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”

Vulgarity on display at Boston “Dyke March” June 13. All photos shown here were shot by MassResistance. Click HERE to see their complete photo-story and video on the obscene “Dyke March.”

Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada of MassResistance report on the vulgar Boston “Dyke March” June 13. (Lesbian activists evidently can call themselves “dykes”; for the rest of us that’s potential “hate speech.”) Somebody report Camenker and Contrada to the Gay Thought Police for using the phrase “normal people.” Actually, they make a valid point: this in-our-face “dyke” movement — a combination of radical feminism and homosexual militancy — has zero to do with “civil rights” and everything to do with attacking normality by promoting perversion. Worst of all, its front-line activists seem to glory in corrupting youth and especially young girls and women with their deviant, God-defying messages. How sad to see grown women involved in this immature spectacle. Click HERE to see the entire MassResistance photo-story and video.

We’re showing these MassResistance photos unedited so as to accurately convey the messages presented in front of children and the Boston public. — Peter LaBarbera

MassResistance writes:

“Gay Pride Week” Boston Dyke March: Parade of obscenity and weirdness through downtown streets.

It was “Gay Pride Week” in Massachusetts earlier [last month]. If you were smart, you left the state. In our last email we reported on the gruesome Transgender Pride Parade in Northampton, where “transgender” women who had cut off their breasts to look like men marched shirtless (we’re not kidding).

That was just the beginning. On Friday, May 13, the profane “Boston Dyke March” took over the Boston Common and streets of the downtown area.

The first thing that comes to mind is that normal people wouldn’t do this. This is the homosexual movement in its raw form – people who are clearly stalled in their emotional development. And these are the same people pushing the agenda in schools, businesses, and government.

It was a loud display of obscene chants, people carrying profane and sexual signs, public in-your-face homosexual embracing, and a lot of scary weirdness. Anyone in the downtown area, including tourists with their children, was confronted with this assault.

NOTE: Not surprisingly, none of this was reported in any of the Boston area newspapers, TV networks, or radio stations – even though it was a very public event that blocked city streets for hours. Why?

MassResistance comments regarding the “lesbian mom” photo at right: “Who would bring a child to something like this? Lesbian parenting on display. This child will grow up thinking all this is normal.”
… And it’s funded by major companies and politicians. Here are some of the companies which proudly supported [Boston] Gay Pride Week: Verizon, Bank of America, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Borders Bookstore, Macy’s, Hyatt-Regency Boston, the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Poland Spring, Pepsi, and Starbucks. Politicians include the Governor, members of the Legislature, Mayor of Boston, most of the Boston City Council, and many, many more. It’s pretty clear: they don’t care about you or your children.

Washington, D.C. — The Virginia Supreme Court temporarily avoided locking horns with the state of Vermont today. The Commonwealth’s highest court did not rule on the merits of a case which would have determined whether Virginia will respect the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act (MAA), and Virginia’s own constitution, or whether it will allow the state of Vermont to redefine marriage and family in the Commonwealth.

The Vermont Supreme Court had granted Janet Jenkins, the former lesbian partner of Lisa Miller, parental rights over Miller’s daughter Isabella, even though Jenkins has no relationship to the little girl and is neither an adoptive nor a biological parent.

In 2006, Virginia decisively passed (with 57 percent of the vote) a constitutional amendment designed to protect families against this exact type of attack. That amendment specifies that Virginia “shall not create or recognize” “civil unions” or “same-sex marriages” from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such “unions” (like Vermont’s custody ruling).

Today, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that since the MAA and Virginia’s constitutional amendment were not before the court of appeals in this specific proceeding, it could not rule on those issues at this time.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “Although we had hoped for a more definitive ruling today on the key issues in question, we’re optimistic that ultimately the state of Virginia will defend its laws, its constitution and the federal DOMA and tell Vermont to keep its ‘civil unions’ to itself. As these issues make their way back through the system, we’re confident that ultimately God’s natural design for marriage and family will prevail.”

Jan Robey, State Director for CWA of Virginia, said, “Aside from the legal ramifications of this ruling, I am most concerned with a 6-year-old girl who is being exploited by ‘gay’ activists. What is the motivation behind this agenda? It has not been in the best interest of Isabella. What is best for Isabella is that she be raised in a Christian home by her biological mother.”

For Information Contact: Natalie Bell: (202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org

“Love, the Bible, and Homosexual Practice”: A 4-Hour 3-DVD Presentation by Robert Gagnon (2008)

… with excellent high-definition picture and sound, along with slides; taped professionally at Grace Chapel in Franklin, Tenn. on Apr. 12, 2008 for Mastering Life Ministries (see online sites at www.MasteringLife.org and www.purepassion.us/Home.asp), along with an hour-long CD. $35 plus $7 shipping and handling. To order click HERE or go to http://www.purepassion.us/OnlineStore.asp.

DVD 1: What’s at Stake & What Are the Closest Analogies (83 min.)

Treats why we disagree in the church about homosexual practice; what’s at stake in this debate; why the oft-cited, alleged analogies to Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage are not in fact good analogies to the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice; what the main problem with homosexual practice is; why adult-committed incest and polyamory are the closest analogies; and responses to audience questions.

DVD 2: The Witness of Paul on Homosexual Practice (72 min.)

Treats the witness of Paul, showing how Paul opposed homosexual practice absolutely by looking at: echoes to the creation texts in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9; the meaning of Paul’s argument from nature in its historical context; the case for identifying Rom 1:26 with an indictment of lesbianism; the conception of caring homosexual unions in the ancient world; the condemnation of even such caring unions by some Greek and Roman moralists; and the case for identifying the terms for homosexual practice in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1;10 with homosexual practice per se.

DVD 3: The Witness of Jesus & the Old Testament on Homosexual Practice (76 min.)

The first 11 minutes completes the discussion of Paul by showing why the “orientation argument” (i.e. had NT authors known about sexual orientation it would have changed their view on homosexual practice) doesn’t work. The next 19 minutes are devoted to discussing the witness of Jesus; 8 min. to the witness of Genesis; 7 min. to Sodom and related texts (Ham & Noah, the sacred cult prostitute texts, Levite at Gibeah, commentary on Sodom in Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Pet); 5 min. to the Levitical prohibitions and the problems with alleged analogies to menstrual law and cloth mixtures; 2 min. to David and Jonathan; and 23 min. to responding to questions from the audience.

CD: The Importance of Sexual Ethics in the New Testament (72 min.)

Also available: The three DVD presentations above on CD, along with the extra CD above, for $20 plus $5 shipping and handling. To order click HERE or go to http://www.purepassion.us/OnlineStore.asp.

If you live outside the U.S. you must order by phone. Call 1-615-507-4166. For more of Prof. Rob Gagnon’s excellent teaching resources, go to www.robgagnon.net.

For Immediate Release May 23, 2008

Contact: CMR President, Elaine Donnelly 734/464-9430
CMR Executive Director, Tommy Sears 202/347-5333

The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) predicts that if the Department of Justice directly appeals a May 21 decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reinstated a lower court lawsuit challenging the law regarding gays in the military, the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly described the decision of the Ninth Circuit—the most-frequently overruled U.S. Court of Appeals in the country—as another egregious example of “extreme judicial activism.” She added, “Once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proven that federal judges are not competent to run the military.”

The Ninth Circuit’s order did not invalidate the law, Section 654, Title 10, which was passed by Congress in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress. Rather, a three-judge panel reinstated the lawsuit of Major Margaret Witt, a former Air Force nurse and reservist, which had been dismissed by a U.S. District Court.

Maj. Witt sued when her career was put on hold due to a homosexual relationship. According to the Air Force Times, she and a civilian lesbian woman had been living outside of McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, Washington, for about six years. The 1993 law, which states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military, applies at all times and not just on military bases. She was honorably discharged from the Air Force in October 2007.

Mrs. Donnelly criticized the court’s judicial activism. “Historically the Supreme Court has respected the principle of “deference” to Congress and Executive Branch authorities who have the constitutional responsibility to make policy for the military. This principle should be defended by the Department of Justice and reinforced by the Supreme Court. The military is an institution that protects individual rights, but it must be governed by different rules.”

The Department of Justice has several options for responding to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, including a direct appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. Donnelly urged the Department of Justice to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s unjustified order sending the case back to the lower court for a second review under an intermediate “heightened scrutiny” standard. Previous cases upholding the constitutionality of the 1993 law, using a “rational basis” standard of review, have not required such a process.

Donnelly noted that capitulation to the Ninth Circuit’s order would “subject the armed forces to the whims of arrogant federal judges who want to misuse their power to impose a sexual agenda on our men and women in the military.” The government would have to present individual testimony and findings proving that Maj. Witt’s continued presence would have a negative impact on good order, morale, and discipline in the Air Force. An appeal directly to the Supreme Court would resolve the procedural issue and probably uphold the law.

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. More information on this issue is available in several articles posted at www.cmrlink.org, and in a detailed article written by Donnelly for the Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy.

The Open Letter below (emphasis added) is simply too informative not to pass on. Rob Gagnon is one of the world’s leading authorities on homosexuality and the Bible; Having heard him speak, I highly commend him as a visiting speaker at your church, synagogue or place of worship. The pro-homosexual theological revisionists — you know, the ones who make outlandish claims like that David and Jonathan in the Old Testament were “gay lovers” — are afraid to debate Rob. No wonder. You can learn more about Prof. Gagnon’s important work at www.robgagnon.net. — Peter LaBarbera
_____________________________

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Professor Rob Gagnon’s open letter to the President of the University of Toledo, who suspended Ms. Crystal Dixon, Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University, for rejecting an equation of homosexuality with ethnicity

(WND news story at www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63459; Lifesite story at www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050605.html).

“I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.” — Crystal Dixon

TAKE ACTION: Read this letter, send it to all your friends and associates to educate them on the homosexual issue, and contact University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs (UTPresident@utoledo.edu) at: President Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs, University Hall, Room 3500, Phone: 419.530.2211; Fax: 419.530.4984

From: Robert Gagnon (rgagnon@pts.edu)

Sent: Tue 5/6/2008 5:04 PM

Dear [U. of Toledo] President Jacobs,

I have read of your action in connection with Ms. Crystal Dixon, Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo (www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63459). Your suspension of Ms. Dixon for rejecting an equation of homosexuality with ethnicity constitutes, in my view, a gross injustice and an expression of the very intolerance that you claim to abhor. It is also predicated on a lack of knowledge and, as such, an abundance of prejudice.

Ms. Dixon is absolutely right that sexual orientation is not akin to race or sex. Unlike a homosexual orientation, race and sex are 100% congenitally predetermined, cannot be fundamentally changed in their essence by cultural influences, and are not a primary or direct desire for behavior that is incompatible with embodied structures.

Of course, generally people don’t wake up one morning and say, “I think I’ll be a homosexual.” Yet that is different from arguing that homosexual development is always and only something “given” like race and sex. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that nine out of ten persons who have experienced same-sex attractions have experienced at least one shift on the Kinsey spectrum from 0 to 6 during their life; six out of ten experienced two or more shifts. The intensity of impulses, and sometimes even their direction, can and often do change over time.

Edward Stein, a scholar of law and philosophy, has challenged deterministic models of homosexual development. He posits instead a nondeterministic model that incorporates a significant role for choice–often blind, incremental, and indirect but choice nonetheless (The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]). Like various forms of sexual impulses, the degree to which a homosexual “orientation” becomes fixed in an individual’s brain and the intensity with which it is experienced, at least in part and for some, can be affected by choices regarding fantasy life, responses to social and environmental factors in childhood and adolescence, the degree to which one acts on impulses, and the degree of self-motivation for change. This is what the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review had to say about Stein’s book: “A landmark book…. It so pulls the rug out from under biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights that anyone from now on who appeals to such arguments will have to answer to Edward Stein’s objections” (from back cover).

Without discounting congenital influences (which may create a higher risk factor for homosexual development, but nothing like a deterministic fait accompli), microcultural factors (familial and peer socialization) and macrocultural factors (societal incentives for or sanctions against homosexual practice) probably have a significant impact on the level of incidence of homosexuality in the population.

Consider the following:

1. Note the conclusion by the authors of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey-still the best representative survey of sexual practices in the United States. The latter write that a relatively uniform distribution of homosexuality in social groups “would fit with certain analogies to genetically or biologically based traits such as left-handedness or intelligence. However, that is exactly what we do not find. Homosexuality … is clearly distributed differentially within categories of … social and demographic variables” (Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994], 307-10). “An environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior.... There is evidence for the effect of the degree of urbanization of residence while growing up on reported homosexuality. This effect is quite marked and strong for men.” They also found that the relation of education to same-gender sexuality to “stand out for women in a way that it does not for men.” Women who were college graduates were significantly more likely to report same-sex partners, same sex desire, and homosexual/bisexual identity than were women who had only a high school degree or less. Laumann et al. attribute the difference in part to “greater social and sexual liberalism … and … greater sexual experimentation” that coincides with education. The fact that women are much less likely than men to be exclusively attracted to persons of the same sex and much more likely to vary sexual preference over time suggests that education is a cultural variable that can impact the incidence of homosexuality on some women.

2. A 1992 study of nearly 35,000 Minnesota junior and senior high school students concluded that “responses to individual sexual orientation items varied with age, religiosity, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status…. The findings suggest an unfolding of sexual identity during adolescence, influenced by sexual experience and demographic factors” (G. Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,” Pediatrics 89:4 [Apr. 1992]: 714-21.

3. One of the best identical twin studies to date, done by J. Michael Bailey using the Australian Twin Register (rather than using biased sampling by advertising in homosexual publications, as he did in earlier studies), showed that only one out of ten times when one member of an identical twin pair self-identified as non-heterosexual (a Kinsey 3 to 6) did the co-twin likewise self-identify (J. Michael Bailey, et al., “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 [2000]: 524-36; quotes from pp. 533-4).

4 . The Columbia and Yale authors of one twin study using an enormous and nationally representative sample of adolescents (30,000) concluded: “Less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences” (Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology 107.5 [2002]: 1179-1205). They found no significant difference in concordance rates for non-heterosexuality among identical twin pairs (6.7%) and fraternal twin pairs (7.2%), even though the latter are no more genetically ‘identical’ than non-twin siblings. Moreover, they found that opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction as same-sex twins; and that males without older brothers among opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction (18.7%) than their male counterparts with older brothers (8.8%).

5. According to William H. James, “There is an abundance of data suggesting that male homosexuals and paedophiles report having experienced more sexual abuse (however defined) in childhood (CSA) than do heterosexual controls…. There are grounds for supposing that some of the reports are veridical [causally related], and there is support from a longitudinal study reporting a small but significant increase in paedophilia in adulthood following CSA. To summarize: most boys who experience CSA do not later develop into homosexuals or paedophiles. However, the available evidence suggests that a few do so as a result of the abuse” (”Two Hypotheses on the Causes of Male Homosexuality and Paedophilia,” Journal of Biosocial Sciences 36 [2004]: 371-374; the quotation is from the abstract).

6. Another study indicates influences from family structure: Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, “Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 35.5 (2006): 533-47. Firsch and Hviid concluded that men were more likely to marry homosexually if their parents had divorced or cohabited for only a short duration, if parental cohabitation had been characterized by long periods of a father’s absence, or if paternal identity were unknown. Women were more likely to marry homosexually if their parents had a short marriage or if the mother had been absent during the child’s adolescence because of abandonment of death. For each extra year that one’s parents stayed married, the percentage of those who married heterosexually went up 1.6% among sons and 1% among daughters, while the percentage of those who married homosexually went down 1.8% among sons and 1.4% among daughters. The study also found that having older brothers increased the likelihood of marrying homosexually, a result that stands in tension with a Canadian study that found that the incidence of homosexuality increases with in proportion to the number of older brothers.

The above studies should suffice for demonstrating the error of comparing an impulse-related condition like homosexuality with race and sex, so far as origination is concerned. Nor can they be compared as behavioral conditions. The former is a primary desire for form of behavior that is structurally discordant; the latter are not. This leads to the next issue.

Why is homosexual practice wrong? One can point to the disproportionately high rate of measurable harm that attends male homosexual relationships and female homosexual relationships. The former exhibit markedly higher numbers of sex partners over the course of life and markedly higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections, even relative to homosexual females. The latter exhibit a markedly higher incidence of mental health issues and markedly shorter durations of sexual unions on average, even relative to homosexual males.

Many would like to attribute these higher rates of measurable harm primarily to societal “homophobia.” Yet such a supposition (for that is all that it is) is contradicted by two facts. First, these problems persist, at similar rates, even in the most homosex-affirming cultures, both within the United States, and in Canada and the most “liberal” parts of Western Europe. Second, societal “homophobia” doesn’t explain why the types of harm affect homosexual males and homosexual females at different rates and in ways that reflect male-female differences.

For example, significantly higher rates both of sexual partners over the course of life and of STIs is exactly what we would expect of all-male sexual bonds since, as cross-cultural (and even cross-species) studies have shown, males find monogamy more difficult than females. Put two men together in a sexual bond without the benefit of female socialization and the results are predictable. Similarly, the fact that homosexual females exhibit higher rates of mental health complications is a reflection of the reality that females generally experience higher rates than do males as regards quality-of-relationship issues (i.e., women invest more of their self-worth in such relationships, which creates a problem when the relationships fail), now ratcheted up in all-female unions. And female homosexuals experience shorter-term relationships on average, even in comparison to male homosexual bonds, because females generally put greater demands on the quality of the relationship in order to satisfy their own individual needs, which in turn puts higher stress on the relationship. Put two women together, each making the same high demands, and one will predictably get a relatively short union. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule but the exceptions don’t invalidate the rule.

Putting two (or more) people of the same sex in a sexual union does nothing for moderating the extremes of a given sex or filling in the gaps of a given sex. It rather exacerbates the extremes and highlights the gaps. That is the nature of a one-sex sexual bond. This measurable reality discloses the non-measurable problem of attempting sexual merger with someone who is not a true sexual complement. The disproportionately high rates of problems cited above, as bad as they are, are only symptoms of the root problem.

What is the root problem? The root problem is erotic attraction for, and the attempt to merge sexually with, what one already is as a sexual being. Those who claim exclusive orientation toward members of the same sex tacitly know that what they desire from a person of the same sex is something that they believe is unobtainable from a person of the other sex; namely, more of the essential quality of their own sex. A male wants more maleness, which he believes that he cannot obtain from a sexual bond with a female. Conversely, a female wants more femaleness, which she believes that she cannot acquire from a sexual relationship with a male, even a gender-nonconforming male.

It is axiomatic and undeniable that a male or a female is only one half of a complete sexual whole since, obviously, there are two primary sexes. The sexual complement to a man is not another man but a woman; and to a woman is not another woman but a man. The logic of a male-female sexual bond is that the two primary sexual halves are united into a single complementary sexual whole. The logic of a same-sex sexual bond is that each partner is only half his or her own sex, which unites to form a whole male or a whole female. Such a union dishonors the integrity and completeness of one’s maleness, if male, or femaleness, if female.

A homosexual person, despite what he or she may think, is not half of his or her own sex but half of the full male-female sexual spectrum. A person may be in need of “structural affirmation” from members of the same sex, but not “structural supplementation.” Merging sexually with another of the same sex does not make one “more” male, if male, or “more” female, if female. Rather, it has the opposite effect: regularizing the self-misperception that one can complete one’s own sex only by uniting sexually with someone of the same sex.

The closest parallels to adult-committed homosexual relations is not ethnicity or gender but rather adult-committed incestuous unions and adult-committed polysexual unions (i.e., sexual unions involving more than two persons concurrently). The root problem with adult-committed incest must be applicable even when the relationship will not produce children (e.g., when one partner is infertile or takes birth-control precautions; or when the union is a case of homosexual incest). That root problem is that two people who are too much alike on level of kinship and who are thus already members of the same “flesh” attempt to become “one flesh.” It is an instance of too much structural sameness, not enough complementary otherness. This is the same problem with homosexual bonds, only now the sameness is more keenly felt on the level of sex or gender. So adult-committed incest and adult-committed homosexual unions are analogically related.

As regards polyamorous unions of a committed sort (i.e. unions with three or more sex partners), the connection with homosexual practice is not analogical but foundational. That is to say, the restriction of validated sexual unions to two persons at any one time is ultimately predicated on the sexual dimorphism, or “twoness,” of the sexes. It is because a sexual union between a man and a woman so brings together the full range of human sexuality that a third party is neither necessary nor desirable. Once the importance of the twoness of the sexes is disregarded, there no longer remains a logical or nature-based reason for limiting the number of partners in a sexual bond to two, especially since many people experience an innate and intense polysexual orientation that is not of their choosing.

Nor can the counterargument be made that a person can only really love one other person concurrently. For parents don’t love their first child any less when a second child comes. Moreover, most people have many intimate (but non-sexual) friends, not just one. Yes, there is something special about sexual bonds that requires a limitation to two persons. But that “something special” is the fact that a man is the true sexual complement to a woman and woman to a man, on a holistic level: anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically. To disregard that obvious reality is to leave oneself without rational grounds for dismissing consensual and committed sexual unions involving more than two persons.

So, given your full affirmation of homosexual activity, you are left with Oprah Winfrey’s conclusion after meeting some economically upscale, adult-committed polygamists for a 2007 show: “The best part of doing this job … [is that] I come in with one idea and then I leave a little more open about the whole idea. And what I realize … is that in every situation there are people who give things a bad name. There are difficulties and then there are people who handle those difficulties differently” (”Polygamy in America: Lisa Ling Reports,” www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200710/tows_past_20071026.jhtml?promocode=ssend20071026TD; full video at http://video.aol.com/video-search/query/oprah%20winfrey%20&%20lisa%20ling).

Give America more exposure to upscale, adult-committed polygamous bonds (and adult-committed incestuous bonds) and America will learn to be more tolerant of such bonds, as Oprah has. Those who dismiss a polygamy analogy and an incest analogy on the grounds that polygamy and incest always produce “demonstrable harm” are simply responding out of their “polyphobia” and “incest-phobia.” And then you can suspend people who say critical things about such relationships, once you overcome your prejudices.

I hope as a president of a university you will provide your students with an example of thoughtful and rigorous reflection rather than the kind of harsh, knee-jerk response that you have thus far taken. Instead of suspending Ms. Dixon you should be singing her praises for her honesty and her courage of conviction.

Sincerely,

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of New Testament

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

www.robgagnon.net

____________________________

Current and Favorite Articles on www.AmericansForTruth.org

Brett VanAsdlen’s Mom: “We’re Just Getting Persecuted Here”

Illinois Teen Faces Three Years Jail Sentence for Potentially Fraudulent ‘Hate Crime

The Untold Story about Rep. Sally Kern

Gay Pride: Tactics of Tyranny

Homosexuality and Atheism

The Face of Intolerance: Lesbian Riot Shuts Down Sorba Speech at Smith College (have you watched the video yet?)

Hutcherson Update: 638 Students Boycotted DOS at Mt. Si High

Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen Makes a Strong Case for a Federal Marriage Amendment

LaBarbera Calls for ‘Breaking the Silence’ on the Health Risks of Homosexual Behavior

___________________________

Americans For Truth Needs You!

The homosexual activist lobby is more arrogant than ever — and quite willing to shut down opponents’ speech (in the name of tolerance, of course). That’s why we need Americans For Truth. To make a tax-deductible donation to AFTAH, click on our online donation page (you can use your own credit card or PayPal) at: www.americansfortruth.com/donate.

We are grateful for those of you who have signed up as monthly “Truth Team” givers by pledging a donation on of at least $20/month to AFTAH. We think this is a good investment in your children’s and their children’s future! Our goal is to sign up 1,000 monthly AFTAH ‘Truth Team’ givers to put us on healthy financial footing. You can also send your tax-deductible donation via regular mail to:

Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522

Beware lesbians with frying pans (if you care about free speech). Lesbian activists at Smith College stormed the “Born Gay Hoax” talk by Ryan Sorba, shutting it down. Photo: MassResistance.org.

Lesbian activists at Smith College just couldn’t stand by and let a young critic explain his views about the supposed innateness of homosexuality — so they stormed Ryan Sorba’s speech on the “Born Gay Hoax” and forced him to end it prematurely. Thus they decided for everyone in the room — supporters, foes, the curious and the undecided — whether Sorba’s arguments would be heard. Stalin would be proud.

Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and the dedicated folks at MassResistance.org have captured the totalitarian episode on film for the world to see. Kudos to MassResistance for once again chronicling the anti-democratic antics of the “gay” Left for the record. It is absolutely shameful that Smith College and Massachusetts authorities would allow Sorba’s First Amendment rights to be neutralized in — of all places — the academy, which is supposed to be a place where opposing ideas can be debated freely.

Homosexual activists are afraid of critical ideas — e.g., ex-”gays” and facts about the immense health risks linked to same-sex practices — a sure sign that they are on shallow intellectual footing. Meanwhile, we have learned that the American Psychiatric Association has canceled a symposium, slated for Monday, on “Homosexuality and Therapy: the Religious Dimension,” featuring Grove City College’s Warren Throckmorton — after homosexual activist Episcopal Bishop (Vicky) Gene Robinson pulled out of the discussion. The homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reports that Robinson “canceled his plans to attend because he came to believe that making an appearance would validate the concept that sexual orientation can be changed.”

A “christian” leader (small-c) questions whether homosexuals can change — ignoring the evidence that thousands of people the world over testify to having overcome homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ. Interesting. But rather than defend his ideas — however anti-Biblical they are — Robinson chooses the coward’s way out by pulling out of the debate.

Traditionalists and people of faith should take great courage from the homosexual side’s totalitarian tendencies. This is no “civil rights” movement but a sexual special interest lobby espousing — with all the assurance of a fundamentalist — doctrines that run counter to natural law, healthy living, and Judeo-Christian history. Which is another way of saying that they are at war with truth.

Communists and fascists censor advocates of democratic freedom and independent religion. Darwinists expel critics of evolution from the academy. Officially pro-homosexual governments in Britain, Canada and other countries persecute Christians who voice their Biblical belief that homosexuality is a changeable sin. And radical homosexualists here in the USA trample on the rights of those who dare question the tenets of their activist movement, which is all of 100-plus years old (German “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld).

Take heart: people confident in their ideas don’t storm opponents’ speeches. Rather, they listen intently to them, and then present another viewpoint to compete in the marketplace of ideas. In the long run, homosexualists can’t compete with truth, and they seem to know it.

NOTE: click HERE to watch a YouTube of Ryan Sorba’s “Born Gay Hoax” speech, and HERE to go to MassResistance’s page covering a recent Sorba speech (which was not censored) on the same topic at Framingham State College. Click HERE for MassResistance’s main story on the censorious lesbian riot at Smith College.

So Chelsea Clinton partied with 2,000 boys (can we call them men?) in dresses at Portland’s annual “Red Dress Party” on April 12? Can’t say I’m surprised given the polling data on how “gay-friendly” youth are these days. But instead of the usual shock and outrage, let’s dwell for some moments on what these photos say about the social movement that so accurately calls itself “queer.” (See Willamette Week excerpts from the Portland event at bottom.)

Homosexual Men in Dresses

According to this article in the Willamette Week, the Red Dress Party “started years ago as a way for gay guys to wear girlie gowns and get stinkin’ drunk.” Like they needed an excuse. Why is it so easy to get homosexual guys in a dress anyway? Could it be because they are confused about their God-given masculinity to begin with? Sorry, my digression has taken me into overlapping phobias: I don’ t know which I’m more guilty of: homo- or trans-phobia? (Both, you Bible Bigot! I’m reporting you to the Thought Police.)

Sometimes you just have to laugh at a homosexual world that is so utterly lacking in seriousness. We’re dealing with a movement that is filled with overgrown adolescents who still have the gall to compare themselves to the Black civil rights movement. (Shhhh! — don’t tell anyone about the annual Aspen “Gay Ski Week” or how homosexuals travel abroad more (”especially for leisure purposes”) than straights — they’re VICTIMS — VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION, I tell you!)

Perhaps even a few non-activist homosexuals might agree with me that it’s silly — from a grown-up standpoint — for:

• men to party until all hours of the night — many high on stimulant drugs to keep them awake and …. enabling them to … well, uh … perform multiple and untold sexual perversions — at massive parties that double as “fund-raisers” for AIDS research and prevention! … Apparently, the Red Dress Party that Chelsea attended serves as a fund-raiser for AIDS prevention and “queer youth” support groups; isn’t that special?
• men to engage in sodomitic sex in public bathrooms and parks … facilitated by porn-financed homosexual websites that get millions and millions of hits per month …
• homosexual activists like Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese to demand that the ban on homosexual male blood donations be lifted (he’s crying discrimination) when the FDA has said: “Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM [men who have sex with men] policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result”; turns out a little discrimination is a good thing….
• transvestite men with their burly arms and legs (and Adam’s apple — can’t cut that off) trying to “pass” as women ….
• lesbian “drag kings” doing their own pathetic imitation of the real deal (men) at shows across the country — yes, the gender-confused lesbians, too, try to “pass” as men, “packing” fake penises, etc. … Add to that the specter of lesbians using sex toys to simulate male anal sex (who could make this stuff up?) …
• one of the most intolerant and bigoted (anti-religiously speaking) movements in the world lecturing everyone else about … tolerance and bigotry …
• homosexual activists to scold Pope Benedict about his “sins”: the following is from the website “PinkNews” (now that’s serious): “The Rainbow Sash Movement [RSM] said it is calling on ‘Catholics of good will’ to take the Papal visit as an opportunity to shower the Pope-mobile with ashes instead of confetti. Ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain,’ RSM said in a statement.”
• transgenders of all persuasions using opposite-sex restrooms and demanding same as their “civil right” (talk about dragging down MLK’s movement …);
• self-described “queer” theologians to pretend that they are Christian or have something to teach the Church when their real goal is to undermine Biblical truth on the subject to justify their lifestyle choices …
• activists to promote homosexuality and gender “nonconformity” in schools — even for young children — in the name of safety, of course …
• for one member of a homosexual household to play the “husband” and the other the “wife” in the relationship — at least they admit there is a standard of normalcy;
• pro-homosexual advocates to pretend that HIV/AIDS is not a predominantly “gay” disease in America — and teaching kids in school that AIDS “does not discriminate” when it clearly does (the homosexual Task Force’s Matt Foreman went off the “gay” taking points here when he declared that “HIV is a gay disease”) …
• smug homosexual academicians and activists to claim that same-sex parents are actually better for kids than traditional mom-and-dad households … Hitler would be proud: always go after the Big Lie….
• for GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) and other same-sex whiners to complain that the movies and TV are not sufficiently pro-”gay” when everyone knows Hollywood is largely run by homosexuals (and straights who are strongly pro-”gay”) …
• leftist and “queer” bloggers like Pam Spaulding to feign outrage over Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern for saying the homosexual agenda is a greater threat than terrorism when they compare groups like AFTAH and pro-family leaders DIRECTLY to terrorists all the time. (I write this as a one-time designated member of the “American Taliban”; the subtle, judicious Spaulding now says she’s tired of the term — preferring a new putdown: “The Peter” — a phallic slang reference I used to hear as a kid; now that’s doing your Duke University employers proud, Pam!);
• men to say that they are really a lesbian trapped in a male’s body, and vice versa, and all the perverse permutations associated with the “T” in the “GLBT” movement: transsexualism, transvestism, etc.
• women to stay married to their husbands for decades and raise children to adulthood — and then leave their husband for a woman, only to claim that they were “always lesbian” and are just living out “who they really are” …
• the city of San Francisco to allow the sadistic Folsom Street Fair to go on every year with its rampant full nudity and even orgies in the streets — while the cops stand idly by doing nothing;
• homosexual activists to scold the Roman Catholic Church for harboring pedophiles when it was homosexual men who entered the Church after seminary standards were lowered — and then who engaged in so many of the predations on boys that brought dishonor to the Church in the first place. Have homosexual activists no shame?

The list could go on and on. Answer to the last question: no. So why are we losing to a movement this “queer,” again? Perhaps because most people don’t take it seriously. But mostly because the activists on their side care about their agenda (and, ultimately, their perversions) — more than most Americans care to stop them. Apathy and politically correct silence rule the day — at least for most straights and, to our shame, for most religious people.

Unfortunately for all of us, the dangers that the homosexual activist movement poses to America — to our religious and First Amendment freedoms, the corruption of youth, the sanctity of marriage, etc. — are very real indeed, and not funny at all.

___________________________

Below is an excerpt from the Willamette Weekly article:

Party Girl: Chelsea Clinton Cuts Loose With 2,000 Gay Men in Red Dresses

…

Yes, Chelsea Clinton made it to the infamous “Red Dress” Party.

Not to be confused with that other annual “Red Dress” fundraiser, this is the “Red Dress Party,” a mondo-alcohol-fueled dance party where nearly 2,000 gay men in various states of red dress undress (and several nearly naked straight men as well as one very colorfully decorated naked woman) invade a warehouse in Northeast Portland and dance their collective asses off to pounding disco music and the incredible Storm Large and her Balls (they were beyond fabulous).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL Willamette Weekly STORY