“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” –  Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 

“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com

TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt  to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):

You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin  — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.

Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)

Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)

Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]

Prof. Rob Gagnon

Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?

Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN:  Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

_________________________________________

Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:

3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”

Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.

What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.

Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.

Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.

Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:

1. the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
2. the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
3. the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
4. the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.

Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):

“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:

Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)

Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).

Reprinted from LifeSiteNews.com [click here to sign up for LifeSite's daily news e-mails]

Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who accepted Christ and left the lifestyle, with her daughter Isabella. Miller does not want her Isabella raised in an environment in which sexual immorality is modeled as normal.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

NEW YORK, February 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Janet Jenkins, a practicing lesbian who was once in a “civil union” with ex-lesbian Lisa Miller, is conducting a media campaign to locate Miller’s seven-year-old daughter in an attempt to gain custody of the child.

Miller’s daughter, Isabella, was conceived via artificial insemination during the pair’s relationship, and has no biological relationship with Jenkins. Miller disappeared with Isabella in December, apparently in an effort to prevent a Vermont judge from transferring custody of her child to Jenkins.

But Jenkins is doing numerous interviews with mainstream media outlets, ostensibly in an effort to locate Isabella (described by Jenkins in one interview as “my child”), which are uncritically repeating her charges against Miller, while failing to mention Miller’s charges against Jenkins – -including that her relationship with Jenkins was abusive.

“I think she’s dangerous, and I think she’s very vulnerable and I think she’s capable of anything,” Jenkins told ABC News on January 29 when asked about Miller.

“I think she’s very desperate,” added Jenkins. “I think the people and the places that she is exposing herself to and my child to – our child to – it’s just frightening for me to even think about.”

Reports of Jenkins’ abusive behavior

However, Jenkins herself has been repeatedly accused of being “dangerous” — both to Miller’s child, Isabella, and to Lisa Miller herself.

In a lengthy interview with LifeSiteNews.com in 2008, Miller recounted the physical and emotional abuse she said she suffered at Jenkins’ hands, and also stated that her daughter was desperate not to return to Jenkins’ custody.

In addition to being “physically and emotionally abusive,” and repeatedly trying to throw her out of the house, Jenkins even “said she wanted to kill me,” Miller told LSN in her account of her relationship with Jenkins, which began in late 1998 and lasted more than four years.

Miller said she fled the ongoing abuse twice before leaving Jenkins permanently in 2003.

According to Miller, Isabella had become desperate not to return to Jenkins (shown at left) after a visit in which she said that she had been required to bathe naked with her other “mother.” She had even spoken of wanting to die.

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” Miller told LSN. “She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, ‘I want to kill myself.’ I don’t know where she got that. It was immediately after a visit. Other people have seen huge changes. She also started openly masturbating which is not something that my child has done.”

“She is 6 now (2008) but this started when she was 5 — after visits,” Miller continued. “The very first time that Janet ever saw Isabella after the two and a half years, her very first over-night visit — the court ordered it and I allowed it because it was in Virginia and she was supposed to have been supervised by her parents — Isabella came home and said, ‘Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house.’

“I asked her what happened. She said, ‘Janet took a bath with me.’ I asked her if she had a bathing suit on. ‘No, Mommy.’ She had no clothes on and it totally scared Isabella. She had never seen this woman except once in 2 ½ years and she takes a bath with her.”

Other Witnesses

According to Miller attorney Rena Lindevaldsen, Miller was not alone in her accusations. In a 2008 interview with LSN, Lindevaldsen said that a psychologist who had examined Isabella before and after her trips to see Jenkins had submitted two affidavits testifying to the damaging effects of the trips.

At least two other witnesses also submitted affidavits testifying to Isabella’s troubling behavior following visits with Jenkins, according to Lindevaldsen.

Even Jenkins’ own parents, who are supportive of their daughter, admit that Jenkins had a “spat” with Miller while they were together, in which Jenkins threatened to force her onto the street, something they objected to.

“Janet said: ‘I’m going to kick her A-double-S out. I’m going to put her clothes on the curb.’ My answer was: ‘You can’t do this. The kid has no place to go,” Jenkins’ father told the Washington Post Magazine. “‘You’ve already said you’d allow her to move in. You can’t put her out on the street. You don’t do stuff like that.’ ”

When LSN spoke to Lindevaldsen in late 2008, she said that the Vermont courts had delayed ruling on the accusations for nine months, but that a hearing had finally been scheduled. Ultimately the testimony of Miller, at least one psychologist, and multiple other witnesses was not enough to prevent Judge Richard Cohen from transferring custody to Jenkins in late 2009.

The mainstream media also has almost completely ignored the accusations, with the exception of a single 2008 Newsweek article that mentioned them in passing, along with Jenkins’ rebuttal. The affidavits presented to the court were never mentioned.

However, ABC News and other major newspapers and media outlets have allowed Jenkins to repeat, without proof and without rebuttal, her accusations that Miller is “dangerous” and “capable of anything.” One writer at ABC, David Schoetz, went so far as to compare Miller’s disappearance to that of Clark Rockefeller, who tried to flee with his ex-wife’s biological daughter. Schoetz wrote that if “we can learn anything from the Clark Rockefeller, pictured in his mugshot above, it’s that hiding a child is not an easy thing to do, especially when so many people care.”

_________________________________________

Related links:

Helping Isabella Facebook Page

AFTAH articles:

• Virginia Christian Mom, Lisa Miller, Could Lose Custody of Daughter to Former Partner, Vermont Lesbian Activist;
• CWA, Barber Urge Prayer for Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller and Daughter Isabella;
• Liberty Counsel Update on the Hearing in Lisa Miller’s Case;
• ‘You’re Not My Mommy!’ — Matt Barber on Lisa Miller Custody Battle;
• Barber: Virginia Supreme Court Buys Time on Lisa Miller Case

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

• Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest;
• Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller “Disappears” as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover;
• Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against “Civil Union” Partner;
• Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover

“Most of the studies of gay men [couples] report about 50% are monogamous—they have been Bay Area studies and studies that were done all over the US and Australia and Western Europe.” –San Francisco State University researcher Colleen Hoff in e-mail to lesbian couples therapist Michele O’Mara of Bilerico.com. See the comments following O’Mara’s Bilerico column.

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

Dear Readers, note the distinct nonjudgmentalism of lesbian writer Michele O’Mara regarding the not-so-shocking report (if you are familiar with “gay” male promiscuity) that half of homosexual male “couples” choose to be “non-monogamous.” That is, they agree to or allow their male partner to have “outside sex” with other men.

O’Mara asks, “I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender?” Let me answer: the “open option” is rooted in the anything-goes mores of the Sexual Revolution, which served as a catalyst for the modern “GLBT” movement. Homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse: why would anyone expect monogamy — of the sort that imitates a faithful marriage — from a promiscuous sin movement? And men are simply more promiscuous than women. (Note that the fact that O’Mara professes to practice monogamy with her lesbian partner confers no legitimacy on her sinful relationship, nor does it negate the damage that her intentionally fatherless parenting will do to the boys they are raising.)

The implications for the “same-sex marriage” (SSM) debate are obvious: we hear a lot about homosexual men being domesticated by homosexual “marriage” — supposedly a noble public policy goal. A more compelling question is: how will legalized SSM and/or “civil unions” help bleed rampant homosexual non-monogamy into the straight married world? (This is not to say that modern-day “heterosexuality” needs help from the Homosexual Lobby to sink into ever deeper levels of corruption: witness the creation of mainly heterosexual websites devoted exclusively to helping married men and women hook up with adulterous sex partners.)

AFTAH has already reported on how “gay” sex columnist Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage [his blog is HERE]– whom O’Mara cites below — espouses “non-monogamy” for straight couples, but I doubt that the vast majority of everyday Americans would agree with Savage on the practical benefit of what is essentially organized cheating. Neither would they be comfortable with O’Mara’s studied neutrality on the issue. After all, isn’t faithfulness between husband and wife at the core of real marriage? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

O’Mara writes in the homosexual website Bilerico.com (emphasis hers):

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

Filed by: Michele O’Mara
February 4, 2010 7:00 PM

After studying 566 gay male couples over a three year period, Colleen Hoff of San Francisco State University discovered that roughly fifty percent of gay male couples choose to be non-monogamous. Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen are a great example of how this works. Spears and Lowen started dating in their mid-twenties with the agreement that they will keep their relationship open. Thirty-four years later the couple is still going strong. In fact, this duo credits their relationship success in part to their decision to keep their relationship open.

Lowen and Spears have taken their interest in non-monogomy a step further by studying 86 non-monogamous, long-term (8+ years) gay male couples. Their research reveals that forty percent of the 86 couples started out with agreements to be open and have maintained this status, while the remaining sixty percent of the couples took an average of 6.5 years to open their relationship. The average length of relationship for the 86 couples in this study is 16.2 years.

While I’m not interested in promoting or discouraging open relationships, I do find it fascinating to consider what makes this arrangement work for so many gay men. Of the 86 couples in the Spears/Lowen research, only one couple is raising young children. This does not surprise me. Raising children is a time and energy consuming experience that will unlikely leave much room for extra play. In an email exchange with Hoff, she explained to me that while they did collect data on parenthood for the couples in their study, they did not separate that data out to examine the relationship between monogamy and parenthood.

I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender? Traditionally men are thought to be better at separating sex from emotion, which is helpful in an open arrangement. As Spears and Lowen point out on their website:

We found many couples had a somewhat compartmentalized perspective and approach to outside sex. “It’s just sex” – a release without meaning, quite separate from the relationship.

The statistics on fidelity among men and women suggests that monogamy is a struggle for heterosexuals too. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” That’s a whole lot of cheating. To clarify, infidelity is deceptive non-monogamy, but an open relationship is non-monogamy that occurs with the consent and knowledge of both partners.

Dan Savage, chimed in on the topic recently during a guest appearance on The Joy Behar show, saying:

I believe men can be monogamous. But I believe that it’s a difficult struggle. You know, when you’re in love with someone and you make a monogamous commitment, it’s not that you don’t want to sleep with other people; it’s that you refrain from sleeping with other people.

The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself.

In my own practice, having worked with more than 1,000 lesbians over the last decade, I would be very surprised to discover that lesbians choose non-monogomy at a rate of fifty-percent. While my sample of gay male couples is much smaller, it is large enough to support the notion that fifty percent of gay male couples open their relationship to outside “play” or sexual activity.

Some advocates of gay marriage are discouraged by findings such as Hoff’s and Lowen/Spears’s. I anticipate that norm-seeking gays and lesbians will post about this topic adamantly defending the fifty percent of us who choose monogamy. The inference is that monogamy is better. Seems to me that most people have their hands full just trying to figure out their own relationships. Maybe if we all focused a little more on how to make our own relationships work, and less about how others are going about it, we would all end up with more meaningful and satisfying relationships.

As a partnered lesbian, in a long-term (10+), monogamous relationship I enjoy the simplicity, comfort, and predictability of our relationship. As co-parents, it is also important to us to prioritize time with our sons and time as a family. By the time I’ve gone to work, tended to our homestead, done homework with my sons, spent time with them, prepared dinner, taken a family walk, caught up with my partner and how her day has gone, read to and tucked the boys into bed, I can’t imagine fitting in to my life an outside liaison or two. This is what works for us. That doesn’t mean it will work for or be fulfilling for everyone. That doesn’t mean that our way is the best way. Our way is simply the best way we’ve discovered for us.

What works best for you? At the end of the day that’s all that matters.

The following is excerpted from WorldNetDaily.com:

________________________________________

Dakota Fanning in steamy, lesbian sex flick

15-year-old starlet popular with kids plays cocaine-snorting rocker

Dakota Fanning, 15, (left) plays singer Cherrie Currie. Kristen Stewart, 19, (right) plays guitarist Joan Jett in "The Runaways." (photo: IMDB.com)

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily, posted Feb. 2, 2010

[Warning: This story contains graphic content that may offend some readers.]

Fifteen-year-old child star Dakota Fanning is starring in yet another provocative movie role – snorting cocaine in bathrooms and participating in a steamy lesbian kiss and heavily implied sex scene with her female co-star.

Her latest movie, “The Runaways,” is rated “R” and will release March 19. It premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.

Fanning plays the role of Cherie Currie, lead vocalist of The Runaways, an all-girl hard-rock band popular in the 1970s. Former “The Twilight Saga” star Kristen Stewart, 19, plays openly lesbian rocker Joan Jett, the band’s guitarist.

According to an early version of the script, the opening scene includes a splotch of menstrual blood hitting the sidewalk. Fanning’s character is seen with blood dripping down her leg as she begins her first menstrual cycle.

Jett is a rebellious teenager who curses, shoplifts leather pants, urinates on electric guitars, smokes, pops pills, takes part in several sexually charged scenes and smashes objects. Jett teaches another band member, Sandy, how to masturbate to Farrah Fawcett.

Fanning’s character cusses often, acts out, appears scantily clad in bed with “twenty-something surfer dudes,” drinks, uses cocaine and pops prescription pills. At age 15 she is abandoned by her mother, who moves to Indonesia with her boyfriend, and her father is an alcoholic.

Actor Michael Shannon plays band manager and bad guy Kim Fowley. According to one version of the script, when he meets the girl band, he declares, “Lemme guess, you sing in a band. And it’s the greatest f—ing band in the world. And I’m the luckiest dogf—er in the world because I get to hear it first.”

Get the inside information, in “What Hollywood Believes: An Intimate Look at the Faith of the Famous”

Fowley wears female clothing, constantly cusses and talks about sex and warns the band, “Rock n’ roll is tough music played in tough venues. Men don’t like to see women anywhere but in their kitchens or on their knees – let alone on-stage with guitars.”

Fowley has countless outbursts filled with expletives and pelvic thrusts as he teaches the girls to express rage in their music.

“They start jamming with Fowley listening, who is seemingly coked to the gills with a bent towards pedophilia,” a Cinematical review states. “He decides the band needs, as he so eloquently illustrates with his finger pointed at a woman’s crotch, more sex.”

Fanning’s character participates in a sex scene with her fellow female rocker. One version of the script describes the scene:

Precarious … a hand pushes a top up to expose a breast …
Unsteady … a bible on the night stand …
Tottering … white sheets unravel around a leg …
Weak … Toes curl up … roller-skate wheels spin …
Agitation … streaks of light …
A quiver … Cherie’s mouth opens …

The scene is followed by, “Whatever clothes they were wearing the night before are scattered all over the floor.”

Donna Miller special projects coordinator for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, expressed concern that Fanning’s young fans might glamorize the starlet’s shocking behavior.

“That behavior includes a lesbian affair, sexually explicit song lyrics, risqué clothing and a pathetic character in a drugged-out existence,” Miller told WND. “In her interviews at Sundance, nowhere have I seen her denounce any of that behavior as destructive or immoral. In fact, she romanticizes her Cherie Currie character. Fanning indicates the lesbian sex scene is just a natural progression of the relationship.”

Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter echoed Miller’s concern about the movie’s portrayal of the band’s dysfunctional behavior: “While the film makes it clear its personalities suffered tremendously for their addictions, it all looks so glam.”

Fowley forces the girls to endure a rock-and-roll boot camp. He allows teen boys to throw bottles, bricks and garbage at them so they learn to cope with hecklers.

As WND reported, another controversial Fanning movie, “Hounddog,” sexualized a 9-year-old little girl. At the time, Fanning was only 12 years old when she played the child character who was violently raped. The movie earned a stunningly low $12,500 on its first weekend of release in theaters.

Miller said Fanning’s mother and campaign manager, Joy, is to blame for selecting sexualized roles for her daughter. ….[Story continued at WND.com]

Read the rest of the WND.com story here: “Dakota Fanning in Steamy, Lesbian Sex Flick”

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

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

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney Craddock explains that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

President Obama’s appointee for Commissioner to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, lesbian Georgetown University Law Professor Chai Feldblum, is backpedaling from her radical pro-homosexual/pro-polyamory positions faster than Tiger Woods from the paparazzi. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue (in the item below from last month) is correct about the “farce” of Feldblum’s newfound “moderation” (if we could call it that).

Feldblum is a veteran law professor with decades of experience in public policy. Aren’t lawyers always warning the rest of us to “read the document before you sign”? Yet now she claims that signing her name to the 2006 radical homosexual “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto was a “mistake,” even as she admits to being in broad agreement with its contents.

Feldblum’s feeble explanation doesn’t pass the smell test. Did she not know the meaning of “conjugal” — as in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” document’s call for giving government recognition to “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”?

Feldblum will likely be passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee today, which would send her nomination to the full Senate. (Watch her November HELP Committee testimony HERE.) We need at least one conservative senator to put a formal hold on the Feldblum nomination – because we suspect that if and when Feldblum is seated as an EEOC Commissioner, she’ll be getting her left-wing, radically “queer” groove back. –Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121;  www.congress.org) and especially Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) (202-224-5754) and ask them to OPPOSE Chai Feldblum’s nomination as EEOC Commissioner. Ask your Senators and especially Sen. Coburn to place a hold on her nomination so that the American people can have more time to learn of the implications of her radical sexual and anti-religious-freedom agenda. Catholic League release is after the jump….

_____________________________________

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights press release:

Catholic League: EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum ‘Running Scared’
11/19/2009

NEW YORK, NY (Catholic League) – Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the confirmation hearing of Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, nominated to join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

“In 2006, Feldblum signed a statement, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” that was the most radical, irresponsible assault on marriage and the family ever written.

It maintained that every conceivable “partnership” and “relationship” should be on a par with marriage, and even went so far as to say that “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households,” should be given governmental and private recognition.

In other words, gay men and lesbians who do not even live under the same roof should be able to adopt a child and then be given exactly the same kinds of governmental benefits afforded normal marital unions.

To top things off, every private institution [read: religious organizations] should be forced to do likewise.

Feldblum, however, sensing that her nomination is in trouble, announced just days ago that she wants her name taken off the anti-marriage and anti-family document.

This is a farce. She is running scared: she knew what she was signing and waited until the 11th hour to bolt. Only a fool would be fooled by this patently insincere move.”

___________________________________

The Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination. It is led by its’ President, William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

“I am a lesbian, and it was a later in life recognition of that fact.” – Meredith Baxter

So Meredith Baxter of Family Ties TV fame is a practicing lesbian (after three divorces)? Does this mean — especially since the news was forced out by the National Enquirer — that Baxter deserves respect and praise as a lesbian for her current sexual status? Does this mean that she is being “truthful to herself,” as one CNN Showbiz Tonight commentator said last night in a cliche-filled analysis of Baxter’s revelation on yesterday’s Today show?

Of course not. Every homosexual “coming out” is a tragedy. Baxter became a lesbian, and is now in a seven-year sexually immoral relationship with another woman, following three failed marriages to men that produced five children. (Is her lesbianism a pitiable retreat after failed relationships with men?) The wrongness of her homosexual relationship (from a biblical, truthful perspective) is not mitigated by the current politically-correct zeitgeist that would extend respect and “civil rights” to deviant behavior condemned by God. Moreover, Baxter is living proof that people can change from ‘heterosexuals’ to ‘homosexuals,’ so how can “gay” fanatics like Wayne Besen continue to deny that the reverse can occur?

Homosexuality is about changeable behavior, not innate or inherent “identity.” It’s not about “who you are,” but “what you do.” People practicing heterosexuality can start practicing homosexuality, and vice versa. Each of us is responsible before God for his or her behavior here on earth.

Please pray for this lost and confused woman, that she would repent and find forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Remember: there were “ex-gays” in Bible times. More on this story in a future post. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Here’s a YouTube of Baxter’s interview yesterday with NBC’s Matt Lauer:

“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” – The Bible, Book of Romans 1:24-26

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:

NOTE TO READERS: the following Americans For Truth transcript, derived from an audiotape recording of a speech made at a 1997 GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) conference, is at the source for the current “Harry Hay-NAMBLA” controversy surrounding GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings — President Obama’s “Safe Schools” deputy at the Department of Education. (The left-wing group Media Matters cites it HERE.) This transcript was provided by Brian Burt, then a volunteer writer/reporter for the Americans For Truth publication “Lambda Report.” We will endeavor to provide the tape to the public to counteract the absurd attempts to discredit this and other first-hand AFTAH reports on Jennings and GLSEN simply because AFTAH is a conservative organization. — Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

P.S. It would seem fairly easy for Jennings to clarify his position on NAMBLA — all he has to do is issue a clear statement of his opposition to this evil “man-boy love” organization. Homosexual activist groups and leaders similarly denounced NAMBLA — which marched in early “gay pride” parades and whose “right” to do so was enthusiastically defended by “gay” icon Harry Hay –  when they perceived that being tied to the notorious pederasty group was an impediment to their progress.

__________________________________

Have Kevin Jennings and GLSEN almost won? Obama Department of Education appointee Kevin Jennings looked forward to the day when people would shrug their shoulders at the news that “gay” groups like the one he founded (GLSEN) are “promoting homosexuality” in schools. Has America become so corrupt and decadent that this “queer” activist’s twisted vision has become true?  TAKE ACTION: write Education Secretary Arne Duncan (arne.duncan@ed.gov) or call him (202-401-3000) with the message that you do not want your tax dollars spent on “promoting homosexuality” in schools. Also, urge your Senators and Congressman (202-224-3121) to call on Duncan to withdraw the appointment of Jennings — an anti-religious bigot who said (in a church) “[F**k] ‘em” and “Drop dead” to religious traditionalists — as “Safe School” Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Education. Photo at left is from MassResistance’s coverage of the 2009 homosexual “Youth Pride” parade.

The following transcript of a 1997 speech by Kevin Jennings is reprinted from the Lambda Report, Jan.-Feb. 1998 [LR, published by Peter LaBarbera, preceded Americans For Truth About Homosexuality]:

______________________________

GLSEN’s Jennings: ‘That is our mission from this day forward’

The following is a transcript of GLSEN founder and executive director Kevin Jennings’ comments before “Looking to the Future” panel at GLSEN’s Mid-Atlantic conference, held October 25, 1997 at the Grace Church School in New York City. A few incidental words and phrases have been removed for clarity:

Two years ago, one of our board members, one named Ann Simon, was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools. And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, ‘We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ And my best friend, who’s a straight women who lives in London, e-mailed me…and she said, ‘So what if you are?’ And I thought of how I can get so wrapped up in my own defensiveness, and…the day-to-day struggle, and stuff, that being finished might some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote. And when we were talking there, and Mike said, ‘You know, and I’d like five years from now—right now let’s face it, for large swells of people they think of GLSEN and kids, and they think, ‘GLSEN is bad for kids.’ They do because of their stereotypes and misinformation—I’d like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word GLSEN to think, ‘Ooh, that’s good for kids.’’

I’d like you to step back for a second if you can, and I know that many of you here are going to return to meetings on Monday where the euphoria of today will dissipate quite quickly…But if you could just close your eyes for a second. I know this is very Californian. Close your eyes for a second and think, ‘What would the world look like if we were through with our work? If we were done. If we could close the doors on 27th street [GLSEN’s New York City headquarters], and shut down the chapters, and disband the board. What would be happening?’… [Audience responses]

…As the son of a Baptist preacher from North Carolina…I can remember a time when having a conference like this, for me, certainly as a teenager, seemed completely impossible. And I would see in certain people’s faces when people would say certain things, or this visioning part, and we’d get little snickers, like,  ‘Yeah, [bulls--t].’ This is the only thing that can stop us, is if we believe that our dreams cannot come true.

One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual “rights” group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not—they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [sh*tty] old way it is now. It’s the people who think, ‘No, I can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality?’ Or straight kids say, ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?’ That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. To not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place. And think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay’s one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him. You can see the same changed happen in your lifetime if you believe you can.’’

– Brian Burt, Lambda Report, Jan.-Feb. 1998

Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network and President Obama’s new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

 “Well, boys aren’t supposed to kiss boys and girls aren’t supposed to kiss girls.” – Kindergarten student in East Hartford, CT, responding to lesbian teacher and GLSEN activist Geraldine Burke revealing to the class that she kisses her girlfriend. Burke later compared her lesbian kisses to affectionate kisses between family members.

GLSEN Corrupts Children: the organization founded by Kevin Jennings, GLSEN, advocates teaching very young children — who don’t even know what sex is yet — one-sided lessons about homosexuality and transsexuality.

The following story is reprinted from The Lambda Report, the now-defunct printed flagship publication of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. It is the first part of a story about 1999 GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network) conference held that year in Atlanta. Kevin Jennings — whose appointment as Barack Obama’s “safe schools” czar in the Department of Education is now embroiled in controversy — founded GLSEN, which promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to children in K-12 schools. We found some updated information on Burke on two homosexual activist websites, which follows the article below.

The following is based on AFTAH’s firsthand attendance at the 1999 GLSEN conference:

_____________________________

How One Teacher Defended Her Lesbianism to Kindergartners

GLSEN panelist compares lesbian kiss to parental love

By Peter LaBarbera, Lambda Report, Fall-Winter 1999

ATLANTA — A lesbian gym teacher who told her kindergarten students  that kissing her female partner was like a father lovingly kissing his son or an affectionate kiss between sisters was applauded for her “honesty” at a national conference for pro-homosexual educators, held here October 1-4 [1999].

“I will tell you that your heart tells you who to love,” retired elementary school teacher Geraldine Burke said she told her young students, after one of them started the discussion by asking if she had a husband. Burke–who taught gym class for 30 years in East Hartford, Connecticut — related the story as a panelist at the third annual conference of the Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a fast-growing homosexual activist group. Her workshop was titled, “Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, except What to Do When I Hear the Word ‘Fag’ or ‘Dyke’ in Class.”

Burke’s was one of several panels at the GLSEN conference devoted to advancing homosexuality-positive attitudes among elementary school children — the most controversial part of GLSEN’s agenda. In recent years, “gay” education activists have championed the “right” of teachers to discuss their homosexuality in the classroom, as Burke did with her young charges.

She explained that at her school she was “out” as a lesbian to the principal and to most of the teaching staff, and that it was important for her to be “authentic” about her sexual identity. According to Burke, one day a student in her gym class asked if she had a husband. She said no, and then another student asked if she had a boyfriend. Burke said no. “As a matter of fact … I have a girlfriend.” After some of the children said, “Ohhhh!” as if shocked, they asked her if she kissed her girlfriend. Burke said that she did.

The kids responded again, “Ohhhh!” When she asked what was wrong, one of the students said, “Well, boys aren’t supposed to kiss boys and girls aren’t supposed to kiss girls.”

Burke then responded,” Some people think it’s OK, and some people think it’s not OK,” speaking of homosexuality.

Then the gym teacher asked one of the boys in her class,” Do you ever kiss your father goodnight?” He replied, “Yes.” She then asked one of the girls, “Do you ever kiss your sister to show her that you love her?” “Yes,” the girl responded. Burke then used the analogy between those kisses and her lesbian kisses as she told the children, “Some people will tell you that you shouldn’t love some people [but] … your hearts tells you who to love.” She said the next question was: “When is gym?” as the students moved on to other matters.

Burke said that she informed the school principal about how she “outed” herself to the students in class. She said that neither she nor the principal ever heard back from any parents about the sensitive conversation.

“This was a very, very important teachable moment … I was not in any way going to lie to my students,” Burke said of her conversation with the kindergarten gym class. “At the elementary level, the teachable moments are the really critical ones.”

____________________________________

More Information about Geraldine Burke:

We found some more current information on Geraldine Burke online in a newsletter of PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Hartford (CT). The March-April 2009 PFLAG-Hartford newsletter reports:

Geraldine Burke is a retired elementary physical education teacher. She taught in East Hartford at the preschool through sixth grade level for most of her career. She has been an activist for LGBT civil rights since 1989, serving on the boards of GLSEN CT; True Colors, Inc.; Stonewall Speakers; and CT Stonewall Foundation, Inc.

Upon her retirement as a public school educator, in 1999, she expanded her passion to be a change agent and became more involved as a Stonewall Speaker and served as State Coordinator of Engagements from June 2001 until February 2006. She recently stepped down from the board of directors after serving for four years and continues to participate as a panelist. … Geraldine lives her woman-loving self openly and as an equal in the world.

(PFLAG newsletter: http://www.pflaghartford.org/caring/caringV18N2.pdf)

___________________________

From the conference, “True Colors XV: A Global Perspective on Sexual and Gender Minority Youth,” March 13-15, 2008, sponsored by True Colors, Inc. (“True Colors works to create a world where youth, adults and families of all sexual orientations and gender identities are valued and affirmed. We challenge all forms of oppression through education, training, advocacy, youth leadership development, mentoring and direct services to youth and those responsible for their well-being.”)

A Successful Model for Effecting Change in School Climate for Middle & High School Students, Faculty, and Administration: LGBT Personal Stories with Q & A

Same and different gender loving, pan sexual, and transgender people, and supportive allies from the Stonewall Speakers will present the model used when speaking at schools, colleges, workplaces and communities of faith. The goal of this group is to educate the community at large regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. This program is informative to the general population and at the same time supports the mostly closeted queer students, families, and teachers in our schools and workplaces. This model has been presented for almost twenty years in more than 100 high schools in CT through integration into Health, Psychology, Current Issues and Human Sexuality classes as well as Diversity and Teen Awareness days.

Geraldine Burke is a member of the Board of Directors of the CT Stonewall Foundation, which provides funding and direction for the Stonewall Speakers program. She formerly served on the Boards of GLSEN and True Colors and was Stonewall Speakers state coordinator from 2001 – January 2007. As an activist for the civil rights of same gender loving, pan sexual, transgender, and intersex people, Geraldine finds her involvement with Stonewall Speakers both rewarding and fulfilling.

Source: http://www.ourtruecolors.org/cfs/TC15/TC15Guide.pdf

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.”

Kevin Jennings’ Legacy: Boston “Gay Youth Pride”: The photo at left is of a young man dressed as a woman marching in Boston’s annual, government-supported homosexual “Youth Pride Parade.”  Shame on homosexual activist Kevin Jennings [in small black-and-white photo at right], founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) and President Obama’s new appointee to head up the “Safe Schools” program in the Department of Education. Jennings is a vicious anti-Christian bigot (he said “[F--k] ‘em and “Drop dead!” to the “religious right”) who capitalized early on the idea of promoting homosexuality in schools under the guise of “safety.” One very “unsafe” event that should have resulted in Jennings’ banishment from the world of education was “Fistgate” [warning: very graphic language"] All photos courtesy of MassResistance.org.

TAKE ACTION: Call Education Secretary Arne Duncan at 202-401-3000 and urge him to withdraw Jennings’ appointment as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Or e-mail him at: arne.duncan@ed.gov. Also, contact President Obama at 202-456-1414 and your U.S. Senators and Congressman (202-224-3121/202-225-3121) and urge them to press for the withdrawal of Jennings’ appointment. We don’t want radical, anti-Christian bigots setting policies affecting America’s schoolchildren.

_______________________________

Folks, these pictures from MassResistance and the YouTube video below from the annual homosexual “Youth Pride” parade in Boston are part of radical homosexual activist and new Obama political appointee Kevin Jennings’ legacy in promoting homosexuality and transsexuality to young people through the organization he founded, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network). Thanks to the great work that MassResistance does every year to expose this travesty, there is an extensive record for all the world to see of the results of government-promoted “gay youth pride.”

Brian Camenker of MassResistance is the most effective pro-family activist in fighting the homosexualist agenda in Massachusetts; his group led the way in successfully lobbying the legislature to slash funding for “gay youth” programs. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Brian writes:

“The homosexual “youth pride” parade is an insidious tool for homosexual activists to reinforce a “gay” or “transgender” identity in the minds of vulnerable kids. A constant theme throughout the year has been persuading kids to “come out” as homosexual, adopt the homosexual identity they were “meant” to have. In the parade, the activists get them yelling and screaming, chanting homosexual slogans such as “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” They encourage the kids to proudly and publicly display their homosexuality. (This year, a transgender chant was also heard: “What do we want? Trans rights! When do we want ‘em? Now!”)

“The parade goes from the Boston Common past the State House – where they can flaunt their “gayness” at the symbol of politicians and taxpayers – and then back around the block to the Common for more entertainment.

“The homosexual “youth pride” parade is an insidious tool for homosexual activists to reinforce a “gay” or “transgender” identity in the minds of vulnerable kids. A constant theme throughout the year has been persuading kids to “come out” as homosexual, adopt the homosexual identity they were “meant” to have. In the parade, the activists get them yelling and screaming, chanting homosexual slogans such as “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” They encourage the kids to proudly and publicly display their homosexuality. (This year, a transgender chant was also heard: “What do we want? Trans rights! When do we want ‘em? Now!”)

“The parade goes from the Boston Common past the State House – where they can flaunt their “gayness” at the symbol of politicians and taxpayers – and then back around the block to the Common for more entertainment. … “

[Click here to read MassResistance's whole photo-story on the Boston "Youth Pride Parade."]

Below is a link to AFTAH’s press release calling for the withdrawal of Kevin Jennings’ appointment and the YouTube video of the May 9, 2009 “Youth Pride” parade shot by MassResistance:

“AFTAH Calls on Obama and Education Sec. Arne Duncan to Withdraw Nomination of Homosexual Extremist Bigot and GLSEN Founder Kevin Jennings to Preside over ‘Safe Schools’”

TAKE ACTION: Call Education Secretary Arne Duncan at 202-401-3000 and urge him to withdraw Jennings’ appointment as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Or e-mail him at: arne.duncan@ed.gov. Also, contact President Obama at 202-456-1414 and your U.S. Senators and Congressman (202-224-3121/202-225-3121) and urge them to press for the withdrawal of Jennings’ appointment. We don’t want radical, anti-Christian bigots who push destructive sexual behaviors and identities on our youth setting policies affecting America’s schoolchildren.

If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-”gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.

By Peter LaBarbera

Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)

Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U.  be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.

In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-”gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.

Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (“I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):

Homosexual “marriage” corrupts children: a lesbian couple celebrates Iowa’s pro-homosexual-”marriage” ruling, with “their daughter, Bre, 6,” as the Des MoinesRegister reports comments. (Two women cannot produce a child — disproving the nonsensical claim that homosexual “marriage” is “equal” to the real thing.) Liberal media like the Register have become shills for the “same-sex marriage” revolution. They ignore the potential harm it will bring to innocent children: how can one assert that young Bre will not be deeply affected emotionally, psychologically and spiritually by growing up in an intentionally fatherless home where deviance like this is modeled as the norm? Go HERE to see the Register’s photo gallery and click on graphic above to enlarge.  

This article excerpted below by my good friend (and former boss) Bob Knight was published today on Townhall.com. Today (April 7, 2009) is another tragic marker of America’s decline into a “post-Christian” nation. A northeastern state, Vermont, has voted in homosexual “marriage” — through an override of the governor’s veto, no less.  This profane legislative act cannot be blamed on reckless judges or “unelected courts.” No, this instead is reckless, godless liberalism in action — as wrongheaded as justifying the convenience killing of innocent, unborn life in the name of personal “choice.”

Most Americans have gotten too comfortable with same-sex perversion (we at AFTAH reject the activist concept of innocuous, innate “sexual orientation”) and extramarital sex. But liberals especially have lost their fear of God — and children, like the one above who (through no choice of her own) is part of an Iowa lesbian couple’s celebration, will pay the price. It’s asking too much of God to “bless America” when America is blessing the counter-Biblical idea of state-sanctioned, homosexually-redefined “marriage.”  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_______________________________

Robert Knight writes:

Iowa Court, Vermont Legislators Ban Common Sense

By Robert Knight
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

To a disturbing number of judges, most of the media, and now the Vermont legislature, marriage was created only to shut out homosexuals. That’s it. There’s no other reason for its presence in the law.

How else to interpret the vote today (April 7) in the Senate and House to override Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto and to legalize same-sex “marriage?”  Or the rulings in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa that find nothing unique about men and women bonding for life? Or headlines like this from the April 4 Wall Street Journal:

“Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban”

The Iowa law, as with most states, does not mention same-sex relationships. It establishes requirements, beginning with a male-female couple. Characterizing this ruling as overturning a “ban” defines the institution negatively – by what it is not.

In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:

“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”

Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting. Meanwhile, oceans of data from every conceivable authority show the advantages of the mother-and-father, intact family.

The Iowa court, like the others before it, and the hippy dippy Vermont lawbreakers ask us to believe, absurdly, that men and women have no meaningful differences. Even homosexuals think the sexes are quite different, preferring one over the other.

The creation of counterfeit “marriage” is a finger in the eye of God, who created marriage as the first human institution. Jesus reminded the Pharisees:

“Have you not read that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh?” (Mark 19:4,5, Gen. 2:24)

But in America’s kookier courts and trendy New England, the Bible – the founding document of Western legal thought – is ruled irrelevant, and marriage is a speed bump on the road to sexual liberation.

The Iowa judges say that keeping marriage male and female “does not substantially further any important governmental objective.”

Really? Society would survive without a single homosexual relationship, but it would collapse without marriage. The law recognizes that marriage is unique and irreplaceable.  Lots of homosexuals are wonderful, caring people, and some have close relationships, but that does not make them “married” any more than a brother and sister can be “married.”

Rep. Barney Frank often asks the straw man question, “How does my gay relationship hurt your marriage?”

On an individual basis, it doesn’t. But creating a falsehood in the law transforms morality into a form of bigotry. The implications are enormous, according to gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said in 1994 that gays should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Does that sound like merely adding another harmless category?

Go here to read the rest of Robert Knight’s article on Townhall.com

Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel writes:

January 29, 2009; www.LC.org

Thank you for your prayers for Lisa Miller. Yesterday Liberty Counsel presented oral argument in Lisa’s case in a Vermont court. At the hearing, an individual who was appointed by the judge to make recommendations in the case gave her opinion that changing custody would be harmful to Isabella. The judge allowed Lisa to retain custody, but ordered unsupervised visitation for four days in March, over the Memorial Day holiday and for five weeks in the summer.

Lisa has been involved in a long battle in Vermont and in her home state of Virginia, to keep an unrelated woman from being given parental rights over Lisa’s daughter Isabella. Before becoming a Christian, Lisa entered into a Vermont Civil Union with Janet Jenkins during a visit to Vermont. Lisa Miller left her former lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Since then, Janet has sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her. Read more about her case on [the Liberty Counsel] website.

Lisa and Isabella need your continuing fervent prayer. Even a few days of visitation that was allowed under court order a few weeks ago caused emotional trauma to Isabella. Unimaginable damage could be done in five weeks if Isabella is forced away from the only mother she has ever known.

We will continue to pursue legal action in Virginia for Lisa and Isabella. This battle illustrates how the laws of one state can negatively impact families in other states. The federal Defense of Marriage Act is a key component of our arguments to keep Virginia from forcing Lisa to recognize Janet as another mother of Isabella.

We are also continuing to rally support for Lisa by promoting a group on Facebook called “Only One Mommy: The Story of Lisa and Isabella Miller.”

We know that the prayers for Lisa and Isabella are working. In the past few months, Janet’s former attorney in Vermont withdrew from her case, her Virginia attorney was indicted for obstruction of justice in a situation involving the investigation of the death of a man in his home, and the judge has refused to give custody of Isabella to Janet.

Mathew D. Staver – Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver – President
Liberty Counsel – 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 – Orlando, FL 32854

News Release; Strang Communications; www.creationhouse.com

January 8, 2009

From a heartbreaking childhood marked by anger, abuse, and abandonment, author Janet Boynes followed a destructive path that led her into homosexuality and drug addiction. Her search for the acceptance, love, and safety she craved took her into increasingly desperate situations—ultimately culminating in a series of destructive homosexual relationships, cocaine addiction, and crippling brokenness. But, as Boynes says, “When God calls, He calls in love,” and in Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, Boynes shares her powerful, personal story of the redemptive, reconciling power of God’s love, offering insight for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and those with loved ones who do.

With courage, candor, and compassion, Boynes shares her powerful story of a life transformed by God’s grace and delivered to a freedom framed and powered by God’s purpose. Her message is one of hope: No matter where you’ve been, what you’ve done, or what kind of situations you’ve encountered, God is calling you to a life of grace. Spoken with the passion and wisdom of one who’s been there, Boynes says, “God knows that you have been through tough places, that life hasn’t always been easy, and that things don’t always go the way they should. He knows—and He cares.”

Drawing from Boynes’ compelling personal experience, Called Out offers insight for friends, family, and church members who are searching for a God-centered response to offer others who are feeling drawn to or are actively living a homosexual lifestyle. With practical suggestions for responding to loved ones’ questions and concerns, a powerful call to prayer, and sound biblical principles, Boynes provides a road map for readers who seek to respond as Christ would, with
compassion, healing, and prayer for all who are hurting.

In Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, author Janet Boynes challenges individuals and churches to offer the ministry of hope to those who struggle with same-sex attraction. She is the founder of Janet Boynes Ministries, a non-denominational Christian outreach that ministers to hurting people desiring to leave the homosexual lifestyle, and desires to leave a message of hope and restoration to the homosexual community. [Janet's book can be ordered through her website; bulk orders are available.]

Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom by Janet Boynes; SBN: 978-1-59779-3856 Price: $13.99; Release Date: January 6, 2009

Contact: Atalie Anderson, Marketing Coordinator | (407) 333-0600, ext. 3624½; anderson@strang.com; Creation House is a division of multimedia Strang Communications. 600 Rinehart Rd., Lake Mary, FL 32746; Phone: 407-333-0600 Fax: 407-333-7100 Web site: www.strang.com

The San Francisco Chronicle ran this photo Oct. 11 by photographer Mike Kepka showing first-grade students from a local public grade school cheering their teacher’s lesbian “wedding.” This homosexual “marriage” “field trip” occurred just eight days after the Chronicle editorialized against the “fear tactics” used by pro-Proposition 8 forces in defending their proposed amendment preserving marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The newspaper had mocked a Prop 8 TV ad on the adverse effects of legal “gay marriage,” stating: “People would be sued on the basis of their personal beliefs! Churches would lose their tax-exempt status! Gay marriage would be taught in public schools!” The troubling photo above certainly contradicts the Chronicle editorial’s assertion that, “Public schools certainly would teach that same-sex marriage is legal, and the history behind it. But the value judgments surrounding matters of marriage and family would remain in the domain of home and church as they are today.” The school’s principal justified the lesbian-wedding excursion as a “field trip” by describing it as a “teachable moment” for the young students. Watch the shocking Chronicle video-story by clicking HERE.

Note: to see more photos of this lesbian-”marriage” field trip, and a short video, see the Chronicle story, “Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day.”

_______________________

Protect Marriage Press Release

First Graders Taken to San Francisco City Hall for Gay ‘Wedding’

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 /Christian Newswire/ — In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from
their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legal same- sex marriage has real consequences.

“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same- sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids,” said Yes on 8-ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. “I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding,” Schubert said.

When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was “a teachable moment,” the school’s principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.

“Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that ’same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage,” said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie “Rosie” Avila. “We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will,” Avila added.

The lesbian teacher’s wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: “The door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not.”

The Yes on 8 campaign’s ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court’s same- sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

“It’s totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.”

The trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.

Media contacts:

Northern and Central California (Sacramento Press Office): Chip White, 916-215-4392; Los Angeles or Southern California: Sonja Eddings Brown, 818-993-4508

For more information about Proposition 8, visit ProtectMarriage.com

Protect Marriage
915 L Street, Suite C-259
Sacramento, CA 95814

We gladly reprint the following appeal from Rena Lindevaldsen of the Liberty Counsel:

September 22, 2008

I know you are busy, but trust me when I tell you that the few minutes it will take to read this letter will be well-spent and life-changing. I’d like to tell you about Lisa Miller — my client, my friend, my sister in Christ, and mother of six-year old Isabella.

On October 27, 2008, a Vermont judge is holding a hearing to determine whether little Isabella will be stripped from her mother’s care and given to a woman, Janet Jenkins, who is openly living the homosexual lifestyle. You see, Lisa Miller is one of thousands across this nation who have left the homosexual life through the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. The problem is, however, that while Lisa was involved in a same-sex relationship with Janet, in Virginia, Lisa had a child, in Virginia, by artificial insemination. Now, because Lisa has refused to comply with a court order giving Janet liberal unsupervised visitation with Isabella, Janet has asked the court to transfer custody of Isabella from her only biological parent (Lisa) to Janet, who is openly living a homosexual lifestyle.

I know this story sounds confusing, so let me back up and explain how we are at the point where Lisa could be thrown in jail for refusing to expose her child to Janet’s harmful and destructive lifestyle and Isabella could be stripped from her mother’s care by Virginia law enforcement officials. Before I begin, I want you to know that I am not exaggerating when I say that Isabella will be harmed by visitation with Janet. During one of the few court ordered visits that did take place, Isabella tells us that Janet: made then five year old Isabella bathe naked with Janet; had Isabella watch R-rated movies that depicted drug use and bloody murder scenes; and had Isabella watch Janet go to the bathroom. Others have testified in court documents that Janet lost Isabella at a county fair and Isabella was being psychologically harmed by the visits.

The other thing you should know up front is that shortly after Lisa ended the relationship with Janet, Janet sought full custody of Lisa’s child. When she did that, Janet didn’t allege that Lisa was an unfit mother – because Lisa is a wonderful mother. Janet didn’t allege that the law clearly treated her as a mother – because it didn’t. No, she asked the court to create new law and declare her a parent even though she had no biological or legal relationship to the child. And that’s exactly what the courts did. Now, we stand on the brink of a court order stripping Isabella from her biological mother. With that said, let me start from the beginning of the story. At the end, I hope you will join in the efforts to stand up for, and intercede on behalf of, Lisa and Isabella.

After a very difficult childhood and a failed, abusive heterosexual marriage, Lisa, at near bottom, was told by a psychological professional that she must be a homosexual. As a result of that, Lisa plunged feet first into the homosexual community. Living in Virginia, Lisa met Janet Jenkins around 1997. It wasn’t long before Lisa moved in with Janet. The relationship wasn’t a healthy one, but when Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, Lisa and Janet traveled one weekend to Vermont to enter a same-sex civil union. The two women immediately returned to Virginia and continued their unhealthy relationship. In 2001, pursuing her desire to be a mother, Lisa became pregnant in Virginia by artificial insemination. In April 2002, Lisa gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, Isabella. Lisa is the only parent listed on the birth certificate because Virginia law did not (and still does not) treat same-sex relationships as valid. At Janet’s request, in August 2002, Lisa moved to Vermont, hoping the change of scenery would somehow make the relationship work. It didn’t, and in September 2003, when Isabella was only seventeen months old, Lisa ended her relationship with Janet. Lisa and Isabella returned home to Virginia; Janet stayed in Vermont.

After becoming a Christian, Lisa wanted to put her former life behind her. As a result, without the assistance of an attorney, in November 2003, she filed papers in Vermont to end her civil union relationship with Janet. She filed in Vermont because Virginia didn’t recognize the same-sex relationship and therefore wouldn’t terminate the relationship. To her surprise, Janet retained an attorney and filed papers in Vermont asking the court to give her primary custody of Isabella, with visitation to Lisa. Even more surprising, in June 2004, over Lisa’s objections, the Vermont trial court gave Janet liberal, unsupervised visitation. In fact, the June 2004 order expected Lisa to turn then two-year-old Isabella over to Janet for a two-week visit in Vermont. It also required monthly Vermont visits.

Because Vermont refused to address the obvious legal question of whether Janet was even a parent to Isabella (which she is not), in July 2004, Lisa filed papers in Virginia asking Virginia to declare her Isabella’s only mother pursuant to Virginia law. In October 2004, a Virginia trial court did just that, declaring that Isabella has only one mother – Lisa. Not happy with that ruling, the next month, the Vermont court declared Isabella to have two mothers – Lisa and Janet. The court was not shy about what it had done – it expressly stated that there was no law in Vermont that treated Janet as a parent because the legislature had not chosen to allow for two women to be a child’s mother unless the partner had adopted the child. Janet never even attempted to adopt Isabella during Janet and Lisa’s relationship. The court stated that it would create a law to determine who is a parent when a child is born by artificial insemination. It then created the new law and used it to declare Janet and Lisa to be Isabella’s mothers. Janet then brought the Vermont order to Virginia, asking Virginia to give full faith and credit to the Vermont orders that treated Janet as a mother and gave her visitation.

Fast forward to today – Lisa has lost every single appeal in Vermont and Virginia. As I sit here today, I can tell you that the Virginia appellate courts have decided that the Vermont orders are to be given full faith and credit in Virginia even though Virginia’s marriage laws — including the Marriage Amendment we passed in November 2006 — state that all orders coming out of a same-sex relationship are void and unenforceable. The Virginia courts made these determinations even though the Virginia Attorney General stated in court documents in Lisa’s case that Virginia cannot give full faith and credit to the Vermont orders.

Now, Janet’s attorneys have asked the Vermont court to switch custody from Lisa to Janet. They’ve made the request because Lisa has not given visitation for the past months out of concern for her child’s physical and psychological well-being. On October 27, 2008, Judge Cohen in Rutland County, Vermont will hold a hearing on Janet’s motion and decide whether to punish Lisa for disobeying the court-ordered visitation. Even before that, on September 29, 2008, the United States Supreme Court will hold a conference where it will decide whether to hear Lisa’s appeal from the Vermont decisions [the Court declined to hear the case—Editor]. A couple weeks later, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether to hear Lisa’s appeal from the Virginia decisions. Although we all know that the Supreme Court needs to take the case to protect Isabella (by reversing the Virginia and Vermont decisions), the odds are against Lisa since the court only takes one percent of all cases that come before it. The odds are even worse in Lisa’s case because the Supreme Court tends to only take cases where there is a conflict between the states. Here, because Virginia courts ignored Virginia law, Vermont and Virginia are in agreement – Lisa has to turn Isabella over to Janet for visitation (or even custody if on October 27, 2008 Vermont switches custody to Janet). We’ve asked the Supreme Court to do what every single court in Virginia and Vermont has refused to do in over four years of litigation: squarely address Lisa’s fundamental rights to raise her child. The Virginia courts have repeatedly failed to explain how a legal stranger can be given visitation to Lisa’s child without violating Lisa’s fundamental constitutional parental rights. The Vermont Supreme Court did look at the issue once, stating simply that because Vermont had declared Janet a parent, she now had equal constitutional rights to that of Lisa.

As you can tell, Lisa and Isabella need your help. Lisa’s desire to raise her child according to the truths of Scripture are under attack: at one point during the Vermont litigation, Janet’s attorneys argued that Lisa shouldn’t be allowed to keep primary custody of Isabella because Lisa believed that God had a plan for Isabella’s life and that God would protect Isabella. I’m asking you to consider whether you can commit to prayer on behalf of this family. At times like this, the Church needs to stand united before our Lord to intercede on Lisa and Isabella’s behalf.

I would also ask that you consider what you can do to let others around the nation know about this case. There are so many other women around the country who have left the homosexual lifestyle and are struggling to keep their children. The nation and Church need to know about this in order to do something to prevent this from happening in our courts to other women, and to come alongside these women and minister to them.

It’s at times like this that I recall one of my favorite quotes: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”

Again, thank you for taking the time to read this. I pray that each person receiving this letter will prayerfully consider what we can do to help.

Rena Lindevaldsen
Assistant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law
Special Counsel, Liberty Counsel

Guadalupe Benitez (right) with her twin daughters Sophia, left, and Shane, and her lesbian partner Joanne Clark and son Gabriel, at their Oceanside, Cal., home. Benitez sued two Christian doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her. Playing the victim, Benitez said after winning her case before the California Supreme Court: “It’s wrong and shocking that some doctors felt their religious beliefs allowed them to ignore the law and discriminate … Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people.” (photo: Sandy Huffaker)

Folks, if California is truly a pacesetter for the nation, then America is in big trouble. How ironic that pro-homosexual so-called “nondiscrimination” laws are the new tool for activist-minded judges and liberal legislators to DISCRIMINATE against people of faith.

This astonishing 7-0 California Supreme Court decision is further proof that homosexual agenda laws — which create newfangled “rights” based on deviant sexual and gender preferences — are incompatible with our cherished, historic American liberties, in this case, the right NOT to violate one’s own religious beliefs.

The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights?

The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org (see below for Pacific Justice Inst. release)

_____________________________

Pacific Justice Institute release:

Cal. Supreme Court Rejects Doctors’ Rights of Conscience

Sacramento, CA, August 18, 2008

In a major decision likely to re-draw the battle lines of the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court today ruled against two doctors who declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

The doctors, who are Christians, strongly believe that children should be raised whenever possible by a mother and father. To that end, they did not want to participate in the deliberate exclusion of a father as sought by Guadalupe Benitez and her partner, Joanne Clark. Instead, the doctors paid for a referral of Ms. Benitez to other fertility specialists who did not have any moral objections to administering the treatment, and she now has three children. Nevertheless, Ms. Benitez was so offended by the doctors’ stance that she sued them under California’s sweeping civil rights laws.

Today, California’s highest court unanimously ruled that the state’s civil rights laws offer virtually no exceptions for people of faith. Unless the ruling is eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court – which only hears about one percent of all the cases appealed to it – or is modified by the gay-friendly California legislature, its implications appear to be far-reaching. For instance, the ruling probably means that, regardless of their beliefs, everyone in the state’s wedding industry must service gay weddings, California family law attorneys must handle gay adoptions and same-sex divorces, and so on.

Pacific Justice Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the doctors and will continue to participate in the case if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, “This case starkly demonstrates the take-no-prisoners approach of the gay rights movement. They will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them. In light of this and similar rulings, PJI is redoubling its efforts to defend people of faith who will not compromise their moral values.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600
Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org

MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.

Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:

Excerpted from the article by Rev. Haley:

The Real Story about Celibacy

…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”

But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.

So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….

Click HERE to read the full article, “The Real Story about Celibacy”