By Peter LaBarbera

It’s rare when I agree with (pro-homosexual-”marriage”) Chris Matthews, the fast-talking host of the MSNBC program “Hardball” — but here he hits the nail on the head. At a March 24 book signing in Framingham, Mass., Matthews was “ambushed” by video-camera-wielding activists with the pro-homosexual, leftist group Faithful America. They badgered him about having Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, on as a repeat guest on “Hardball.” Here’s Matthews’ response [more commentary after the video]:

Silencing “hate”?
Needless to say, Faithful America justifies its blacklisting campaign against Perkins on the basis of Family Research Council being (mis)labeled a “hate group” — by fellow left-wingers at GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  [See Faithful America's Youtube comments HERE.] Perkins is a good man who ably and articulately defends the historic Judeo-Christian sexual and marriage ethic, for which he is rewarded with the usual vitriol by embittered homosexual activists and bloggers. Anyone who has seen Perkins debate on TV can see he is not “hateful” in the least — nor is the respected family organization FRC (where I once worked as a cultural analyst).

Do you see what is happening? The intellectual cowards on the Left — puffed up by a compliant media and suffused with enough “gay pride” and arrogance to presume that their aberrant sexual/gender ideology has NO LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION — are busier than ever trying to bully the media into joining their “Pro-Gay-Only” crusade. It is despicable, but worse: it is a grave threat to American liberty. Because when the media en masse kowtow to censorious activists — a road on which they are quite far along with the Homosexual Lobby — accountability, reason and fairness are jettisoned, paving the way for ever more reckless and extreme pressure campaigns against the dreaded “haters.” (That would be you, me and just about anyone who takes a public stand against homosexual behavior or “gay” agenda goals like same-sex “marriage.”)

Excerpts from the video:

Chris Matthews: I watched them deal with Buchanan [referring to MSNBC's recent firing of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan]….I don’t believe in fatwas. I don’t believe in silencing people. I don’t believe in it, OK? I want Rush Limbaugh on the air. I want him on every day. I want people to hear it. I want everybody to hear all the arguments; it’s a free country.–

“Faithful America” activist: We want a progressive–

Matthews: You want to silence people! You want to silence people [stronger emphasis].–

“Faithful America” activist: We want a progressive Christian …[unclear]–

Matthews: …What channel do you want Tony Perkins on? What channel would you like him on?

“Faithful America” activist: Well, I’d prefer that he’s not–

Matthews: See, you want to silence him!

“Faithful America” activist: It would be great if he is going to be on, to have a progressive Christian [on opposite Perkins]…

Matthews: [Perkins] doesn’t hold out that homophobic stuff on my show, he never does it…

“Faithful America”: But when he’s on your show, you lend legitimacy to the things that he says off your show.–

Ratcheting it up
Thus we behold the ratcheting up of the “Anti-Hate” rhetorical lynch mob. They rail fanatically against “misinformation” and “homophobia,” even as they cynically misinform the public about decent, pro-family advocates like Perkins – blaming them for causing youth suicides and smearing them with preposterous analogies to the KKK. The smarter members of the Gay Thought Police insist that they are not really anti-Christian(ity) — i.e., against people’s right to believe the Bible’s teaching that homosexual practice is sinful. Rather, it is merely the way people like Perkins make their “anti-gay” arguments that disqualifies them from the Public Square, they say. Don’t buy it.

Meanwhile, the true haters on the Left, like Dan Savage, creator of the toxic attack-site “Santorum[dot]com,” are rewarded for their cruelty because, of course, their hatred is directed at the proper target: social conservatives, especially Christians. (The pro-”gay” Left still seems largely uninterested in radical Islamic teachings and practices that apply a harsher standard against homosexuals than most Christians could even envision.)

Liberal ends justify nasty means: just ask the Santorum family. (By the way, Dan Savage just got his own show on MTV. Apparently, launching a vile web campaign aimed at destroying a conservative’s name by attaching it to the gross byproduct of perversion is no impediment to a liberal’s career.)

Homophobia?
With regard to the above video, my hunch is that when Matthews avers that Perkins “doesn’t pull that homophobic stuff on my show,” he is thinking of real hatred toward homosexuals — read: uncivil, caustic verbal bashing of homosexuals, not “hatred” re-defined to suit left-wing ideological purposes.

Or maybe not: who can know when we’re dealing with ambiguous, ”progressive” Newspeak like the catchall construct homophobia? A media study going back a decade or two would document the steady expansion of what constitutes “homophobia” in the minds of pro-homosexual activists. It began with some connection to unreasonable fear, but these days has grown to include mere opposition to homosexual “marriage.”

Libertarians, secular-minded conservatives, and honest liberals, take note: if the Left succeeds in “silencing” all media voices critical of homosexuality and LGBT activism, it will move on to its next target, with gullible media sycophants in tow. Which perhaps explains why savvy Muslim activists and their allies have latched on to making frequent accusations of “Islamophobia” as a means to demonize their opponents (again, mostly Christians).

These opportunistic Muslims should reconsider their tactics. They forget that they, too — as opponents of the sin of homosexuality – could become a target of the pro-”queer” silencing campaign that brooks no dissent in its push for public approval and the power to enforce Political Correctness, beginning with the indoctrination of young children in schools.

Click on graphic to enlarge. Homosexual web activist website "All Out" lobbies PayPal to drop AFTAH and other pro-family groups as alleged "anti-LGBT extremists." The petition reads, "PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate."

TAKE ACTION NOW: a new homosexual web campaign is urging the internet payment company PayPal to drop AFTAH and other pro-family organizations as so-called “extremists” that “promote anti-LGBT hate.” Please help defend Americans For Truth from being dropped by PayPal in response to this anti-Christian pressure campaign.

1) Go to PayPal’s website and make a much-needed gift to AFTAH to support our work. Or do so through the AFTAH website at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/. Mail a check to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

2) Write or call PayPal and urge them to STAND FOR FREEDOM and NOT give in to this intolerant pressure campaign by homosexual activists; use PayPal’s online “Comment Card” HERE, or post a note to the PayPal blog.  Or use their Contact Page HERE (note, the latter seems to favor comments by people holding a PayPal account).  Here is the Contact Page for PayPal’s parent company, e-BAY Inc.

Please THANK PayPal for initially siding with religious freedom so far [as reported HERE by the homosexual website Pink News] and not abruptly caving to All Out’s demands.  Urge them NOT to punish Christian and pro-family advocates – which could potentially alienate millions of potential PayPal customers.

3) Also, sign the LifeSiteNews petition to PayPal defending AFTAH and other pro-family targets by going here: http://www.profamilyfreedom.net/

4) Send this message to your friends and contact list to educate them on the anti-Christian and censorious nature of the homosexual movement. “Gay” activists no longer want “Tolerance”; now they want Dominance even if it means smearing pro-family people as “haters” and destroying our cherished religious freedoms.  

__________________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Dear AFTAH Reader,

Every day brings more evidence that the Homosexual Lobby is all about kicking pro-morality people (mostly committed Christians) who disagree with homosexual behavior OUT of the public square. More and more observers are seeing this for what it is: homo-fascism. Last week we learned of a homosexual web campaign called “All Out” that is targeting the payment service company PayPal for doing business with Americans For Truth and nine other groups — which it smears as ”extremists” who “promote anti-LGBT “hate.” Here is the wording of their All Out petition:

PAYPAL: END THE ONLINE HATE TRADE
Tell PayPal: Put Hate Out of Business

“PayPal officially states that its users ‘may not use the PayPal service for activities that [...] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance’ but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate.”

In an adjoining article, the grammatically-challenged All Out writes:

Thanks to PayPal, its [sic] easier than ever to send and receive money across currencies and continents – but it is also PayPal’s responsibility to make sure this technology doesn’t fall in the wrong hands. Anti-LGBT extremists all over the world are currently using PayPal to fundraise for their dangerous cause.

Not only is it against PayPal’s rules to promote promote [sic] “hate, violence, [and] racial intolerance,” hate groups also damage PayPal’s brand and credibility. We ask that PayPal join the fight against online hate and immediately shut down the accounts of anti-LGBT extremist groups using the service.

Already, All Out boasts that 35,000 people have sent web-generated letters to PayPal using All Out’s user-friendly web form. Among the other targeted groups beside AFTAH are Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries [Lively will be a speaker at AFTAH’s banquet outside Chicago on Oct. 15^th] and the Catholic group Tradition, Family, and Property. Also on the list is Brazilian expatriate and pro-family hero Julio Severo [Julio’s blog is written in Portuguese].

Here is All Out’s description of AFTAH:

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (United States): This groups [sic] claims homosexuality is a “lethal behavior addiction,” a “dangerous” practice that is “neither normal nor benign.” 

PayPal cites religious freedom but takes complaints

The British “gay” website Pink News reports that in response to All Out’s pressure campaign, PayPal is declining to immediately revoke the pro-family groups’ payment accounts on the grounds of religious freedom:

“PayPal does not allow the use of its service for activities that promote hatred, violence or racial intolerance. We take very seriously any cases where a user has incited hatred, violence or intolerance because of a person’s sexual orientation.

“However, we also take into account the rights of free speech and freedom of religion. Balancing these conflicting rights is often difficult, and so we assess possible infringements objectively against our Acceptable Use Policy.

Pink News reports this continuation of the statement by PayPal – made more ominous by the fact that both AFTAH and Severo have already received e-mails from PayPal requesting more information about their accounts:

“While we can’t comment on any specific accounts because of customer confidentiality, we regularly review organizations and websites that use our service, and stop working with those that break our Acceptable Use Policy. We also enable people to report suspected breaches of this policy on our website.”

AFTAH will be following this story closely, and we are grateful that the pro-family news site LifeSiteNews is launching an online petition campaign of its own, www.ProFamilyFreedom.net, to defend Americans For Truth and the other targeted organizations against this homosexual pressure campaign.

______________________________

Facts and thoughts on this latest homosexual intimidation campaign:

1) Homosexual activists are doing all they can to push Bible-believing Christians and moral-minded people who believe homosexuality is wrong OUT of the public square;

2) “Gay” militants are in the vanguard of the Left’s war on biblical Christianity and religious freedom in the United States.  By labeling Christians as “haters,” they cruelly demonize people of faith – and encourage the outrageous idea that longstanding Christian and Bible-based beliefs are “extreme” and beyond the pale;

3) One of the tactics that homosexual militants are using is to pressure corporations and politicians to distance themselves from allegedly “hateful” groups (read: groups that rightly condemn homosexual practice as sinful or disordered — yet changeable — behavior);

4) Encouraged by media sycophancy and a lack of press accountability that feeds their success, homosexual militants are now working overtime to sell the public on the absurd notion that groups like AFTAH that adhere to traditional, biblical teachings on homosexuality are the hateful equivalents of racist fringe groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis. This propaganda tactic gained significant traction when the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center – long known for exposing racist hate groups like the Klan – last year labeled AFTAH and other mainstream pro-family groups like the Family Research Council “hate” groups;

5) Predicated on such spurious analogies, the current “All Out” campaign against PayPal claims that groups like AFTAH foment violence against homosexuals. However, Americans For Truth has from its inception condemned violence and (real) hatred against homosexuals. We believe Christians should reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel truth, in the love of Christ. We believe that ALL people have dignity as human beings, but that persons should not be defined by immoral, unnatural – and changeable — sexual and gender behaviors;

6) AFTAH has condemned unbiblical and nasty messages like Fred Phelps’ (Westboro Baptist Church) “God Hates Fags.” And we have noted the contrast between Christians, who encourage men and women to abandon the homosexual lifestyle (as so many have) and “fundamentalist” Muslims who advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. (Not all Muslims hold this view.)

7) It is no longer advisable to laugh off, dismiss or ignore the activist homosexual/liberal lobby’s escalating campaign to demonize Christians and punish groups like Americans For Truth. That is because everyday Americans are being influenced by the liberal media, which enable groups like the SPLC and All Out by failing to call into question their preposterous analogies, lies and hateful smears against Christians. We must fight back with the Truth and engage our politically enemies in a dogged, “house-to-house” battle to preserve our liberties and our ability to operate freely in the public square. To do so, contact PayPal and see the “Take Action” steps at the top of this article.

Thank you for standing with Americans For Truth. God bless you.

 – Peter LaBarbera (americansfortruth@gmail.com)

Former British P.M. Tony Blair used state power to promote the acceptance of homosexuality in the U.K. He is now working to make Christianity "gay"-affirming.

By Peter LaBarbera

I was sent this must-watch CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) video by my friend Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn is backing a civil rights lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center against Attorney Gen. Eric Holder over the new homosexuality/transsexuality–inclusive “hate crimes” law. This video deserves wide circulation as a warning to America.

The Homosexual Activist Movement, aided and abetted by liberal straights, currently is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the United States. This is because homosexual radicals like lesbian Chai Feldblum (appointed by President Obama as a Commissioner on the E.E.O.C.) believe “gay rights” supersede Americans’ freedom to oppose homosexuality and gender confusion. To quote Feldblum, “Gays win, Christians lose” when the “zero-sum” game of “gay rights” versus religious freedom hits the courts.

More commentary follows the video below:

Already, we in the USA are seeing the same sort of persecution for opposing homosexuality as is occurring in Great Britain, only on a lesser scale. (See University of Illinois story over dismissed Catholic professor Kenneth Howell HERE.) It will only get worse if homosexuality- and transsexuality-based special “rights” are federalized under the proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”

(A Note on “Islamophobia”: the effort to push for acceptance of Islam — insofar as it becomes official government policy — is also a threat to liberty; however, unlike in the U.K., state punishment of “Islamophobia” in the United States has not reached a fever pitch. But isn’t it interesting how activist Muslims, who reject homosexuality as sinful and bemoan Western promotion of homosexuality, have nevertheless copied the manipulative “gay” tactic of accusing opponents of possessing an irrational “phobia”?)

Willow Creek “Leadership”?

Another key difference between the USA and Britain is that biblical Christianity is much more vibrant and common here, although of course its strength varies geographically. That is why homosexual activists are struggling to “re-interpret” the Word of God and turn it into a “gay”-affirming text. Given the crucial role that churches and pastors (should) have in maintaining our religious freedom, I have another question regarding the CBN video:

Are American churches up to the challenge of defending our precious liberty and their freedom to preach the truth about any sin, including homosexuality, uninhibited by the state?

I wonder, because here in Illinois, one very influential, trend-setting mega-church — Willow Creek Community Church, which holds annual “Leadership Summits” for pastors and Christian leaders — honored former British Prime Minister Tony Blair last year — the very same Tony Blair credited in this CBN video with ushering in a sweeping “gay rights” to the U.K. with its attendant anti-religious persecution.

Not only did Mr. Blair make Britain safe for same-sex immorality, as it were, but he helped establish a legal “anti-discrimination” system that led inexorably to Christians and moral-minded British citizens being investigated and even jailed for “anti-gay” discrimination. See this recent case of a Dale McAlpine, a British evangelist who was arrested for preaching against the sin of homosexuality (the charge against him was ultimately dropped).

As he revealed to British homosexual writer Johann Hari, Blair counts his pro-”gay rights” work as one of his singular achievements. This excerpt of Blair’s 2009 interview with Hari (in the British gay magazine Attitude) is telling:

Hari:  You are a very rare example of a person who is publicly very religious, and very pro-gay. Did you ever see a conflict between the two?

Blair: No. Not for me. Because I came to a religious faith through people who were themselves very much open and liberal on all these issues, and who would have regarded it as bizarre to have attitudes of hostility to gay people. I think it would have been, actually, the other way around. If in the end I’d felt that my religious faith was pulling me in an opposite direction, I’d have had real difficulties with it. I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour. And one of the things I do through my Foundation, through trying to bring different religious faiths together, to show how, actually, there is a huge common space around these values between the different religious faiths.

Like Obama, Blair conveniently ignores or dismisses biblical texts that might interfere with the noble sense of good that he associates with affirming homosexuality and “equal rights” based on same. Blair, a Catholic convert, once even lectured the pope on the latter’s “entrenched” attitudes about homosexuality.

Tony Blair was a featured speaker (by video) at Willow Creek's 2009 "Leadership Summit." Click on graphic to enlarge. The above is the cover of a DVD of the Summit (see Blair photo at bottom) available on Amazon.com.

Is this the kind of “leadership” that Willow Creek and its charismatic pastor Bill Hybels hope to spread throughout American Christendom, and the world? Blair with his New Age-ish brand of (c)hristianity certainly has “led” on homosexual rights — but doesn’t that mean that he utterly failed to model godly, biblical leadership? Would Hybels agree? Once again it’s that pesky homosexual issue — if we publicly agree with the God of the Bible on this issue, there is a price to pay in worldly fame — one apparently too great for many who still claim the mantle of moral leadership. Just ask Rick Warren, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger, or Tony Blair.

I have not seen Hybels’ 2009 Willow Creek “Leadership Summit” interview with Blair, but I would be surprised if there were any queries about Blair’s enthusiastic state promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” (the very opposite of God-given liberties) — or his campaign to synthesize his socially liberal views on sex and marriage with the historic Christian faith. Clearly, Blair was honored by Willow Creek, and Christians and lovers of religious and moral freedom everywhere have the right to ask: why?

As AFTAH readers know, in 2008 this writer and another pro-family advocate picketed Willow Creek church after its leadership agreed to meet with the homosexual activist group Soulforce. (Would WCCC also meet with pro-pornography activists demanding a meeting?) At issue is the nature of Willow Creek’s and Hybels’ “leadership” in Christian circles. It should be remembered that Willow Creek rejected numerous high-level requests to actively assist the 2006 “Protect Marriage Illinois” campaign to place a statewide referendum affirming traditional marriage on the Illinois ballot .

We will be doing more examinations into just what kind of leadership WCCC is exerting — as well as that of the larger evangelical Church — in the cultural sphere of sexual sin and marriage.

______________________________

CBN YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZVlh3U-kc

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

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

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

By Peter LaBarbera

Dear Readers,

Imagine this nightmare scenario: four days ago, your family received a letter out of the blue from a homosexual activist organization notifying you, in “respectful” language, that your family is the target of a protest. Upset that you sent money to support Proposition 8 in California — reinstating marriage as between a man and a woman — the “gay” group informs you that about ten homosexual couples will show up on the sidewalk in front of your house on July 22nd (today) at 5:00 PM and engage in prolonged same-sex kissing with each other.

Wielding their public deviance as a political tool, the militant “gay” protesters call their event a “kiss-in” — knowing that you regard their homosexual behavior as unnatural and immoral, that it makes you extremely uncomfortable, and that it will embarrass you in front of your neighbors (and the media, whom they called in). Nevertheless, they assure you that they “respect” you and your religion and that they are happy to engage in “dialogue” with you in between their lip-locking acts of homoerotic defiance.

Well, your nightmare is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ (LDS) reality as they face another homosexual “kiss-in” protest at their San Diego temple this evening. After reading the Associated Press story about the San Diego “kiss-in” on the “gay” news site “355Gay.com,” I posted the following comment responding to it:

Homosexual activists are the ultimate hypocrites when it comes to “tolerance.” You see nothing wrong with offending the religious sentiments and moral beliefs of Mormons with your obnoxious “kiss-in” outside an LDS temple. Then you cry foul when religious people offend you with their heartfelt beliefs that same-sex “marriage” is wrong. The only good that comes from your incessant religion bashing is that it reveals your true hatred for traditionalists to the wider public. Stop lying by telling Americans that your “respect” their faith teachings and the right to live them out in the public square. You clearly do not.

Going to the “Empowering Spirits Foundation” website, I found this incomprehensibly self-serving description of their homosexuality-celebrating “kiss-in”:

This is to be a peaceful rally to encourage dialogue between LDS [Mormon] officials and those seeking equal rights. Love unites, and we will join together to not only display our endless support for equality, but for those with differing opinions, including the LDS church. We’ve also invited officials from the Mormon Church to engage in dialogue with us through this letter.

Please refrain from any profanity during the protest and do not bring signs that demean any religious organization, including the LDS church.

Orwellian “dialogue”

Let’s deconstruct the Empowering Spirits’ Orwellian Gayspeak. They are rubbing their perversion in the face of a church in the name of “respectful dialogue.” “Don’t offend the Mormon church by swearing,” they say, as though they truly respect the Mormons’ morality, “but it’s fine to flaunt your homosexual behavior outside their temple even though LDS teachings regard homosexual acts as sinful … Because it’s all about “dialogue,” you know.”

The poor “gay” activists are totally caught up in their own self-righteous delusion that their cause somehow approximates a “civil rights” movement. Yes, they even seem to believe that their homo-fascist stunts are “respectful” toward their targeted victims. And they are so convinced that their misguided goal of legalizing homosexual “marriage” is noble that they employ a crude ends-justifies-the-means approach to everything, including harassing a church.

Definition of marriage is ‘trivial’?

In this portion of a letter sent to LDS President Thomas Monson just three days before the scheduled “kiss-in,” Empowering Spirits Executive Director A Latham Staples characterizes the LDS teaching on marriage as a mere “pious triviality”:

Surely by now, the Church understands the value of teaching tolerance…Differing sides may not always agree, but we must not focus on pious trivialities as this corrupts our society.

Preserving the age-old definition of marriage as a “pious triviality”? This isn’t respect. It’s contempt. It’s not “dialogue” but coercion. Call it Perversion Coercion, it you will, and the goal is to intimidate religious people and churches into submission. And ex-”gay” Christian activist James Hartline has it right when he says that Empowering Spirits would never try to pull a “kiss-in” stunt like this in front of a mosque. That might upset the preposterous “gay-Muslim” alliance that will disintegrate when everyday adherents of Islam realize that the Homosexual Lobby despises their religion, too — or at least the part that teaches that homosexual acts are always wrong.

Here’s the AP story (which reads more like a “gay” press release) in 365Gay.com, followed by the posted comments as of last night, in which some react with a four-letter cuss word to express their attitude toward the Mormons’ defense of natural marriage:

___________________________

San Diego group plans ‘kiss-in’ at Mormon temple
By The Associated Press
07.21.2009 1:33pm EDT

(Salt Lake City) A gay rights group plans to stage a mass kissing demonstration outside the San Diego Mormon temple as a show of support for a gay couple cited for trespassing in Utah after sharing a kiss on church property.

The Empowering Spirits Foundation says the “kiss-in” is intended as a peaceful rally to encourage dialogue between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the gay community.

The event is scheduled for Wednesday evening at the temple near La Jolla, Calif.

It would be the third kissing demonstration held since Matt Aune and Derek Jones were cited for trespassing on the church-owned Main Street Plaza on July 9 in Salt Lake City.

The couple refused to leave the plaza when security guards who saw the kiss said the behavior was inappropriate.

___________________________

Posted Comments (expletives cleaned up by AFTAH):

* Samantha said (July 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm):

Good for them!

* Lorion said (July 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm):

Go for it. ..and do make it a community ‘even’t ALL couples invited.

* Peter said (July 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm):

Let’s see EVERY POSSIBLE COMBO in that crowd – kissing till the cows come home!!!!

* Allan said (July 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm):

I’ve come across this letter from the organization holding the rally to the church, which I think fully describes the intent of the rally. It’s a peaceful rally to encourage dialogue with the church, not a protest. I must admit that A. Latham Staples is very eloquent in his attempt to engage in conversation with LDS officials.

http://www.empoweringspirits.org/PRDocServer/LDS_Unity_Rally_072009.pdf

* Michael said (July 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm):

This is awesome. I always thought it would be really fun to do something like this on the one day a year the temples open to the public for tours. Have gays and lesbians walk through as couples and hold hands etc. [F**k] the mormons. They suck.

* Matteo said (July 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm):

@ michael: don’t you see that saying “[f**k] the mormons, they suck” is just as ignorant and ultimately pointless as people on forums who say “[f**k] the gays, they suck.”

Sure, as we eventually progress to equal rights, we shouldn’t snub groups that are routinely hostile to people who identify as LGBT. We should be the bigger men and women and progress graciously. We should certainly be as open-minded, honest, and positive as (a) we would like people to be with us and (b) the doctrine of the people who seek to halt our rights.

The letter written by the people who are organizing this event reflect those sentiments and I believe progress will be made faster and less hatred will be felt on all sides the more we keep our hearts and minds open.

Ultimately we are working for the open inclusion, freedom, dignity and rights for everyone prescribed by our constitution, are we not?

Hatred can’t be defeated by hatred, nor fire deflected with more fire. Heaping more fire onto the pile will just cause everything to burn together.

* Jay said (July 21st, 2009 at 5:09 pm):

Good. We need more direct action. We have been too passive too long. Too many of us are too comfortable in the back of the bus. We need to stand up for our rights more aggressively.

* John said (July 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm):

Well said Matteo! The GLBT community needs to take the high road, where there is less traffic.

Calling people names does not change minds and will not win the P.R. battle for these civil rights.

For many Mormons, this was simply a trespassing/private property issue. For GLBT people this was about equal treatment, respect and fairness.

If we just yell and scream at each other, we might feel better in the short term, but in the long term we won’t get to where we way we want to go.

If you want love and respect, you need to give love and respect.

* Porter said (July 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm):

This is good news thats what this world is lacking love it the only thing thats universal and it wont be denied !!

* Gary A. said (July 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm):

I second thaat, [F**K] THE MORMANS, THEY SUCK

* John said (July 21st, 2009 at 9:18 pm):

Ditto what Michael says: [F**K] THE MORMONS!

___________________________

I found this highly informative article from FrontPageMg.com in a quick web search after reading that the U.S. Embassy in Iraq (under the Obama presidency) will be hosting its first-ever “Gay Pride” party tonight, May 29th, 2009.  President Obama’s “lavender diplomacy” is the latest embarrassment for the United States of America abroad — as we showcase our decadent values and give everyday Muslims in the Arab world another reason to hate the U.S.  Once again homosexual activists put their desires and “rights” ahead of the country’s national interest with this party that rubs our “gay pride” in the face of a people whose religion teaches that homosexual acts are shameful. Change, indeed. — Peter LaBarbera

P.S.  Other AFTAH articles dealing with Christianity, Islam and homosexuality:

• Small-c ‘christianity’ Cowers Before the H Lobby
• Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, Evangelicals and Hindus Unite Against Hamtramck [MI] Gay-rights Ordinance
• Stoning Homosexuals: Which Is The Real Voice of Hatred? [difference between tradition Christianity and radical Islam on homosexuality]

_______________________________________

Emphasis added below:

WWW.FRONTPAGEMG.COM

Islam’s Love-Hate Relationship with Homosexuality

By: Serge Trifkovic, January 24, 2003

On the one hand, Islam officially condemns homosexuality. But there is also a reason that the Moslem world enjoyed a reputation as a haven for sex with boys and men well into the twentieth century. . .

One in a series of excerpts adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s book: The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam [order from Amazon HERE]

“This sin, the impact of which makes one’s skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul… The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin.” (1)

There are many sins in Islam that may fit this description, from idolatry, atheism, and apostasy, to drunkenness, adultery, and questioning the divine origin of the Koran. In this particular instance it refers to homosexuality, for which a death sentence remains on the statute books and is enforced in several Islamic countries.

In Saudi Arabia on April 16, 2001, five homosexuals were sentenced to 2,600 lashes and 6 years in prison, and four others to 2,400 lashes and 5 years’ imprisonment for “deviant sexual behavior.” Amnesty International subsequently reported that six men were executed on charges of deviant sexual behavior, some of which were related to their sexual orientation, but it was uncertain whether the six men who were executed were among the nine who were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment in April (2).

It is difficult to establish precisely the number of homosexuals that have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, since not all sentences are widely publicized, but estimates range from several hundred to 4,000 (3).  According to Amnesty International, at least three homosexual men and two lesbians were publicly beheaded in January 1990. The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals, approved in July 1991 and ratified in November of that year, is simple. Article 110: “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing.” Article 129: “Punishment for lesbianism is one hundred (100) lashes for each party.” Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”

While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals. Islamic jurists in Kabul and Kandahar only differed on the method of killing. One group of scholars believed the condemned should be taken to the top of the highest building in the city and hurled to their deaths, while others advocated placing them in a pit next to a wall which was to be toppled on them, so that they are buried alive. Both methods were solidly grounded in authoritative tradition, and both were applied. At least five men convicted of sodomy by Afghanistan’s sharia courts had been “placed next to walls by Taliban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them.” In one such incident, three homosexuals were punished thus while Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar watched along with thousands of spectators. After the 30-minute waiting period, the three men were still alive, but two died the next day. What became of the third is unknown (4).  The punishment by stoning is derived from the Koranic account of Sodom’s destruction by a “rain of stones,” which was itself the product of Mohammed’s misunderstanding of the Hebrew story of “fire and brimstone,” i.e. sulfur:

“We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” But We saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (5)

The Koranic claim that homosexuality was unknown before it first appeared in Sodom is a uniquely Islamic concept; so is the notion that its destruction was exclusively due to the homosexual practices of its inhabitants, a departure from the Hebrew Scriptures. In addition to the Koran many hadiths or authoritative traditional sayings mention liwat, (homosexual intercourse) e.g. “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to (6).”  Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.” Later it was decided that if no building were tall enough, the he could be shoved off a cliff. Regardless of the exact method,

“Moslem Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However, jurists differ on the methodology of capital punishment (7).”

There are seven countries in the world that carry the death penalty for homosexual acts, and all of them justify this punishment with sharia.

In Moslem nations, the suppression of liaison between men and women outside prearranged wedlock has produced frustrated sexual tension that has sought and found release in homosexual intercourse through the centuries. Those denied access to licit sexuality have sought and obtained outlets that have produced chronic contradiction between normative morality and social realities. Male and female prostitution and same-sex practices — including abuse of young boys by their older male relatives — have been rampant in Islamic societies from the medieval to the modern period. It should be emphasized that those societies stress a distinction between the sexual act itself, which was deemed acceptable, and emotional attachment, which was unpardonable:

“Sexual relations in Middle Eastern societies have historically articulated social hierarchies, that is, dominant and subordinate social positions: adult men on top; women, boys and slaves below (8).”

A Moslem who is the active partner in sexual relations with other men is not considered a “homosexual” (the word has no pre-modern Arabic equivalent); quite the contrary, his sexual domination of another man may even confer a status of hyper-masculinity. He may use other men as substitutes for women, and at the same time have great contempt for them.  This depraved view of sex, common in mainstream Moslem societies, is commonly found in the West only in prisons. In all cases it is the presence of love, affection, or equality among sexual partners that is intolerable. Equality in sexual relations is unimaginable in Islam, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Sex in Islamic societies has never been about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male’s achievement of pleasure through domination.

Historically, this state of affairs was not concealed from Western observers who were fascinated, shocked, and often attracted by the outward appearances of rampant, barely concealed pederasty. By 1800, a European traveler to Egypt wrote:

“The inconceivable inclination which has dishonored the Greeks and Persians of antiquity constitutes the delight, or, more properly speaking the infamy of the Egyptians … the contagion has seized the poor as well as the rich.”

The “contagion” in question was spelled out more bluntly by an earlier writer, Thomas Sherley, describing the Turks:

“For their Sodommerye they use it soe publiquely and impudentlye as an honest Christian woulde shame to companye his wyffe as they do with their buggeringe boys (9).”

A 17th century French visitor to the Middle East went so far as to claim that Moslems were bisexual by nature, and many male authors gave descriptions of “licentiousness” (lesbianism) among women in harems and bath houses. Homosexuality became known to the English as the “Persian” or “Turkish” vice.

This peculiar aspect of the Middle East has never entirely disappeared. The sight of men, even soldiers in uniform, strolling along a street hand in hand, strikes first-time visitors as extraordinary even today. The Moslem world enjoyed a reputation as a haven for sex with boys and men well into the twentieth century. The proclivities of many Western authors like Gustave Flaubert, Oscar Wilde, or Andre Gide, reflected the pederast and homosexual attractions of the Islamic world; the fascination continues in the “gay culture” of our own time:

But the bottom line – and it’s coming from a devout bottom – is that there’s still something extremely sensual and potent about the image of the Islamic male. You only have to compare the stiff, asexual frigidity of Bush and his bookmarmish wife with the moist-eyed, sensitive and soft-spoken quality of the bearded Bin Laden, feminine yet virile, with his multiple wives and vast progeny, to grasp the difference (10).

The author of this passage, a self-confessed promiscuous homosexual, has intuited something important, and dangerous. Excessively doting, downtrodden mothers fixated on their offspring, and aloof, mostly distant and domineering fathers, create preconditions for what is known in clinical psychology as the “lost object homosexuality,” as opposed to the pre-Oedipal polyformous homosexuality, which is “love for men.” The cry for the missing father, that emanates across the Moslem world into the endless void from a hundred thousand minarets five times each day, can never be answered. The hatred that motivates Bin Laden and his “feminine yet virile” followers is not the normal aggressiveness of the child for the father at the Oedipal stage, which can be mediated and managed, but hard-core psychotic homosexuality of the son abandoned by his father, a near-incurable condition that can lead to homicidal, delusional paranoia.

This condition is well known to the practitioners of clinical psychology and psychoanalysis in Great Britain, where thousands of sons of upper and upper-middle-class families end up in neo-Islamic establishments known as Public Schools. It is not too far-fetched to conclude that British Islamophilia under Disraeli and after was not merely due to the usual game of balancing the powers:

“I sometimes wonder if there is not some horrifying attraction, especially for English boys brought up in a public school, to the brutal manliness that regards sodomitic rape as an expression of virility. In any event, a series of Anglo-Saxon males who have gone in search of their manhood found it in Islamic culture: Sir Richard Burton, T.E. Lawrence, and Pasha Club are at the head of a large pack, whose rear is brought up by the academic camp-followers and foundation executives who find, in their defense of Islam, the excuse for their hatred of Jews (11).”

Men and women have been created different, and the recognition of those differences is essential in any society that does not want to follow the path of post-modern depravity. The denial of that difference is essential in the Faustian experiment to which the West is subjecting itself, and those who do not wish to partake in the proceedings may find Islam’s frank admission of difference between sexes alluring; but that is the lure of dementia as the cure for cancer.  Islam has found the opposite extreme of the modern West’s bed-hopping unisex feminism, and has found it equally a source of opposite, though equally poisonous, pathologies.  The traditional Western view, a balance between sexual equality and sexual difference, between freedom and restraint, is the best answer.  Islam’s problem of homosexuality, a reflection of the deeper psychosis endemic to the Islamic world view, illustrates a problem that cannot be solved short of Islam’s thorough and comprehensive reform and revision.

____________________________________

Footnotes:

1. Dr. Abdul Aziz Al-Fawzan, The Evil Sin of Homosexuality http://www.islamweb.net/english/family/sociaffair/socaff-84.html

2. Associated Press, April 16, 2001.

3. http://www.iranian.com/Letters/1999/September/gay.html

4. Amnesty International report, May 1998

5. 7:80-84

6. Further examples are listed at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm

7. http://www.jamaat.org/qa/homo.html

8. Bruce Dunne, “Power and Sexuality in the Middle East,” Middle East Report, Spring 1998.

9. Brian Whitaker in The Guardian, November 19, 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4302213,00.html

10. http://www.brucelabruce.com/Moslem/right.html

11. Th. Fleming, Chronicles (1999), op. cit.

Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles.

Gosh, I think Jesus Christ might be reconsidering his endorsement of the divine institution of marriage now that actor Jack Black (playing Jesus in the blasphemous video below) thinks it’s wrong to prevent two guys from getting hitched. I mean, after all, Black is the star of “School of Rock”; what greater cultural authority do we need than that? (Oh, I forgot: Ellen DeGeneres is also mad at Prop 8 — well that settles it: God is wrong!)

Here we have anti-religious bigotry and Hollywood snobbery at its worst. There are a lot of things funnier than this video, but one of them is the idea that a bunch of spoiled Hollywood actors have any moral authority on right vs. wrong, Christian truth, marriage, etc.  Note how money (alleged “gay” tourist $$$ for homosexual “weddings”) tops transcendent morality in the video. We’ll deal with the silly shellfish canard later. — Peter LaBarbera

If the GOP or any party wants to reach minority and religious voters, it might consider the defeat of “gay rights” in Hamtramck, Mich. Here, Muslims and Catholics gather for meeting to defeat the Detroit suburb’s “sexual oriention/gender identity” law. The multi-ethnic coalition rejected the homosexual measure by 55-45 percent — even though 87 percent of Hamtramck citizens voted for Barack Obama. (Did they know Obama favors enacting a federal version of the “gay/transgender” law?)

Election Results from Hamtramck, Michigan:

President

Obama: 4,945
McCain: 708

Obama wins with 87% of vote

Hamtramck “Gay Rights” Ordinance

YES: 2,333
NO: 2,903

Pro-family coalition defeats “gay” agenda by 55-45%

Dear AFTAH Readers,
Pro-family initiatives swept to victory Tuesday in all five ballot initiatives opposing the homosexual activist agenda: the three marriage-defense amendments in California, Florida and Arizona; a ballot measure in Arkansas banning adoption by unmarried couples; and the grassroots, pro-family rejection of a Hamtramck, Mich. homosexual/transgender ordinance, as reported below.

Said Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan: “California voted overwhelmingly Democratic and at the same time voted to constitutionally protect one-man, one-woman marriage, with minority voters overwhelmingly supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.  In Hamtramck, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, residents voted nearly 90 percent for Barak Obama, while rejecting a so-called “gay rights” ordinance by a 10-point margin.

“As the Republican Party’s braintrust starts casting about for issues consistent with their party’s values that appeal to minorities and Democrats, perhaps they’ll choose to embrace — rather than keep running away from — the issue of stopping the threat that the homosexual activists’ political agenda poses to marriage, traditional family values and religious freedom,” Glenn said.

___________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tues., Nov. 4, 2008

CONTACT:   Gary Glenn through www.afamichigan.org

Hamtramck voters reject “gay rights” ordinance

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — A statewide family values organization Tuesday congratulated a multicultural coalition of Hamtramck citizens on their successful campaign to reject a so-called “gay rights” ordinance that would have established special “protected class” status on the basis of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Voters rejected the ordinance by a vote of 2,903 to 2,333, a 55-to-45 percent margin of victory identical to the percentage by which Hamtramck voters approved Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004.

Gary Glenn, Midland, co-author of that amendment and president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said Hamtramck voters “once again defeated homosexual activists ‘special rights’ agenda by soundly rejecting this discriminatory ordinance.”

“AFA-Michigan congratulates the diverse and multicultural citizens coalition that stood in defense of traditional family values, religious freedom, and the privacy rights of women and children,” Glenn said.

He noted the campaign was highlighted by a rally at which three Catholic priests and six Muslim imams spoke out against the proposed ordinance.

“We salute Father Andy Wesley for his courage and leadership in being the first to stand against this discriminatory ordinance at a time when the city’s political establishment and news media were intent on demonizing and caricaturing anyone who dared oppose homosexual activists’ fraudulent ‘rights’ agenda,” Glenn said. “In the end, voters had the last word, standing with Fr. Wesley and repudiating the mayor and city council and the local newspaper.”

Glenn said in other jurisdictions that have adopted such ordinances, the language has been used to penalize and discriminate against Catholic Charities, the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, and other groups and individuals who refuse to endorse homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.  Such ordinances have also been used to allow men who dress as women to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms in schools and shopping centes and other public buildings.

AFA-Michigan last summer drafted the citizens petition required to force the ordinance onto the ballot and recruited Wesley and others to launch the successful petition drive which did so.  The group’s national affiliate, the American Family Association, donated $5,000 to the local citizens committee that opposed the ordinance, Hamtramck Citizens Voting No to Special Rights Discrimination.

The organization later exposed to the media Hamtramck city officials’ attempt to confuse voters by wording the ballot question in such a way that opponents of the ordinance would have been forced to vote ‘yes.’  As a result, officials were forced by the secretary of state’s office to reverse the ballot question’s wording.

Glenn also said the defeat of the ordinance would not have been possible without the efforts of campaign manager Jay McNally, a Catholic activist who commuted from Ypsilanti to manage the winning campaign, and the Thomas More Law Center, which provided legal counsel to the campaign and a regular speaker at campaign rallies, attorney Brian Rooney.

# # #

http://www.hamtramck.org/family/

Click on photo to enlarge. Opposition to homosexuality- and gender-confusion-based “sexual orientation” laws is something that all committed religious people can agree on — because these laws invariably oppress religious people’s freedom to live out their beliefs. At right is multi-religious, multi-ethnic rally held Oct. 12 in Hamtramck, Michigan against a proposed “gender identity”-inclusive homosexual law.

Press Release
Contacts: Jay McNally: 734 717-1174; Fr. Andrew Wesley: 313 892-1310;
Akm Rahman: 313 293-7343; e-mail:  HamtramckFamily@gmail.com

Dear Readers,

It always strikes me as odd to see homosexual activists aligning themselves with American Muslims, who oppose homosexual practice as sinful in accordance with the religion, like faithful Christians and Bible-believing Jews. These photos from a rally in Hamtramck, Michigan reflect the appropriate political/sociological equation against homosexual activism: religious people (and moral people who are irreligious) cannot abide “rights” based on same-sex misbehavior (sin). In fact, as we’re seeing in California (where Christian doctors will now be forced to perform artificial inseminations for lesbians) and across the nation, the very outworking of government-enforced homosexuality-based “rights” is to oppress religious freedom.

Americans will have to decide whether creating aberrant-sex- and gender-confusion-based “rights” — including “same-sex marriage” and its cowardly cousin, “civil unions” — is worth trampling on the historic religious and First Amendment freedoms that have defined the American republic since its beginning.  –Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here is the Hamtramck Citizens Opposing “Special Rights” press release put out before the rally; under that is an article on the coalition’s website explaining the coalition’s position:

__________________________________________________

Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Hamtramck Gay-rights Ordinance at campaign rally

HAMTRAMCK (Oct. 10) – Nearly a dozen religious leaders in the City of Hamtramck and a nationally prominent lawyer will speak at a campaign kick-off rally for the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination.

The rally will be held Sunday, Oct. 12th, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 9632 Conant St. Admission is free.

The speakers will all urge a NO vote on the Nov. 4 referendum concerning the city’s new ordinance that provides special protection to people based on sexual identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
The ordinance provides no new rights for anyone except for homosexuals, as all other rights are covered by state and federal law.

Speakers will explain – in Arabic, Bengali, English and Polish — why the controversial ordinance is a threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

The keynote speaker will be Brian Rooney, attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and legal expert on discriminatory “gay rights” legislation.

Below is a list of speakers scheduled…

Government officials:

•      Abdul Algazali, City Councilman.

Religious leaders (the imams represent various ethnic communities – Yemeni, Bosnian and Bengali}:

•      Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.

•      Najim A. Quddus, imam of the Al Islah Islamic Center in Hamtramck.

•      Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.

•      Rev. Dharmananda Bikkhu, Budhist monk and founder of the International Peace Community in Hamtramck.

•      Showrob Chudhury, secretary of the Hindu community in Hamtramck.

•      Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.

•      Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.

•      Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.

•      Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.

•      Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.

•      Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque

Community leaders:

Several community leaders will also speak, including Akm Rahman, community leader and co-chair of Hamtramck Citizens Voting No.

•      Kamal Rahman, community activist.

•      Roberts Zwolak, former city councilman and city clerk.

•      Gregory Kirchner, businessman and Polish community leader.

•      Mohammed Delaware Hussein, community leader. …

The group’s Web site is www.hamtramck.org/family.

==== 30 ===

———————————————-

Below is an article on the website of Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination:

Why Hamtramck’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” ordinance a
threat to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s privacy rights.

In the 2004 election, 55 percent of Hamtramck voters voted in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution, helping preserve one-man, one-woman marriage for future generations of children.

But in June 2008, by a 6-to-1 vote of its politically correct city council, Hamtramck is now among the handful of cities in Michigan whose local ordinances – in conflict with federal and state law – treat homosexual behavior and cross-dressing as the moral, social, and legal equivalents of immutable characteristics such as race, color, and sex.

Obviously, many Hamtramck residents reject that comparison — based on religious, medical, and philosophical concerns.

For example, a compassionate society that rationally discourages smoking because of the clearly identified health consequences should not irrationally enact laws giving special protection to homosexual behavior that has been scientifically associated with a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, eating disorders, life-threatening disease — AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — and premature death by up to 20 years.

The Vatican expressed similar concerns in a 1992 letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church – authored by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI – regarding legislation to “Tmake discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal,” which according to Ratzinger, “may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.”

“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.  “’Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”

“Including ‘homosexual orientation’ among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate,” Ratzinger wrote, “can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights…(and)…to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”

The American Family Association of Michigan strongly agrees.  However, the practical effects of such legislation extend beyond medical or religious concerns.

Proving to have exactly the opposite effect of their supposed intent, so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances have a track record of being used to discriminate against individuals and organizations who don’t support homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Detective Richard Stern, a fifteen-year veteran and president of the Ann Arbor police officers union, was fired after the chairman of the city’s “rights commission” formally accused him of violating that city’s “sexual orientation” ordinance.  Stern’s offense?  On behalf of his union, in a public forum for police chief candidates, he “was accused of saying that one of the candidates had a gay-rights agenda,” according to Between the Lines, a Detroit homosexual advocacy newsmagazine.

“Stern’s comments were clearly in violation of a human rights ordinance that includes sexual orientation,” the newsmagazine commented, making clear that homosexual activists believe so-called “sexual orientation” ordinances outweigh our Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights.  Stern’s union disagreed, charging in a lawsuit that he was “illegally and discriminatorily” discharged by the city.

Also in Ann Arbor, the city council – once again specifically citing its discriminatory “sexual orientation” ordinance — banned donations to the United Way through city employees’ payroll deduction plan.  Why?  Because the United Way financially supported local Boy Scout troops, which appropriately refuse to allow adult males who engage in homosexual behavior to take 13-year old boys on overnight camping trips.

“A council majority believes its own anti-discrimination ordinance prohibits it from supporting Boy Scouts in any fashion, including using staff time and city computers for payroll deductions that go through the United Way to the Boy Scouts,” the Ann Arbor News reported.

In an Ann Arbor News commentary supporting the city council’s action, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said the Boy Scouts’ stand made them comparable to “white supremacist groups.”

Similarly, the homosexual activist group Triangle Foundation threatened to sue the city of Detroit, demanding that city officials cut all funding of local Boy Scout troops, deny the Scouts access to public parks and facilities, and prohibit sponsorship of Scout activities by the police and fire departments, the Detroit News reported.  The Scouts’ refusal to allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters, Triangle charged, “is in direct violation of the City Charter and Human Rights Ordinance…(that) expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

In Philadelphia, under authority of its “sexual orientation” ordinance, the city is currently evicting the local Boy Scout council from offices it has occupied in a city park for nearly 80 years.

In Chicago, Cook County officials refused to hire the Salvation Army to deliver services to low-income residents, saying “the county’s ordinance banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians bars it from contracting with the Salvation Army,” a traditional Christian denomination whose religious doctrine teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Under Massachusetts’ “sexual orientation” law, Catholic Charities was given an ultimatum: either agree to process adoptions of children to homosexual couples in violation of the church’s moral opposition to such adoptions, or abandon its century-old adoption referral service altogether.  To its credit, Catholic Charities chose the latter.

The “sexual orientation” language now included in the Hamtramck ordinance is disturbing even beyond its proven discriminatory effects in other cities.

The Oakland Press reported in March 2005: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies.  ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class.  He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”
Not content with adding the discriminatory “sexual orientation” language to city law, homosexual activists and their political allies succeeded in adding the words “gender identity” as well.

Simply put, “gender identity” refers to delusional men who claim to believe they’re really females stuck in a man’s body and insist on wearing a dress and high heels to work.

This “gender identity” language is so radical in its potential effects that even openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., refuses to include it in his federal “gay rights” legislation.

Rep. Frank said: “There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress.  I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Don’t take Barney’s word for it?  Consider the case of “Naomi Snyder,” a Lansing man who applied through the mail – using a female name – for membership at a women’s health club.  His membership approved, he showed up in person, and being obviously a man, was refused entry to the women’s locker room and shower.  According to Between the Lines, the Michigan ACLU threatened to sue for “discrimination,” but Lansing voters in a 1996 ballot vote had wisely rejected adding “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” to their local civil rights ordinance; thus, there was no legal basis for the threatened suit.  But in Hamtramck, now, there would be.

Thankfully, Hamtramck residents who want to protect the privacy of women and girls and prevent discrimination against people of faith and community groups such as the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and the United Way can by law conduct a petition drive to force this issue onto the ballot for a vote of the people.  On behalf of our supporters who reside in the city, the American Family Association of Michigan stands ready to assist in any way we can.