This confused young woman had her healthy breasts surgically removed to appear like the "man" she wants to be. Today's youth are inundated in schools and pop culture with pro-gender-confusion and pro-homosexual messages -- while not being exposed to the downsides of these destructive and immoral lifestyles. Photo: Mass Resistance.

We thank my friend Linda Harvey, founder of Mission America, for her tremendous work on behalf of America’s “LGBT-brainwashed” youth. — Peter LaBarbera.  Linda writes:

By Linda Harvey of Mission America

A broad coalition of pro-family groups recommends that students stay away from school on Friday, April 20, 2012, the national “Day of Silence,” if the school is officially recognizing and/or allowing students and teachers to observe this event during instructional time by a silent protest. High schools and even some middle schools are now the targets of this event.

The Day of Silence is supposedly led by students, but actually led by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which describes itself as “championing LGBT issues in K-12 education since 1990.” Did you catch that– “K through 12”? Younger and younger students are the target of this group. The younger, the better because they are easier to manipulate.

The Day of Silence goal is not, as I am told frequently by outraged emails from misinformed students, to help end all bullying. The goal is to exploit the tender sympathies of kids to promote approval of homosexuality and gender confusion. The agenda is everything; Judeo-Christian morality is the enemy; and sadly, kids are the tools.

GLSEN teaches students that homosexuals and gender-confused people are “silenced” and under persecution by those who object to this behavior, and that traditional moral beliefs cause bullying. No hard, objective data exists to support this contention, and the event itself causes hostility, confusion, and division.

Here are ten reasons I believe Christian students in particular should refuse to honor this event by school attendance and why Christian teachers should plan activities that require students to verbally participate:

1. A silent protest in support of immoral, God-dishonoring behavior is in itself profoundly deceptive. All sexual behavior outside man/woman marriage is sinful in God’s eyes. Why should Christian students and teachers be in the position of accommodating this flagrant violation of their principles? Teachers would not want polyamorous students to be bullied, but would schools permit students to participate in a classroom protest in support of polyamory?

2. Any explicit or implicit message encouraging teens and even younger students to view homosexual acts as normative or moral is not “social justice” or “tolerance,” but, in reality, child corruption.

3. Allowing classroom silence to honor the Day of Silence unleashes tremendous peer pressure for students and even teachers to endorse sexual immorality, or be considered “enemies” of those peers and teachers proudly involved in homosexuality. This puts people of faith in the position of violating Christian doctrine through tacit approval (Romans 16:17-18; Ephesians 5:11). They are also intimidated into self-censorship, which undermines both fundamental First Amendment and educational principles.

4. The Day of Silence fosters hostile and bigoted attitudes toward Christians and others with traditional moral beliefs; spreads inaccurate and harmful information; and promotes unproven, non-factual Leftist moral beliefs as objective truths.

5. Using legitimate concerns about bullying and teen suicide to promote approval of homosexuality in schools is educational malpractice. It’s totally unnecessary to stop bullying and prevent harm to students, and Christians should not be a party to this gross distortion of a genuine problem. No one needs to affirm homosexuality or gender-confusion in order to prevent bullying, but GLSEN routinely takes this deceitful position.

6. Teachers know real bullying when they see it, and most teachers address it. But GLSEN and the Day of Silence pressure teachers not merely to address bullying behavior but to affirm Leftist moral and political beliefs. Since when did it become the job of government employees to become public relations agents for Leftist moral propositions or the good reputation of homosexuality?  Stopping bullying can be accomplished without becoming champions of the non-factual assumptions of the homosexuality-affirming movement.

7. There are legitimate lessons students should learn about prejudice and bias. But Day of Silence promoters deceptively link moral objections about homosexuality to racial discrimination or anti-Semitism in an attempt to legitimize the pro-homosexual ideology and portray homosexuals as perennial victims, while censoring through social pressure all dissenting views.

8. Teachers have used the DOS to inappropriately become classroom advocates and models of this deviant behavior. In one Ohio school, a teacher used a Power Point presentation to tell students about her “gay” support and even disclosed to students that she was a lesbian, without prior parental notification or permission from her principal.

9. The health and lifestyle risks of homosexuality are virtually never shared on the Day of Silence. Instead, students are given the deceitful impression that homosexuality is just as safe and worthy an identity as heterosexual dating and marriage. The notion that same-sex attraction and volitional acts constitute an identity worthy of affirmation is not a fact, and government employees have no right, either explicitly or implicitly, to promote it to other people’s children.

10. The DOS message inhibits Christians from witnessing to their peers caught up in homosexuality or gender confusion. There is salvation through Jesus Christ and the hope of leaving this sin behind. Calling homosexuality a sin on the Day of Silence would be considered “hateful,” when it is actually God-honoring and respectful to the hearer. It may lead them to an eternal home with God. But that won’t happen if the truth is suppressed, which it always is on the Day of Silence. Parents, keep your children home that day. If your children have the courage to witness, they can do it on another day when perhaps they will have a fair chance of being heard.

 

Linda Harvey

Linda Harvey founded Mission:America in 1995, a Christian pro-family organization tracking current cultural issues. The organization’s flagship website is www.missionamerica.com, with weekly e-newsletters transmitted to a national audience.  As a former advertising executive, Mrs. Harvey specialized in creating new communications’ vehicles. She has started more than twenty-five publications and overseen multi-million dollar advertising campaigns, primarily in the health care field. She was formerly Director of Marketing Communications at Ohio State University Hospitals.

Mrs. Harvey has spoken on Capitol Hill and testified numerous times before state legislative committees. She serves on the National Pro-Family Forum and the Ohio Pro-Family Forum.

Linda Harvey holds a B.A. in English from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, and has done graduate work at both Miami and Ohio State University. She is the wife of Tom Harvey and the mother of two children. They live in Columbus, Ohio.

“The Farleys merely seek to effectuate their daughter’s final wishes, while her alleged ‘spouse’ seeks to unjustly pad her pocketbook.” – Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society

The following is Thomas More Society’s release published on Christian Newswire: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/131877a620033f28

_________________________________________________________

Lesbian Partner of Deceased Lawyer Seeks to Overturn Retirement Plan Beneficiary Designation on Grounds She is Surviving ‘Spouse’

PHILADELPHIA, August 1, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — Jennifer Tobits, lesbian partner of a deceased attorney in the Chicago office of Philadelphia-based Cozen O’Connor, P.C., is not entitled to her “spouse’s” profit-sharing plan because being “married” in Canada is not recognized as a legitimate marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), according to court papers filed today by the Thomas More Society.

As Cozen O’Connor attorney Sarah Ellyn Farley lay dying of cancer last September, she made her final property arrangements, including designating her parents as the beneficiaries of her law firm’s profit-sharing account. However, her “wife,” Jennifer Tobits, with whom she obtained a same sex marriage license in Toronto in 2006, claims that she is entitled to the proceeds of the account. The Thomas More Society, representing the parents, responded to Cozen O’Connor’s interpleader action in federal court, stating that federal and state DOMAs forbid the recognition of Tobits as a “spouse” and that the law firm should disburse the profit-sharing plan proceeds to the parents, in accord with the wishes of the deceased.

Thomas More Society attorneys argue that the parents are entitled to the funds because their daughter executed a beneficiary designation form in their favor before her death, and because Farley and Tobits’ “marriage” was invalid under Federal and Pennsylvania law. Under the terms of the profit-sharing plan, the parents would be next in line when there is no spouse, even without a designated beneficiary form from the deceased. Therefore, they are legally entitled to the funds as Farley’s surviving parents on two accounts.

“The deceased was fully aware of her rights under the law to designate her parents as the beneficiaries of her profit-sharing plan proceeds, even going so far as to state that she was ‘single’ in accord with the law. What Ms. Tobits is trying to do is circumvent both federal and state laws for her own financial gain. The Farleys merely seek to effectuate their daughter’s final wishes, while her alleged ‘spouse’ seeks to unjustly pad her pocketbook,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society.

The case, Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits, et al., no. 11-cv-45, is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District Judge C. Darnell Jones, II, presiding. Randall Wenger, Chief Counsel of the Independence Law Center of Pennsylvania, is serving as local counsel for the Farleys.

About the Thomas More Society
Formed in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm based in Chicago. The Society defends religious liberty, marriage, and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country. For more information, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Ex-lesbian Janet Boynes was shown in the ABC piece by investigative reporter Brian Ross, but he did not "investigate" her story of leaving lesbianism with God's help.

Folks, it sure didn’t take long for the liberal media to go into Christian-bashing mode against GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Watch this almost comically biased hit-piece by ABC’s Brian Ross — featuring the militantly anti-Christian homosexual organization Truth Wins Out. (TWO denies the reality that people can leave homosexuality behind; I call them “Focus on the Failures” because their nonsensical argument seems to be that since many practicing “gays” fail in their quest to change, transformation away from homosexuality is a myth.)

Incredibly, ABC even went so far as to title its piece “Pray Away the Gay at Bachmann Clinic?” — recycling TWO founder Wayne Besen’s mocking and bigoted attack-slogan for the idea that people can overcome homosexual desires through faith in God. Shouldn’t it have occurred to Ross to sit down with and interview a SUCCESSFUL former homosexual like Janet Boynes, who:

1. lives near Minneapolis, where the Bachmanns’ counseling clinic is located;
2. was mentioned in the story — the undercover TWO “investigative reporter” ominously cites a copy of Janet’s book, “Called Out,” endorsed by Dr. Bachmann;
3. is a happy FORMER lesbian who endeavors to help others out of homosexuality, and who credits God for the power to change?  

We confirmed that no ABC reporter contacted Boynes for their story on the Backmann clinic. I don’t have much hope of changing ABC [but you can contact them HERE]; they and most of the secular “mainstream” media are for all practical purposes a part of Gay Inc. at this point. But let’s use this unfair hit-piece to highlight the truth: that people like Janet Boynes and Linda Jernigan — who once thought they were “gay” — can and do leave homosexuality behind, often through the “Amazing Grace” of Jesus Christ. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

See my comments in bold below in Cliff Kincaid’s excellent Accuracy in Media story (all emphasis added):

________________________________________

Media Guns Fire Blanks at Bachmann

By: Cliff Kincaid, [reprinted from Accuracy in Media] |  July 12, 2011  

Once a greatly feared investigative reporter, Brian Ross has been reduced to recycling left-wing material from the homosexual lobby. But the pathetic hit job he narrated on Monday’s ABC Nightline show on GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has backfired in a big way. The charge was that the Bachmann family counseling service engages in terrible things by teaching homosexuals how to leave their disease-ridden lifestyle.

Ross called this method of counseling, which emphasizes religious conversion, “highly controversial” and said it “could become a campaign issue.” Ironically, however, he presented evidence that ex-homosexuals do in fact exist

It is a sign of the dominance of the homosexual lobby in the media business that such a program would even be aired. The upcoming National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association convention features “Today” show co-anchor Ann Curry and CNN’s Don Lemon as keynote speakers.

The ABC piece, “Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?,” was constructed in such a way as to suggest that ex-homosexuals are non-existent, even though the Brian Ross report itself noted the presence of books by a “self-proclaimed ex-lesbian” in the counseling center. A video from the ex-lesbian, Janet Boynes, was even shown briefly on the air. This was supposed to be shocking.

Of course, the notion of the Bible condemning homosexual behavior, reflected in several passages, was viewed as bizarre and intolerant.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says the phrase, “pray away the gay,” is intended to ridicule Christians and comes directly from homosexual activist Wayne Besen’s group, Truth Wins Out. LaBarbera asks, “Why are the major media repeating these hateful attack slogans by radical gay activists?”

He explains, “We don’t mock the idea of leaving drug addiction or alcoholism with God’s help. Why is it acceptable to mock faith in God to overcome unwanted behaviors like homosexuality in their lives?”

“Wayne Besen’s thesis is that ex-gays don’t exist,” noted LaBarbera. But Janet Boynes is a real person and absolute proof that one can leave the homosexual lifestyle.

Perhaps without realizing it, Ross has presented evidence of the homosexual “change” that he was trying to discredit.

“The homosexual lobby simply can’t deal with the reality that ‘gays’ can change (usually with God’s help),” LaBarbera adds. His group recently hosted an event with another ex-lesbian, Linda Jernigan.

To make matters worse, the ABC hit piece was largely recycled leftist material. Ross borrowed heavily from Truth Wins Out (TWO) and an article in The Nation magazine, in order to concoct the shaky story.

Since the segment was light on anything truly horrifying, he used film footage from a Truth Wins Out operative who had secretly taped a counselor for the Bachmann service. This had the effect of making everything look sinister. The apparently shocking advice to the undercover homosexual operative was that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not. This is what passes for “investigative journalism” these days.

“ABC’s Brian Ross did a terrific job with this Nightline segment…” declared TWO executive director Wayne Besen.

As such, Ross can expect to be nominated for an award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which honors pro-homosexual coverage.

The Brian Ross hit piece follows an attack on the popular Congresswoman by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine,”Michele Bachmann’s Holy War,” where he smeared Bachmann as “a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.”

Blogger Trevor Loudon disclosed that Taibbi was the recipient of an award from the Democratic Socialists of America in Boston for his hard-left reporting.

Loudon commented, “Maybe Matt Taibbi should tell us about his own true beliefs. I’m betting he is not as open about his own convictions as Michele Bachmann is about hers.”

Denise Jones

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I’m reading Denise Jones’ book, “Who Said it Couldn’t Be Done? A Diamond from the Rough.” It is a shockingly honest yet faith-building story of godly transformation, told by a woman who shouldn’t even be alive, so hellish was her past. This is one of those amazing life stories that deserves to be made into a movie, so let’s hope and pray that perhaps a Christian filmmaker — or someone in Hollywood who believes in real diversity — will take that up as a project (over the sure protests of the intolerant folk at GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

You can order Denise’ book through Amazon HERE. To visit her website, go to www.WhoSaiditCouldntBeDone.com. Her Facebook page is HERE, and you can write Denise at AuthorDeniseJones@gmail.com. We certainly hope to hear a lot more from Denise, and we give praise to Jesus Christ this Easter season for His wonderfully redemptive work in her life! – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

"Chaps" Klingenschmitt

This interview with Gordon James “Chaps” Klingenschmitt [click HERE to listen] was pre-taped and aired Christmas day, 2010. Chaps is founder of the “Pray in Jesus’ Name Project,” named after his much-publicized struggle to pray in Jesus’ name in public and without restrictions as a U.S. Navy Chaplain — which cost him his career in the service. Chaps, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, discusses his work reaching men and women for Christ in the Navy — including an “exorcism” involving a woman who overcame lesbianism. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera commends Klingenschmitt for his yeoman’s work in mobilizing tens of thousands of Americans to fight the Democrat-led, lame-duck congressional effort to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. Chaps discusses God’s view of homosexuality as sin, and says his biggest disappointment among Senate Republicans who joined the Democrats in ending the homosexual ban was Mark Kirk — the new Illinois Senator who quickly alienated conservatives in his own state by voting for the repeal. Part Two of this interview will air in January.

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

12-25-10, Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, All

If it is not proper for male TSA agents to frisk female travelers, why would the TSA allow homosexual men to "pat down" male travelers, or lesbians to "pat down" women?

News Release, November 16, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@gmail.com

CHICAGO – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of “same-gender” TSA (Transportation Security Administration) “pat-downs” – if the TSA agents doing the “patting down” are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual. 

Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano went out of her way yesterday to stress that the TSA pat-downs are “same-gender” – mostly to reassure women that men will not be groping them at airports in the name of safety.

“But what about homosexual TSA agents?” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. “Isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

“The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint,” LaBarbera said. “Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers. (In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts.)”

The TSA, as a federal agency, is barred from discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation,” thanks to a pro-homosexual Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1998.

Said LaBarbera: “Obviously Napolitano wants to assure the public that sexual tension will be taken out of the equation. Hence, we must take seriously the self-identified desires of homosexuals. ‘Gay’ men define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men. Lesbians are sexually attracted to women. And bisexuals are attracted to both. Some observations:

• Perhaps some common-sense, healthy “discrimination” is in order: the TSA should put conditions on employment for self-acknowledged homosexuals – that they not be assigned to pat down travelers so as to avoid being put in sexually compromising situations;
• It would not be workable to assign, say, gay male TSA agents to pat down female travelers – as the latter – thinking the agents to be normal men – would protest that they are being patted down by males. Chaos would ensue;
• Does the TSA know which of its employees are homosexual, anyway, and how? If not, is it fair to travelers who may end up getting ‘groped’ by homosexual TSA agents who are secretly getting turned on through the process?
• Could the TSA be subjected to a sexual harassment lawsuit if the agent who engages in an overly aggressive “same-gender pat-down” – and gets sued – turns out to be homosexual?

LaBarbera said that even if it could be assumed that most TSA agents – regardless of their sexual proclivities – would act professionally, that is not the issue. Male TSA agents – no matter how “professional” their conduct – cannot frisk female travelers.

“To allow homosexual agents to conduct same-gender pat-downs is tantamount to a new form of discrimination that must be recognized and prevented,” he said.

Prof. Rob Gagnon at AFTAH Truth Academy in August. Gagnon questions whether those supporting "rights" based on homosexuality would do the same for incest and polyamory.

Part Two of Peter LaBarbera’s interview with Prof. Rob Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (part Three is next week). This interview aired Sept. 11, 2010. In this discussion, Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) goes deeper into his biblical analogy between homosexuality and ”adult committed incest” and polyamory (multiple-partner sexual unions). He also further critiques liberal evangelical Andrew Marin’s ministry approach in Chicago, noting that repentance — i.e., turning away from homosexual practice – is ”part of the conversion process.”

Pegging off Marin’s line about once being a ” Bible-banging homophobe,” Gagnon questions whether Marin would ever say, “I was once a Bible-banging incest-phobe.” He said the fact that liberals object to this sexual sin analogy does not make it invalid — and said it is more relevant than comparing the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice to biblical writings about slavery, women’s roles and dietary laws. 

Gagnon addresses the homosexualist challenge that the biblical concept of homosexuality was different than today’s homosexuality, noting that monogamous homosexual relationships did exist in Bible times. He also discusses lesbianism and critiques the NIV (New International Version) translations of homosexual terms in 1 Corinthians 6.  

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

9-11-10, Robert Gagnon, All

The following letter was sent to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who recently announced her support for homosexual “marriage” — sent through ABC’s The View’s online contact page (web links added to original):

Elisabeth Hasselbeck of ABC's 'The View'

Elisabeth, you really abandoned your conservative and Christian principles by coming out for homosexual “marriage.” Homosexual practice is unnatural, often unhealthy, and a changeable sin opposed by God and the Bible. Deep down you must know that two men or two women were never meant to be involved sexually, much less get “married.” Please reconsider your position on this issue. If you are a Christian, you should believe the Bible and not twist your views to accommodate popular culture, or your liberal co-hosts. (Also, stand up boldly for the life of the unborn as a matter of human rights — rather than equivocating on this core issue!)

I know you take a lot of grief on the show for NOT being a liberal (on most issues) — and I respect you for that. But caving on “same-sex marriage” only hurts your credibility as The View’s repesentative, as it were, for millions upon millions of conservative and pro-family Americans who resent the liberal media’s and Hollywood’s secular Left bias. Elisabeth, there are many EX-gay men and FORMER lesbians who have overcome homosexuality in their lives (most by becoming born-again Christians). You should be championing them instead of counterfeit “gay marriage”! God bless you,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com

See our story: http://americansfortruth.com/news/the-views-elizabeth-hasselback-joins-pro-gay-marriage-sellouts.html

Linda Jernigan

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

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

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

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

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

Linda Jernigan (www.RescuingHomosexuals.net) has found freedom from lesbianism through Jesus Christ.

Here is Part One of AFTAH’s June 19, 2010 interview with Linda Jernigan, a former lesbian who — beginning at the tender age of 12 — was lured into the homosexual lifestyle by an older woman who was supposed to be her “mentor.” Linda’s Chicago-based ministry, Rescuing Homosexuals, now helps people get out of the “gay” lifestyle, like she did through the grace of God. 

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

6-19-10, Linda Jernigan, All

Ellen DeGeneres' Hollywood star has risen since her famous "coming out" in 1997, but her worldly fame does not make her a wholesome role model for American girls.

American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres picked a love song written to be sung by a man to a woman for contestant Crystal Bowersox–a single mom with a boyfriend–to perform on the show’s semifinal program on Tuesday night.

The song, “Maybe I’m Amazed,” written by Paul McCartney and dedicated to his now-deceased wife Linda McCartney, includes the repeated lyric “baby, I’m a man” in the chorus. — CNSNews.com

More gender confusion from Ellen DeGeneres. It is so tiresome to see Ellen mega-hyped as a pop icon despite her immoral and chosen lifestyle as a practicing lesbian and pro-homosexuality activist. The very funny Ellen (who gets very serious when it comes to her public mission of promoting this immoral behavior) is getting more worldly fame than most humans could ever hope to have, but that means nothing before our holy God. She needs to humble herself and repent of her wrong and very changeable lifestyle, as other former “out and proud lesbians” have (e.g., Yvette Schneider and Charlene Cothran; see Charlene’s website HERE).

Pray that Ellen would find reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ and join the ranks of ex-lesbians. Her worldly, Hollywood star would surely fall following such a godly transformation, but she could then become a truly wholesome role model for American girls, which she is not now, despite her many talents. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

Following the Eyeblast.TV video is An excerpt of the CNSNews.com article after the jump (see full CNS article HERE):

_______________________________________

American Idol Judge Ellen DeGeneres Asks Female Contestant to Sing Love Song to a Woman on Idol Semifinal

By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) – American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres picked a love song written to be sung by a man to a woman for contestant Crystal Bowersox–a single mom with a boyfriend–to perform on the show’s semifinal program on Tuesday night.

The song, “Maybe I’m Amazed,” written by Paul McCartney and dedicated to his now-deceased wife Linda McCartney, includes the repeated lyric “baby, I’m a man” in the chorus.

There were only three contestants left for the semifinal of the popular Fox television program and each was required to sing two songs, one they picked for themselves and another picked for them by one of the judges or a pair of judges.

Judges Randy Jackson and Kara DioGuardi picked “Daughters” by John Mayer for contestant Casey James to perform. Simon Cowell picked “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen for contestant Lee DeWyze to perform. And DeGeneres picked McCartney’s “Maybe I’m Amazed” for contestant Crystal Bowersox.

The other judges and host Ryan Seacrest appeared to express a higher level of curiosity about DeGeneres’s song pick for Bowersox than they did for the other judges’ choices for the program.

“All right, Ellen, so why did you pick this one for Crystal?” Seacrest asked DeGeneres before Bowersox performed the tune.

“Well, I love the song,” DeGeneres said. “I think the song is amazing, and I think she’s amazing. And I just wanted her to surprise people. Everybody knows what she does, and I thought let’s show some range and let her just tear this thing apart. And I think she will.” … [Full CNS story continues HERE.]

New EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldlum

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, March 30, 2010

Click HERE to watch some video clips of Chai Feldblum at a 2008 panel discussion at the Family Research Council.

______________________________

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex.

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement (emphasis in original document):

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers — seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty.

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

• “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion”
• “The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People”
• “Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” — in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity – a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,’” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family.

There’s no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum’s appointment: Obama doesn’t care, and the Senate won’t be consulted.

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

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

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

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Rob Gagnon

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

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

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

_________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

Reports of Jenkins’ abusive behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________

Related links:

Helping Isabella Facebook Page

AFTAH articles:

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

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

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

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

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is excerpted from WorldNetDaily.com:

________________________________________

Dakota Fanning in steamy, lesbian sex flick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney Craddock explains that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights press release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooks Backs Buggery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

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

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

Sacred Sodomy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last turn of the knife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

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