDonald’s customers in France.

The campaign was designed to communicate the true McDonald’s experience in France: a place where you can be yourself, whatever your state of mine, your background; a place where you can feel free of constraints, a place where you can ‘Come as You Are.’ Since its launch, the campaign has acheived high awareness and it has been received positively by the majority of the French public.

The goal with this new phase of the campaign is to continue to build on the emotional connection created between the brand and the French [public. By] going beyond a simple description of our customers we actually tell their stories, capturing their personality and their emotions.

Through these films McDonald’s pays tribute to the diversity of its customers and the richness of their stories.

I hope you’ll better understand the aim of your [sic] “Come as You Are” communications campaign.

Your [sic] sincerely,

Nathalie Febvre
Customer Services Department
McDonald’s France Services

Linda Jernigan

Here is Part Two of our interview with Linda Jernigan, which aired July 10, 2010. [see Part One of the interiew HERE.] In the interview, Jernigan, a former lesbian, is joined on air by Pastor Roger Ford, a former homosexual. Their discussion with AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera is fascinating on many levels — not least of which is the fact that both Jernigan and Ford were seduced into homosexuality as underage kids. (Gay activists denounce and ridicule any linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality.)

Jernigan’s real life parallels the awful “Vagina Monologues” play by radical feminist Eve Ensler in which a 13-year-old girl was seduced into lesbianism by a woman who was supposed to be a role model in the community. (In a later version of the play, Ensler changed the victim’s age to 16.) Jernigan tells AFTAH how when she was just 12 years old, a woman who was supposed to be her “mentor” began exposing Jernigan to sexual banter and discussions, and then started asking Jernigan about her sexual feelings. This led to the woman seducing Jernigan into sex and the lesbian lifestyle.

In the case of Pastor Ford, he was “manipulated” into homosexuality by an older teenage boy (age 18) when Ford was 12 or 13. The young man began by complimenting Ford, whose effeminacy made him a social reject. Ford’s father died when he was very young, which he says contributed to him being drawn into homosexuality. Ford and Jernigan (www.RescuingHomosexuals.net) both reach out with the Gospel to people trapped in the homosexual lifesyle, and help them find freedom in Christ. 

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an  mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

7-10-10, Linda Jernigan & Pastor Roger Ford, All

Matt Barber's unapologetic approach toward the Culture War over homosexuality is the answer to wimpy evangelicals who seem to have forgotten that they are defending God's clearly-revealed Truth on this moral issue.

Here is Part Two of AFTAH’s June 12, 2010 interview with Matt Barber (CLICK HERE). (Listen to Part One HERE, or any other past interview HERE.) Barber is the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Liberty Counsel and an Associate Dean at Liberty University’s School of Law — where he will be teaching a course on “Sexual Behavior and the Law” this Fall. Barber and AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera discussed the upcoming Americans For Truth Academy and the hysterical opposition to it by homosexual radicals like Joe Jervis (who claims the Academy will “foster violence” against homosexuals). At the Truth Academy, to be held outside Chicago Aug 5-7, Barber will be lecturing on, among other things, a “Non-defensive approach to the issue of homosexuality.” Speaking of which, the two discuss the current malaise of evangelicals on the homosexuality issue — including Andy Marin’s preposterous call for a “moratorium” in churches on preaching against the sin of homosexuality.

Toward the end of the interview, Barber, author of the “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War,” discusses the homosexual activist movement (failed) attempt to open up blood donations to homosexual men — despite the well-documented linkage between male-on-male sex and various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. You will want to pass this interview on to your friends!

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

6-12-10, Matt Barber, All

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

______________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________

Excerpts from the Associated Press story:

“New HIV infections increasing among homosexuals”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

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

Press Release [emphasis added]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

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

Dear Admiral Mullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect,

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

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

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

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

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

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE, says legalizing homosexual "marriage" is like offering a glass of wine to a drunk.

Folks, I wish more conservative leaders: a) understood the truth about government-celebrated homosexuality as Star Parker does; b) had the guts to take a strong public stand on the issue like the column below. We encourage you to check out Star’s organization, CURE (Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education) at www.urbancure.org. — Peter LaBarbera

Parker writes (emphasis and web links added):

____________________________________

Sodom in the nation’s capital

There is a centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and a centrality of family breakdown to poverty

At a time when our country is sick, it shouldn’t surprise that one our sickest places is our nation’s capital.

The poverty rate of Washington, D.C., almost 20 percent, is one of the highest in the nation. Its child poverty rate is the nation’s highest..

D.C.’s public school system, with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent, is one of the worst in the country.

According to D.C.’s HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is “…higher than West Africa…on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.” And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity.

Amidst this dismal picture, the D.C .City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same-sex “marriage” in America’s capital city.

Looking at realities in Washington, D.C. should make clear why George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

But the America that our first president had in mind was very different from the vision of our DC government officials.

George Washington’s America was one in which the point of freedom is to allow Man to rise to what he can become. To do this, the greatest challenge he faces is conquering himself. To rise above his baser instincts, to rise above the many temptations that lead him astray. And to achieve this end, as Washington said, “religion and morality are indispensible supports.”

In left-wing America, of which the D.C. government is a poster child, freedom means to indulge every instinct that the tradition and religion of George Washington would have us overcome.

Where does it lead? Well, look at D.C.

It is tempting to look at D.C.’s realities and just call this a black thing. And by and large it is.

DC is largely black — almost 60 percent. Its poverty is black poverty. Its public school system serves mostly black children. And its AIDS crisis is mostly among blacks.

But the pathologies that strike the weakest parts of our population most brutally are nonetheless pathologies of the nation.

The Brookings Institution is one of our oldest policy institutes and certainly no bastion of conservatism. But in a recently published volume, Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill point out the centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and the centrality of family breakdown to poverty.

Reporting data showing the general breakdown of the traditional American family, they say, “Some claim that anyone who is concerned about these trends is simply out of touch with modern culture; we respond that, if that be the case, then, “modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children.”

The Catholic Archdiocese of D.C. announced that legalization of same sex marriage would make it impossible to continue its relationship with the D.C. government and require termination of the social services it provides to some 68,000 of the city’s poor — including about one third of its homeless. The reaction of D.C. Council member David Catania was essentially “so what.” According to him, “their services are not indispensable.” [Editor's note: Catania is one of two open homosexual activists on the Council.]

Is Catania out of touch with the needs of D.C.’s poor?

No. He just has different priorities. More important to him, and more important to D.C.’s left-wing city council, is advancing moral relativism and the indulgences it feeds.

This is more important to them than feeding the poor or recognizing the values that would get them out of poverty.

It should concern every American as we watch our nation’s capital city transform officially into Sodom.

Star Parker is founder and president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.  Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.

New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Close down the gay sex clubs? Homosexual sex is dangerous — the CDC says “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely than other groups to have HIV. And yet homosexual sex clubs flourish across the country. At left is Steamworks, a Chicago homosexual bathhouse where men go for anonymous sex with other men. This is a photo taken at the 2005 “Market Days” street fair, at which Steamworks advertises itself like any other business. Why doesn’t the government move to close down such perversion centers as public health hazards, given the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of male homosexual sex? 

____________________

So much for gay “equality.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have sex with men” (MSM): “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV. This does not mean that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, will take some tough, politically incorrect steps necessary to prevent AIDS — like closing down homosexual bathhouses and gay (male) sex clubs in major cities, and educating teenagers on the hugely disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual sex. The relentless pandering by federal, state and local governments to “gay” activists even as these same agencies fight diseases specifically linked to homosexual sex is one of the greatest public policy follies of our time — indeed, of history itself.

The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

_______________________________

Gay, Bi Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV

CDC reports hard data at National HIV Prevention Conference

By DYANA BAGBY, Washington Blade
Aug. 28, 2009

ATLANTA — Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.

Dr. Amy Lansky of the CDC presented research at the Aug. 24 plenary in which the CDC estimated in the U.S. there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per 100,000 men who have sex with men.

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“They have never converted the numbers into a rate,” said Walt Senterfitt of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project. Senterfitt is an epidemiologist.

“It’s not like this is totally new information. But they are saying now that gay, bisexual and other MSM are 50 times more likely to have AIDS than women and non-gay or bisexual men. This is a new statement. We weren’t able to make that equivalent before. We can now compare apples to apples. We represent the largest proportion.”

The CDC estimates gay and bisexual men make up about four to six percent of the population. When the CDC reports on African-American women, it says black women have an HIV infection rate that is nearly 15 times higher than that of white women. And Hispanics, who make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 17 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, according to the CDC.

According to a 2006 CDC report, 13,230 white MSM were estimated to be newly infected with HIV, followed by African-American MSM at 10,130 and then black heterosexual women at 7,340 new infections. The CDC estimates more than 56,000 Americans become infected each year; throughout the HIV Prevention Conference, the CDC stressed that number represents one person every nine-and-a-half minutes.

“If you ask 10 people in this room,” Senterfitt said at the conference with hundreds of people in attendance, “it’s likely only one person will answer correctly [that white MSM are the hardest hit by HIV].

“I think the CDC is finally trying to put out accurate information so the community can collectively respond — and these numbers help to show that HIV/AIDS never left the gay community.”

Kevin Fenton, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention at the CDC, said in opening remarks at the conference Aug. 23 that “gay and bisexual men account for half of new infections and are at greatest risk.”

But Fenton, who is gay, also noted that just 20 percent of gay and bisexual men report hearing of HIV prevention campaigns.

President Barack Obama’s new Office of National AIDS Policy has the mission of putting HIV/AIDS in the U.S. back on the radar after, as many speakers said at the conference, the country has become complacent about the disease. …. [continued on Blade website]

Click HERE to read the entire article in the “gay” newspaper, Washington Blade

From the Bi Health Summit’s website’s report on its conference in Chicago Friday, Aug. 14 (emphasis added):

Research presented by Cheryl Dobinson, MA, and Stewart Landers, JD, MCP, from their two separate studies was remarkably similar.  Bisexuals reported suffering from depression and anxiety in higher rates than heterosexuals or lesbians and gay men.  In terms of attempting or thinking of attempting suicide, bisexual men were 7 times higher, while gay men were 4 times higher, than straight men; bisexual women were 6 times higher, while lesbian women were 4 times higher, than straight women.  An Australian study revealed that middle-aged bi women were 24 times more likely to engage in self harm, like cutting, than straight women, as a coping mechanism.

Dobinson’s research revealed that only 26% of bisexuals did not experience child sexual abuse.  I’ll be getting more information on violence, domestic violence, and physical or sexual abuse, since she whizzed through a lot of that information and I don’t wish to misquote her findings.

I would also like to speak more with Cheryl Dobinson regarding her findings in anal sex for bi women and men.  Her research shows that bi men have fewer male partners than gay men and engage in anal sex less with men, but are more likely to have unprotected anal sex with men; while bi women have higher rates of anal sex with men than straight women and are more likely to report being HIV+.  … I would really like to discuss the 2005 CDC study with her that showed 44% of straight men and 35% of straight women engaged in anal sex.

Stewart Landers’ information from the 2001-2006 Massachusetts’ Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey — which is just the kind of huge population study bi researchers are looking for — revealed similar levels of depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, and suffering from violence.  Bisexual adults report poorer health and greater risks across a whole spectrum of health factors, including alcohol, substance abuse, and tobacco use.  Heart disease seems to be up 3 times higher than straight people, asthma rates reported higher than straight people but fairly equal to lesbians and gay men.

Landers’ study showed a surprising finding that people 18-24 were the largest group identifying as bisexual.

See also a related report from the Bi Health Summit: “Half of Homosexuals are Bisexual: Homosexual Newspaper.”

We presume based on the Times‘ summary that the Lancet article is rife with pro-homosexual political correctness, as Western elites generally yearn to bring their decadent “First World” attitudes to economically underdeveloped countries that still regard homosexuality as deviant. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_____________________________

The New York Times reports (emphasis added):

Aids: Role of Gay Men in Spreading Virus Is Ignored in Africa, Study Finds

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
New York Times, July 20, 2009

The role of gay sex in the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS in Africa has been long ignored, say the authors of a new study in the medical journal Lancet.

While most transmission of the virus in Africa is heterosexual, 19 recent studies of African men who have sex with men show that they have “considerably higher” infection rates than other adult men in their respective countries, said the authors, who were from Oxford University and research institutions in Ghana and Kenya.

These men also have less access to prevention and care; most African countries have allocated no money to gay men, and homosexual sex is illegal in 31 African countries, in four of which men risk the death penalty.

African male sexual networks overlap with male-female ones, the authors found, since many of the men also report recent sex with women or are married. In three genetic studies the authors compared, gay white men in South Africa had a virus from a type common among gay European and American men, while gay black men in Kenya and Senegal had the type circulating in their country’s black populations.

Gay men face ridicule from their families and health care workers and harassment by the police, the study reported. And because African governments and media aimed very little safe-sex information at gay men, false rumors were common — including rumors that gay sex or anal sex were safer than heterosexual sex.

How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?

President Obama hosted a reception at the White House celebrating LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride month. Black Christians should take note and learn a few things about our black President.

As they say, we are what we do.

It tells us something that Mr. Obama had no time to host an event for the National Day of Prayer.

Nor did he have time to accept the invitation to convey greetings and a few remarks to the couple hundred thousand who came to Washington, as they do every January, for the March for Life.

However, the LGBT Pride event did make it onto the president’s busy schedule.

Here are parts of his remarks I think noteworthy for black Christians.

First, we now know that Mr. Obama buys into reasoning equating the homosexual political movement to the black civil rights movement: “….it’s not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.” Perhaps Obama can extend some of his famous empathy to a black Christian woman, Crystal Dixon, who lost her University of Toledo job for writing a column in her local paper challenging this premise. Dixon was fired for being uppity enough to write “….I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’ …I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.”

Considering our president’s priorities, I recall a song popular during the civil rights movement: “Which Side Are You On?”

Second, Obama sees the black community as being a little slow on the uptake to grasp that homosexuality and same sex marriage are okay. There still are those, according to him, “who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters…” He deals with this, he said, by talking about it in front of “unlikely audiences,” such as, “in front of African American church members.”

Maybe a lot of us black folks, still readin’ our Bibles, just haven’t had enough of that Harvard learnin’.

And, third, Obama talked about HIV/AIDS but didn’t bother to mention that it’s overwhelmingly blacks that this scourge is killing.

Why would our black president discuss HIV/AIDS and not mention that although blacks represent 12 percent of our population, they account for 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases and half of HIV related deaths? Or that the incidence of HIV/AIDS infection per every 100,000 people is 9 times higher among blacks than whites?

Of course, it would have been bad form for Obama to sour the punch bowl at the LBGT Pride month festivities by mentioning the disproportionate toll this lifestyle takes on blacks.

Blacks, of course, made the difference in getting Proposition 8 passed in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They then switched over and voted for Obama.

Obama has said he opposes same sex “marriage.” Can this really be so? He said at the White House event that he’s called for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the main obstacle to nationalizing legalization of same sex marriage.

Black Christians have a lot of soul searching to do. We know the pain of black history. But we also must retain clarity that these many injustices were the result of race and color trumping Christian principles.

How can black Christians do this to themselves? How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?

Particularly as sexually transmitted diseases kill our people, when a third of all abortions are black babies, and the only hope for future black prosperity is restoration of the black family?

Star Parker is founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), based in Washington, DC. Telephone: 202-479-2873; www.urbancure.org. CURE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service

Dear AFTAH Readers,

I almost fell of my chair Monday when I read on the Washington Post website, in a story titled, “HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%,” that AIDS is “largely a preventable disease.”  Now, I’m sure the reporter had in mind condoms and “safer sex,” but I’ll take what I can get from the Post, a notorious media cheerleader for all things “gay.”  (One of my favorite examples of the Post’s pro-homosexual bias is when it “reported” several years ago that there were 100 MILLION “gay” Chinese — 10 percent of the country’s then-population of a billion. The silly estimate relied on the fraudulent “10 Percent” myth used widely by homosexual activists to exaggerate their clout.)

You need to know as a tax-paying citizen that the federal HIV/AIDS establishment is like a corrupt state “corporation,” which we’re reading a lot about these days. Imagine: our national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (note that last word) is more concerned with battling “homophobia” than closing down the homosexual/bisexual disease centers (aka gay bathhouses) that facilitate anonymous homosexual sex in major cities across the country.  That is because homosexual activists and apologists occupy key positions in the CDC and various government agencies, which work hand in hand with pro-homosexuality “AIDS organizations” — the logical equivalent of “smoking-positive cancer organizations.”

The whole bloated, bureaucratic, politically correct mess is crying out for investigative reporting of the sort the liberal media rarely do because they now see themselves as protectors of “gay rights.”  Here’s a story from AFA’s excellent news service, One News Now, featuring Americans For Truth.  You can listen to the story online HERE. God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.americansfortruth.com

One News Now reports [link added by AFTAH]:

________________________________________________________

Gov’t intervention not likely in AIDS epidemic

By Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/17/2009 7:30:00 AM

A conservative activist says the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Washington, DC, should prompt the government to take action against the homosexual behavior that is spreading the deadly disease.

The District of Columbia’s HIV/AIDS office reports that at least three percent of DC residents have HIV or AIDS, a rate that is higher than West Africa. According to the report, heterosexual sex was the chief mode of transmission for blacks, while homosexual sex was the chief mode of transmission for whites at 78 percent.

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the HIV/AIDS cases linked to homosexuality are actually larger than the report claims.

“The [Center for Disease Control] has never been clear — it does not label [correctly],” he contends. “If a man is bisexual and contracts AIDS through sex with a man and then brings it back to have sex with a woman and transmits the virus that way, that is labeled a heterosexual transmission. If the CDC were more honest, that would be labeled a bisexual transmission.”

The DC report finds that 76 percent of the HIV-infected are black, 70 percent are men, and 70 percent are age 40 and older. LaBarbera says the government, unfortunately, is unwilling to stigmatize homosexuality and bisexuality.

“There’s [sic] a lot of bad behaviors going on in the African-American community,” he points out. “You’ve got drug abuse. You’ve got homosexual behavior, and you’ve got men ‘on the down low’ — that’s men practicing homosexuality in secret. They don’ call themselves gay, and they’re helping spread the disease, and women are being victimized by these bisexual men.”

LaBarbera believes “it’s time the government gets honest” about HIV/AIDS and takes action to shut down the homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs that are operating freely.
___________________________________________________________

Help AFTAH Stand Against the Anti-Christian “Gay” Lobby! 

Americans For Truth about Homosexuality needs your help in our front-line fight to preserve marriage, morality and our precious religious freedoms against the aggressive and powerful “Queer” Lobby.  The pro-family movement is heavily outgunned and outspent by homosexual activists in this battle, but we have something they lack: the Truth.  Help us defend it with your tax-free online gift to “Americans For Truth” at: www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.  Regular mail gifts: Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.  MONTHLY ‘TRUTH TEAM’ sign-up (gifts of $25/month or more): http://www.americansfortruth.org/membership.php.  Thank you for standing with us for God’s Truth!

___________________________________________________________

Current stories on www.AmericansForTruth.com

• Lively Accuses Throckmorton of Betraying Christ and Grove City College Mission
• We Disagree about Homosexual Behavior; We Don’t Hate
• Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’
• The ‘Bottom’ Line: Behavior IS the Issue and Sodomy Is Disgusting
• Higgins Responds to Throckmorton’s Criticism of Day of Silence Boycott 
• Lively Gives Report on Uganda Conference (How many American men would still be alive today had they never practiced sodomy?)
• Michael Steele’s False Comparison between Race and Homosexuality
  
• Liberal West Virginia Lawmakers Again Seek ‘Civil Rights’ Status for Homosexuality

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I e-mail back-and-forth frequently with “Gerald,” a committed critic of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Below, Gerald reacts to our piece, reprinted from the Urban Dictionary, on the definition of “Power Bottom” (yuck). Per the usual, AFTAH received the kill the messenger (or maybe mock the messenger) treatment from “gay” apologists like Jeremy Hooper, a New York City blogger. The poor homosexual activists, their minds reprobate and sold out to sexual sin, can’t understand our purpose: to expose the real (destructive and wicked) behaviors associated with homosexuality lifestyles (and yes, there are many different lifestyles, not one “gay lifestyle”).

We post items like this because the public discussion about homosexuality has moved so far away from the actual behaviors associated with homosexuality. We’re trying to bring people back to the reality of what we oppose — and away from euphemistic abstractions (e.g., “gay civil rights” and “marriage  equality”). Try this, painful as it is: go back and read the “‘Power Bottom’ Defined” post and see if you don’t gain a better understanding of why God through His Word pronounces homosexual acts “detestable.” See if you don’t perceive homosexuality as more about “human wrongs” than “human rights.” Only a person committed to practicing or justifying deviance, or a zealous libertine, can’t see it. (And yes, we also oppose heterosexual anal “sex” — and lesbian-lesbian simulated anal “sex”: there’s not much to be said for imitating male homosexual sodomy, a causative factor for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.)

OK, I can already hear the Tolerance Robots (self-righteous judgers all) with their inane, catchall denunciations of our judgment (agreeing with God’s) against deviant behavior. Their formula, spoken with a fundamentalist’s certitude, is pretty simple: “Well, being a Power Bottom is not my cup of tea, but who am I to judge? If you don’t want to be a Power Bottom, fine, but how dare you judge others. Haven’t you read in your Bible, ‘Judge not lest you be judged’?!” Oy vey.

Every human being, lovingly made in the image of God, has dignity. But there is no dignity in practicing perversion, and the bad behaviors associated with “proud” homosexuality — be they men glorying in same-sex sodomies (what the CDC calls “men who have sex with men”) or two lesbians becoming “mommies” through artificial insemination in some pitiable attempt to mimic natural motherhood — are wrong. The homosexual activists’ guilt is compounded when groups like the Human Rights Campaign justify their Human Wrongs by preposterously claiming that their homosexuality is a “gift from God.”

Please pray for Gerald, and Jeremy, that they would humble themselves and leave behind their errant “gay pride.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

___________________________________________

Here’s my response to Gerald, with his note beneath mine:

Sodomy is disgusting, and dangerous, Gerald. Objectively disordered, as the Catholic Church says. Deal with it. You need to repent to God and turn your life around. I’m sorry, but that’s the “God’s honest truth.”–pl, 3-11-09

——————————————————————————–

From: Gerald [mailto:-------@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:39 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site]

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

Oh and Peter — what I actually do in bed is NONE of your business or anybody else\’s for that matter. But when it comes to committing myself to my partner and building a life together – that IS important – and a matter of civil rights.

________________________________

Here are two subsequent e-mails from Gerald, today (responding to my “sodomy is disgusting” note). I don’t know about his statistics but highly doubt his 38 percent figure for heterosexual anal sex. Note his return to ad hominem insults and the standard “gay” shellfish argument. For a good refutation of that, go to Prof. Rob Gagnon’s website.– pl:

From: Gerald [mailto:--------@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:11 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site]

Peter – there is something wrong with you psychologically.

I think religious fanaticism is disgusting.

____________________________________________________

From: Gerald [mailto:--------@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:07 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site]

Sodomy? What is that? Oral sex? Yes – according to your ancient religious text. Does that mean that 90% of heterosexuals need to repent or face hell? What about the 38% of heterosexuals that engage in anal intercourse?

Are you going to hell Peter for eating shellfish? Or touching pigskin?

Peter – you are a religious nut.

By Peter LaBarbera

In the world of proud, American, male homosexuality, there is great denial of the linkage between homosexual behavior and disease, and even early death. Confronted with evidence of the disproportionate connection between male homosexuality and disease — evidence so clear even a child could comprehend it — “gay” activists and their liberal enablers often respond by talking about how “heterosexuals also get STDs,” or how “heterosexuals are dying of AIDS in Africa,” etc. Their pat answers help them rationalize a decidedly “queer” ideology that celebrates unnatural sexual identities and lifestyles defined by deviant sex practices that are actually quite dangerous.

Despite these jingoistic rationalizations, the tragic toll of homosexual behavior continues to rise, while supposed advocates for GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) people offer up the same failed methods as a panacea for dealing with the gay-sex-disease crisis: condoms and “safer sex.” The flip side of homosexualist denial is that government agencies never attempt to discourage homosexual behavior per se as a means of reducing the suffering — and only rarely are the extraordinary health risks of homosexual behavior taught clearly to youth.

What greater testimony is there to the idiocy surrounding homosexuality and public health disease prevention, or lack thereof, than the continued operation of homosexual bathhouses across the country, where men go for anonymous sodomitic encounters with other men?  (One such perversion center even sponsored a “Queer Prom” for Latino youth in Chicago last year.)

This colossal public health disaster is the direct result of GLBT organizing and political clout which, ironically, helps perpetuate the suffering of homosexual men. If the public health powers that be could somehow manage to cut through the politically correct cow manure, they might ask themselves why this link between homo-sexual behavior (or, as Prof. Rob Gagnon calls it, homosex) and disease is being downplayed or ignored while other similarly obvious connections (e.g., smoking and lung disease) are dealt with forthrightly, resulting in no-nonsense prevention methods that discourage or ban unhealthy conduct (e.g., public media campaigns against smoking and laws banning smoking).

Below is a typical article from the “gay” press pointing to the link between male homosexual behavior and one disease, syphilis (emphasis added):

Syph Up in NYC

Michael R. Bloomberg’s Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report acknowledges a 30.3 percent increase in syphilis cases in New York City, “reflecting national trends.” The report pledges to “work closely with providers reporting the greatest number of syphilis cases” and “more intensive services.”

The report said that “95 percent of the cases are male and a majority report having sex with other men.”

Condom distribution was way up in FY2008 and the city is now using Facebook to promote condom use. Bloomberg, however, still opposes reinstating lessons in classrooms on proper condom use, a ban instituted under Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

– Gay City News, a New York City-based homosexual newspaper, Feb. 20-March 5, 2009, p. 9.

SHUT DOWN THESE PERVERSION CENTERS?  With 300,000 men dead from AIDS due to homosexual sex, why are homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs flourishing in the United States? At left is an ad in a homosexual newspaper for the Crew Club, a Washington, D.C.-based bathhouse where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men (our editorial comment is in red). It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS. Click on ad to enlarge.

___________________________________________________

Linda Harvey writes on her excellent Mission America website:

On World AIDS Day, 12 Astounding Facts about AIDS in the U.S.

December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.

In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.

Here are some facts to consider:

1. Over 1 million people now have HIV in the U.S.(a)

2. Almost half of HIV cases (just under 500,000) are known to involve male homosexual behavior.(b) This is a highly conservative figure. Male- to- male sex is a contributing factor in other transmission categories as the Centers for Disease Control defines them. A more realistic actual figure is around 60-70%.

An estimated 300,000 males in the U.S. have died of AIDS as a result of male homosexual sex.(c)

3. In 2006, 53% of new HIV cases were attributed to MSM (males who have sex with males). Another 4% falls into the category of MSM plus IDU (injection drug use).(d) And many of the cases in the category of “high risk heterosexual” (31%) originate with the homosexual behavior of the partners of the heterosexuals who contract HIV. There are also cases classified as “unknown” in origin, and many of these are likely to involve MSM.

4. In certain states, the percentage relating to male homosexual sex is much higher:

• In California, at least 67% of HIV/AIDS cases are directly linked to male homosexual behavior, with another 9% involving the combined risks of MSM and IDU.(e)
• In Oregon, 66% of AIDS cases are attributable to male-to-male sex, with another 10% involving the combined risk factors of MSM and IDU.(f)
• In Ohio, 58% of AIDS cases are caused by male homosexual behavior, with another 6% transmitted through MSM and IDU.(g)

5. The number of cases involving men who have sex with men is increasing while other transmission categories remain stable or are declining.(h) Safe sex is not working. Homosexual men know about condoms, but they often don’t use them.

6. Between 2001 and 2006, HIV among teen and young adult males who have sex with males rose over 12 % per year. Let’s repeat that—in the age group 13 to 24 years of age, HIV rose over 12% per year for six years.(i) Teen boys encouraged to enter the ‘gay’ lifestyle, are being enabled to enter a world of danger. Affirming homosexual behavior in schools should be viewed in this light.

7. California, where a faction wants to legalize homosexual relationships as “marriage,” has experienced 69,000 HIV/AIDS deaths due to males who have sex with other males since the beginning of the epidemic. Allow us to repeat this number: 69,000 dead due to male homosexual sex in California alone.(j)

8. In California, nearly 62,000 people are now living with HIV or AIDS.(k) Applying the current trend that at least two-thirds of these cases result from MSM, that means approximately 41,000 infected males who have sex with males might be eligible to legitimize this epidemic through “marriage” if the California Supreme Court rules against the voters’ decision on Proposition 8.

9. We are spending $3 billion federal dollars annually in the U.S. on a disease that is largely preventable.(l)

10. As of the end of 2006, approximately 566,000 deaths have occurred among people with AIDS, including 14,627 in 2006.(m)

11. The lifetime medical cost for an HIV patient is around $600,000.(n)

12. The top five deadliest states to live in regarding AIDS are the District of Columbia, New York, Maryland, Florida, and Connecticut.(o)

Conclusion: Does America benefit from male homosexual behavior? No. Along with unmarried heterosexual behavior,male homosexuality should be discouraged as much as possible to responsibly address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

NOTES:
a. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/prevalence.htm
b. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table3.htm
c. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/pdf/2006SurveillanceReport.pdf — Table 7.
d. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
e. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/OA-HIVAIDSMergedOct08.pdf (page 10)
f. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=11⊂=118&rgn=39
g. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=11⊂=118&rgn=37
h. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/pdf/2006SurveillanceReport.pdf
i. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2.htm
j. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/OA-HIVAIDSMergedOct08.pdf (derived from statistics on page 10)
k. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/pdf/2006SurveillanceReport.pdf — Table 12
l. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=528&cat=11
m. http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/3029-09.pdf
n. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&refer=home&sid=afNA2MSzydTw and http://news.med.cornell.edu/wcmc/wcmc_2006/11_01a_06.shtml
o. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/pdf/2006SurveillanceReport.pdf –Map 1

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?”

P.S. Check out this AFTAH article to see the face of real diversity, as people of various ethnicities and religions unite to oppose a homosexual “special rights” law in Hamtramck, Michigan.

__________________________________

Oct. 21, 2008

MassResistance Update

“In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
- George Orwell

What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts

It’s far worse than most people realize

by Brian Camenker

[Note: As the debate on this issue rages in states across the country, most people are unaware of what's really happened here. Get ready for an eye-opener.]

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools

The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health

The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence

Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business

All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality”.
Legal profession

The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex “marriage” issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual “marriage”. There are also now several homosexualjudges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples

Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates

In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.

Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)

Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.
The public square

Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media

Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual “marriage” issues, and how to properly accept it.

A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?

Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state’s marriage licenses to say “Party A and Party B” and order officials to perform same-sex “weddings” if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as “copycat” rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion

Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.

For more information, visit MassResistance’s website.

——————————————————————————–

Special announcement:

Starting today, the MassResistance website will now be updated DAILY (Monday-Friday, and Saturday evening).  We have an overwhelming number backlog of material, plus new things constantly happening. Check it out!

——————————————————————————–

This is your movement!  Our funding comes from individuals. Please donate – invest in MassResistance’s efforts!

Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of its lists.

Contact us if you want to get involved.

Also, check out the MassResistance blog (for even more in-depth coverage)!

[If you are on this list by mistake, or do not want to get our email information alerts, please accept our apologies. Please call us at MassResistance at 781-890-6001 or email us back, and we'll immediately take you off the list. We've tried to only include people who've contacted us at some point or otherwise indicated they would like to hear from us.]

Also, if this is being forwarded to you and you want to be on our primary list, please let us know!

_______________________________________________

HELP AFTAH MATCH 2nd 10,000 GRANT!

Americans For Truth has received a second $10,000 grant from another generous donor.  Please help us to double this gift with your tax-deductible donation to AFTAH of $1,000, $500, $100 or whatever you can give. You can give online using a credit card or PayPal at www.americansfortruth.com/donate.  Or mail your gift to:  AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

Please also consider becoming a monthly AFTAH “Truth Team” Partner with your regular pledge of $250, $100, $50 or $25/month to Americans For Truth; sign up at http://americansfortruth.com/membership.php.  Thank you for helping us expose the truth about the freedom-crushing homosexual agenda — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org