Admitted homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker

By J. Matt Barber

Proposition 8 is an amendment to California’s State Constitution. It was passed by a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008. Prop 8 maintained the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring binary male-female compatibility. It remains tied-up in Federal Court today.  

Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle. It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.

With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.

Federal law is clear. The code of judicial conduct requires that a judge step down from a case if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or when he “has a financial … or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”

By manufacturing from thin air a Constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage” – something the Framers of the US Constitution could not have conceptualized, much less endorsed – Judge Walker abused his position on the bench to create for himself a new privilege that he previously did not possess. It’s undeniable that he had an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” 

Stemming from his own bizarre and contrived legal findings in the case, Judge Walker’s ruling made it possible for both he and his male sexual partner to “marry.” Prior to his ruling he could not. Subsequent to his ruling – and if the ruling is upheld – he could. This is not opinion. It’s an objective matter of fact. Judge Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily gave himself a newfangled “right.”

Furthermore, the U.S. Code, Section 455 (a) states: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” U.S.C. Section 455 (b) (1) also states that a judge must be disqualified if he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”

No reasonable person can deny that Judge Walker held a “personal bias” as his decision directly affected him on a very personal level.

A few proponents of so-called “gay marriage” have slapped me in the face with the following red herring: “Why, using your logic a heterosexual judge would also have to recuse himself. No judge could ever preside over a case involving same-sex ‘marriage.’”

This is apples-to-oranges nonsense. On a case concerning the novel question of radically redefining marriage to include same-sex pairs, a heterosexual judge, by definition, would not possess a personal “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” A heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requires under such circumstances.    

By analogy, if a Federal Judge were presiding over a case to determine the merits of a new gambling law, and that judge happened to have a gambling addiction, law would require that he recuse himself due to a clear conflict of interest. At a minimum, “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Or consider an instance where a judge crossed state lines to legally use medical marijuana for cancer treatment. If he were later presented with a case covering issues related to the legality of medical marijuana, he would necessarily be disqualified and also expected to recuse himself.

An honorable man – an honorable judge must step down from any case where there is even the remote appearance of a conflict. In Judge Walker’s situation, the conflict proved to be absolute.

His was the textbook example of a conflict requiring recusal. It’s now the textbook example of judicial activism. This outrageous decision must be vacated and attorneys defending Prop 8 should immediately file a motion to that effect. 

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. Barber is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.  Facebook/jmattbarber / Twitter/@jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Ken Mehlman

TAKE ACTION: If you are a Republican, call or write the RNC (info@gop.com or call 202-863-8500) and tell them that you oppose the promotion of homosexuality and that you will not give to the party if it continues to do so. If you are a Democrat, urge your party here and encourage your representatives to stop supporting President Obama’s agenda of homosexualizing the U.S. miliary and overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

By Peter LaBarbera

The Republican Party has a big and growing  ”gay” problem. It is slowly going pro-homosexual even as GOP leaders continue to advertise theirs as the party of “family values.” Just one more reason why so many grassroots conservatives who regularly vote Republican call the GOP “The Stupid Party.”

The latest GOP hypocrisy: Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s congratulatory words for former RNC chief Ken Mehlman, who has confirmed longstanding rumors that he (Mehlman) is a practicing homosexual.

The Washington Post reports that Steele said this about Mehlman’s “coming out”:

‘I am happy for Ken,’ Steele said. ‘His announcement, often a very difficult decision which is only compounded when done on the public stage, reaffirms for me why we are friends and why I respect him personally and professionally.’”

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

Why couldn’t Mr. Steele just have kept quiet about this tragic revelation by which another sexually confused man seeks to rationalize his misbehavior (sin) by declaring homosexuality part of his inherent being? Nope, instead, like a three-year-old boy approaching a puddle, Steele just had to step in it. Pro-family writer Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute observed:

So, Steele is “happy” that Mehlman is homosexual and/or happy that he is public about it? Why would he be happy for a friend embracing immoral and dangerous practices or for a friend being public about his embrace of immorality? And why does he respect him for his “difficult” decision to announce his immorality publicly? What fecklessness or cowardice Steele’s comment demonstrates. And this from the leader of the Republican Party…

Now let’s examine whether Mehlman deserves our respect, per Steele’s comments. In a piece highly sympathetic to the former RNC boss (the media largely view homosexual identification as a good thing detached from moral considerations), Atlantic Monthly reports:

Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush “was no homophobe.”

So, we learn that Mehlman used his tremendous influence within the Republican Party to undermine the GOP’s clear platform language in support of preserving traditional marriage. All the while rank-and-file Republican Joe’s and Jane’s were assuming that the RNC leader was standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. Mr. Mehlman has just proved: 1) why homosexual activism should be kept out of the Republican Party, since it undermines core conservative values supported overwhelmingly by the GOP grassroots; and 2) why secret homosexuals working within the GOP against the Republican platform should be exposed.

Atlantic Monthy — which calls Mehlman “the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay” — tips its hat to homosexual “outing” activist Mike Rogers by pointing out that Rogers previously had sought to “out” Mehlman:

Mehlman, who has never married, long found his sexuality subject to rumor and innuendo. He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager. Rogers’s crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig’s sexual orientation well before Craig’s incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party’s activist circles.

Indeed, the former Republican chief is just one of several political VIPs whose homosexuality Rogers correctly exposed — giving added credence to Rogers’ accusations against his latest target, Illinois Republican and U.S. Senate hopeful Rep. Mark Kirk. Here is a piece in Chicago’s HillBuzz blog — run by homosexuals — that claims that both Kirk and Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Peoria) are homosexuals. (Both Kirk and Schock have denied that they are homosexuals.)

Homosexuals have the complete freedom to compete in the battle for control of the Republican Party, but they shouldn’t do so in secret. Republicans deserved a party chairman who was really working to defend tradtional marriage, not a fake conservative like Mehlman who, as a covert “gay” activist, was actually working to undermine it. Too bad Steele couldn’t find words to address that aspect of the Mehlman story instead of acting like the embrace of homosexuality is a swell thing.

For his part, Mehlman plans to continue advocating for the acceptance of homosexuality in GOP circles — and even orchestrated his public “coming out” to advance the cause of homosexual “marriage”:

Once he realized that the news would probably leak, he assembled a team of former advisers to help him figure out the best way to harness the publicity generated by the disclosure for the cause of marriage rights.

“What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party’s philosophy, whether it’s the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married,” Mehlman told Atlantic Monthly. “I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights.”

Sadly — just as Mehlman seems to ignore the loss of ”individual freedom” that comes with State-enforced pro-homosexual laws – many libertarians within the Party will ally with Mehlman in attempting to redefine the Republican brand to accommodate a post-Christian sexual ethos and homosexual activism in the name of “liberty.”

Needless to say, Atlantic Monthly reporter Marc Ambinder does not dwell on how GOP conservatives will react to Mehlman’s behind-the-scenes treachery on same-sex “marriage,” but rather focuses on how Mehlman’s “outing” and past actions will be judged by homosexual advocates.

“And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay.”

*          *          *

“In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way [against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals-in-the-military], the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk.” – Homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, “Truth or Consequences”

Homosexual blogger Mike Rogers "outed" Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois; pictured above) as a homosexual after Kirk voted against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military. Rogers says that Kirk once told him he was "gay."

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is a post by homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, reprinted from his “Blogactive” website. (It was picked by the left-wing Huffington Post.) Note Rogers’ pro-”gay” standard for political “outing” (publicizing a person’s alleged homosexuality): as long as the presumably homosexual legislator helps the “gay” activist movement, he is left alone. But when he — like Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — votes the “wrong” way on a high-profile piece of legislation important to the Homosexual Lobby,well, as Rogers puts it, “the gig is up.” (Note below that Kirk has very high pro-gay scorecard ratings for a Republican, as measured by the nation’s leading homosexual organization.)

In this case, Kirk voted AGAINST the repeal of the military’s ban on homosexuals, thus igniting a new round of online homosexual wrath that could affect his bid to win the U.S. Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. (In the GOP Illinois Senate primary, long-shot candidate Andy Martin ran radio ads statewide targeting Kirk for his alleged homosexuality.)

I have written before about Rogers, who has taken “outing” activism to a new level. Note how Rogers and his followers take credit for the pro-ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) vote switch by “conservative” Republican Rep. David Dreier (CA). (Dreier’s alleged homosexuality was reported by the liberal alternative press–i.e., beyond just the gay press; two Dreier staffers separately hung up on this writer inquiring about his sexual preference, as one reportedly did to this L.A. Weekly reporter coming at the issue from an opposite perspective.)

Folks, this is serious business: if secretly homosexual politicians are subject to pro-”gay”-agenda voting pressure by the likes of Rogers, their constituents (and the wider public) certainly have a right to know — just as they have the right to know if a “pro-family” legislator is mocking those values through the act of adultery. This is why Americans For Truth refuses to play the “outing game” by “gay”/liberal activist rules, which are mainly designed to embarrass hypocritical, conservative Republicans.

Here is the liberal rationale for outing as provided by L.A. Weekly writer Doug Ireland (emphasis his):

I have always taken the view that outing a gay person should be approached with caution, and that in doing so one should strictly adhere to the Barney Frank Rule. As articulated by the openly gay Massachusetts congressman during another anti-gay GOP witch-hunt over a decade ago, when Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen, the rule insists that outing is only acceptable when a person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.

This homosexuality-affirming rationale enjoys increasing though not yet widespread respect in the “mainstream” media, which often shills for the GLBT agenda. To the contrary, AFTAH supports exposing (“outing”) covert homosexuals who either:

1. are using their position of power to advance the pro-homosexuality agenda –  a mission more effectively accomplished by stealth because it masks the obvious conflict-of-interest that being open about their homosexuality would present (CNN reporter Anderson Cooper, who is reported to be homosexual by OUT magazine and other “gay” media, would fall into this category); or
2. threaten to undermine pro-family public policy goals through being targeted by the brand of “queer extortion” employed by Rogers (e.g., case of Rep. David Dreier); or
3. are “living a lie” by practicing behavior that flouts either the traditional values of their own constituents or the pro-family platform that the politician publicly espouses. (Note the similarity of this criterion to exposing heterosexual philandering pols who are publicly pro-family.)

When — as in years preceding the Mark Foley scandal — talk of the VIP’s reported homosexuality becomes so widespread that it demands clarification, AFTAH and this writer ask politicians, potential judges and VIP media members the “Homosexual Question.” Deeply-held private biases affect public policy, so the voting public has a right to know those biases, especially when they are the target of hard-ball pressure politics. Of course, Michael Rogers — who queried this writer on the same question — comes at it from the opposite perspective. The following is reprinted from Rogers’ “Blogactive” website:

Truth or Consequences

Blogactive, by Michael Rogers, June 1, 2010

If you’ve been around long enough, you’ll remember the original television game show Truth or Consequences. (For those around longer, it was preceded by a radio show of the same name and format.) It was rather simple, answer a question correctly or “suffer” the consequences. In this case, consequence meant the performance of “usually a zany and embarrassing stunt.” I use the term “suffer” lightly, as most contestants tried to give the wrong answer just so they could perform the assigned punishment activity.

The same game exists in politics. In DC, the format is a bit different. Instead of a handful of players each week, this version has 535 contestants: 435 in the House, the remainder in the Senate. And, sometimes, you have to wonder if these guys are purposefully getting the answer wrong just so they get to perform the stunt. In this case the punishment is unwanted and is usually an appearance before a camera, humiliation of his wife, and blaming the whole damned thing on the environment in DC while invoking god. Wouldn’t it have been simple enough To Tell the Truth? (Oh, wait, that’s a different game show.)

In many cases, players decide not to play the Capitol’s version of the game, and that’s just fine. If someone doesn’t get up and get the first part wrong, they never face part 2.

Sometimes it’s not so simple.

Why report on Mark Kirk (R-IL)? Why now?

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party’s dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That’s more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn’t co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn’t THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn’t. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

“Where was Mark Kirk?” I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.)

Within hours of the DADT repeal vote I was contacted by two people who knew Kirk from his college days.

“In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay,” the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, “But I had sex with him a number of times.” Well, now we’re onto something I thought. “Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?” I asked. “Yes” was the swift reply. “Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?” “Yes,” he said.

And he did.

The next source claimed to have gone to undergraduate school with Kirk. I asked for proof that he and Kirk were in school together and once that was shared with me, I met with the source. The source introduced me to a man who had also been friends with Kirk in college. They both shared with me their interactions with Kirk, including one sexual in nature. The source who claimed to have sex with Kirk described personal details about the House, um, er, “member.” The description was the same as the first source.

And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay. Before I had BlogActive, I had a life in Washington. As a fundraiser I raised major gifts from $5,000 to over $1,000,000… You don’t do that kind of work at a keyboard, you do it at events attended by people with money. The movers and shakers and their friends.

It was early 2004 when I was at a social gathering on Capitol Hill. I’m guessing there were 35-40 people present, including the guy who brought me as his guest. While the party was no means a “gay” party, I’d guess that of the men at least 75% were overtly gay. The others present were either straight men or their women friends.

It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was “single or attached.” When I said that he had a partner, Kirk replied disappointingly, “oh, well.” At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn’t think much of it at the time.

Then Kirk became a hypocrite. Kirk voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, despite his being a closeted gay man in the military. As a Commander in the Navy Reserves Kirk has voted to keep a policy that if he were investigated under he would be tossed.

Recently we learned that it’s not just his being a closeted gay man that Kirk lies about; he has a habit of making up awards supposedly given to him by the Navy.

Nice try, Mark. The gig is up.

__________________________________

Related articles:

“NBC: The guy trying to out Mark Kirk also outed Mark Foley, Larry Craig” (Republican News Watch)

“Gay community pushes Mark Kirk out of the closet” (Republican News Watch)

“Mark Kirk outed by filmmaker Mike Rogers — just as we told you this would happen. Waiting for response from Fran Eaton and Illinois Review.” (HillBuzz blog)

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.

For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See AFTAH news release: "If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know."]

_________________________________________

Kagan a Lesbian? Why It Matters

Posted: May 20, 2010 by WorldNetDaily

By J. Matt Barber

I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under “sexual immorality.” Indeed, the majority of folks around the world––billions, actually––count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, “real or perceived.” If we had a judicial nominee – widely believed a compulsive gambler––tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn’t such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: “By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn’t rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he’s a black heterosexual male”––remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being “gay” is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare “black” or “heterosexual” to “gay” is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, “heterosexual” is the state of sexual normalcy. It’s our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution, which imagines “survival of the fittest,” would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan’s “sexual orientation” remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some––including that very justice––while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” etc.)

In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan––should she be confirmed––as the “first openly gay justice.” The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion “false charges.” CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs, whimpered away and curled up behind the rest of Obama’s slobbering media lapdogs.

Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they’ve suddenly lost interest.

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: “In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it’s cowardly not to tell.”

But Kagan ain’t tellin’, and the media ain’t askin’. Of course, even if they were inclined to ask, they’d have a difficult time doing so. The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.

The question is important for context. The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school. She did so in protest of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, calling it “a profound wrong” and “a moral injustice of the first order.”

As it turned out, Kagan’s actions were illegal, and the very Supreme Court upon which she hopes to serve slapped her down with its 8-0 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed the Department of Defense to withhold federal funding to Harvard if it failed to reverse its discriminatory policy.

Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said of Kagan’s activism: “At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.”

Newt Gingrich took his criticism a step further. While addressing the controversy, he bluntly said of Kagan’s nomination: “That is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning.”

I agree.

Indeed, whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There’s little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court.

So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are “totally not gay,” as some of your friends and your president claim, then it’s my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster. Believe me, it’s a match made in heaven.

________________________

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.) This article first appeared in WorldNetDaily.

Homosexual "outing" activist Mike Rogers takes credit for Rep. David Dreier's and Rep. Jim McCrery's pro-homosexual voting switch on ENDA in 2007.

“Gay” “outing” activist Mike Rogers (right) attempts to expose the secret homosexuality of politicians who vote against the homosexual activist agenda. Below he responds to my call for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to answer the question of whether they practice (or have practiced) homosexual behavior.

Rogers’ questions, though perverse, are fair, I suppose, since AFTAH is demanding transparency and honesty from others in the public arena who will influence public policy on the homosexual issue. But once again I disappoint our many homosexual critics because I do not have — and never had — a homosexual problem.

Shocking claim: As you can read HERE on my political site, Rogers takes credit for Rep. Dreier  (and Rep. Jim  McCrery, R-La.) switching in 2007 to support ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would federalize employment “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. If his report is even close to the truth, then it constitutes further evidence of the dangers of hidden homosexuality in the Republican Party.

We’ll see if the GOP leadership — which still can’t say no to homosexual activist “Republicans” — has learned anything from the Mark Foley scandal. (Dreier’s staff hung up on two calls by this writer inquiring about the Congressman’s sexual preference.)

My response follows Rogers’ very “queer” query after the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

________________________________

From: Mike Rogers <[--------]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:01:29 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Peter

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

——————————————————————————–
Quoting my work in a press release [RFFV release HERE]…how exciting! I guess one could ask the same of you, right? Have you ever had a sexual and/or physical interaction with another man at any time? (By \’sexual and/or physical interaction\’ I mean kissing, sharing a bed with physical contact, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation and/or masturbation in another man\’s presence.)
–
Michael Rogers
Page One News Media

—————————————–

LaBarbera responds:

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, <americansfortruth@comcast.net> wrote:

Nope to all the above. Sorry to disappoint you, Mike. — pl
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

—————————————-

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

____________________________________

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”

“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.

“Given the important homosexual-related issues coming before the Supreme Court , Kagan should say so if she has a personal interest in lesbianism. Similarly, any legislator — especially one representing a conservative district — should come clean on the homosexuality question particularly if it is an ‘open secret’ like Rep. Mark Foley’s homosexuality (years before the congressional page scandal) or becomes the subject of wide speculation.

“We appeal to Kagan and all potential “hiding-in-the-closet” public officials to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)?’ Homosexuals’ privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their judges and lawmakers.”

Elena Kagan

Folks, in an era of ubiquitous pro-”gay” messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it is ridiculous that citizens and constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special interest in homosexuality. Speculation is rife over whether potential Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a practicing lesbian. Kagan has a radical pro-homosexual record, including, during her tenure as Harvard law school dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off campus because the military bans open homosexuals.

Given the important issues dealing with homosexuality and opposition to it that could come before the court, Kagan should answer the question of whether she has a special, personal interest in lesbianism. In the same way, any politician — especially those representing more conservative areas — should come clean on the homosexuality question, especially if it is an “open secret” or becomes the subject of wide discussion. Just as a “conservative” politician’s constituents have a right to know whether he is secretly a skirt-chaser, they have a right to know if he is practicing immoral homosexual behavior.

Our appeal to Ms. Kagan and all hiding-in-the-closet pols: answer the question — “Are you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)? — and move on. Homosexuals’ privacy interests do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

————————————————

What the people don’t know could hurt them

By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/28/2010

The president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) addresses whether a candidate for public office, including the Supreme Court, should declare their sexual preference or leanings.

LaBarbera has raised the question because of hints in the press that some of the possible picks for a Supreme Court vacancy are either homosexual or heavily favor special rights for homosexuals.

“I think it’s time that the public be informed if a politician or a high court nominee has a special interest in homosexuality — that is, they are practicing homosexuality or maybe they once practiced homosexuality,” the AFTAH president contends. “I think the public has a right to know.”

He explains that this information is important because the judges’ decisions will impact all of society, not just one segment of it.

“They will affect Christians and people of faith who oppose homosexuality,” he notes, pointing out that “we came within one vote on the Supreme Court of the Boy Scouts losing their freedom not to hire openly homosexual and atheist Scout masters.”

But LaBarbera adds that homosexuals are not the only ones who promote their causes, as many heterosexual liberals are equally as pro-homosexual in their politics as activists. The AFTAH president fears Americans’ freedoms are at stake, so he feels the public should be provided the knowledge.

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen is shown here yelling into the window of Boston's Park Street Church with a bullhorn. He and other "queer" activists were protesting the church for hosting a conference about helping homosexuals leave that lifestyle.

UPDATE: homosexual and anti-ex-gay activist Wayne Besen, who is a serious candidate for AFTAH’s Gay Grinch 2009 award, is upset at our article below. Besen exposes his anti-religious bigotry by ridiculing our “knuckle-dragging worldview” (it’s called the historic Judeo-Christian tradition, Wayne). Yet he doesn’t get the irony of being the guy who complains about persecution and intolerance while hatefully harassing Christians and returning again and again to vicious ad hominem smears of opponents (e.g., “Porno Pete”). Bullies don’t make good human rights advocates. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________

Voters Have a Right to Know if a Candidate Practices Homosexuality

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, it’s the holiday season, but it’s also the political season, and in every election run-up, we get information about candidates who are suspected — or widely rumored, especially in “gay” circles — to be practicing homosexuals (ie., practicing homosexual behavior; we don’t use the term “orientation” at AFTAH). Usually it’s a call from the opponent’s side who is outraged that the other guy is “gay” and yet not revealing that to the general public. Often the accused candidate is outwardly pro-family.

It’s happening again this year, in at least two states that we’re aware of. [Click here for a link concerning two Illinois Republican Congressmen: "What Chicago Democrats are planning to do to out Republicans Mark Kirk and Aaron Schock."]

My position and that of Americans For Truth has been clear: voters have a right to know if a politician or candidate is practicing homosexuality (or any other sexual sin) or is deeply sympathetic to same.

Do voters have a right to know that their Congressman — especially one that bills himself as “pro-family” — is having adulterous affairs with women? Yes. Do the same voters have a right to know if their Congressman is himself a homosexual — especially since he will likely be voting on “gay”-related legislation predicated on the (false) assumption that homosexuality is a “civil rights” criterion? You bet they do.

In this post-Will & Grace age in which vulgar sodomy jokes are aired uncensored on primetime TV, it is unfair, hypocritical and simply odd to enable homosexual candidates to hide their pet sexual sin behind the “gay” “closet” — or to demand that any questions on the topic are inappropriate. I write this as one who has hoped for the defeat of Republican “pro-family” politicians who were exposed as philanderers.

So our question to any candidate around which “gay” rumors are swirling is this:

Are you a homosexual — i.e., have you practiced homosexual behavior or been in a “gay” relationship?

There is no easy way to ask this awkward question, but it is as relevant as asking a candidate rumored to be a cad if he has been faithful to his wife. From a Christian perspective, sexual sin is sexual sin, and the politics of homosexuality and “outing” should not be dictated by the needs and wants of pro-homosexuality advocates or the GLBT Lobby.

The problems and ethical implications of secretly “gay” politicians are also exacerbated by the policy of homosexual activist “outers” like Mike Rogers who specialize in exposing the homosexuality only of candidates they regard as hypocritical on homosexual issues (read: secretly homosexual politicians who oppose the homosexual agenda). This creates an incentive for covertly homosexual pols to vote pro-”gay” on GLBT legislation because that will lessen the likelihood of an embarrassing “outing” episode.

This is another reason why voters deserve to know if their representative or potential representative has a conflict of interest on homosexuality issues.

If you are a Republican and you think it’s unfair for homosexual politicians to have their homosexuality revealed, here’s three words for you: Mark Foley scandal. As one who monitors the “gay” press, I knew about Foley’s homosexuality years before the page scandal happened (I knew nothing of Foley’s interest in young male pages, only that it was an open secret that he was homosexual.) Had GOP leaders not swept that under the rug, perhaps the whole sordid Foley episode could have been avoided, with all its bad consequences for the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.

Any candidate hit with the “gay” question can simply answer my question above. We hope they wouldn’t lie about it, but that seems to have happened with one Republican candidate in Illinois (State Sen. Dan Rutherford, a Republican who cast a key vote for a homosexual special-rights bill) –whom I sought answers from on the homosexual issue. We’ll have much more on this later, but for now our suggestion is this

Activists/media: ask the politician the H-question as forthrightly as possible if it becomes an issue; Politicians: answer it truthfully.

Kudos to my friend Laurie Higgins and the good folks at Champion News for telling it like it is. In a culture swimming in the celebration of homosexuality (masquerading as liberal tolerance), it becomes ever more ludicrous for politicians living double lives to hide behind the homosexual “closet.” (Ditto for straight philandering pols.) If a Republican politician or any politician has a hidden homosexual problem and is promoting the “gay” activist agenda — perhaps under threat of “outing” by homosexual “outing” activists like Mike Rogers — his constituents have a right to know of his aberrant special self-interest. Homosexual Republicans have the freedom to run as open homosexuals. Too bad for them if that only works for Democrats like Barney Frank. They can always switch parties: better to run as a Democrat than as a deceptive “Republican” in a party that claims to support traditional marriage and natural family values. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

________________________________

Reprinted from Champion News, July 14, 2009

By Laurie Higgins (a writer for Illinois Family Institute)

Now is the time for those running for public office in Illinois to come clean about the skeletons, or mistresses, or prostitutes, or congressional pages, or homosexual partners lurking in their closets. The past few years have been a veritable anti-treasure trove of political closet cleanings, and many Illinoisans are sick of them.

Rumors have been swirling for years that a sometime-married elected Illinois representative who now seeks higher office is homosexual. Rumors continue to swirl that his sexual peccadillo and deceit have been aided and abetted by those who bask in his, I hope, dimming light, just as Mark Foley’s double life was aided and abetted by Denny Hastert. Those who aid and abet in the sexual immorality and deceit of public servants do neither the public nor political parties any favors.

Some in the formerly grand Republican Party exalt candidates they view as moderate, which translated means those who support the destruction of incipient life and those who affirm homosexual unions. The new “moderate,” however, is yesterday’s immoderate, perverse, radical, and subversive. Immoderateness, perversion, radicalness, and subversiveness are moderate only to relativists-to those who believe there are no fixed, immutable, eternal, objective truths. In Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver makes mincemeat out of the foolish notion implicit in the claims of devotees of moderateness:

Whoever argues for a restoration of values is sooner or later met with the objection that one cannot return, or as the phrase is likely to be, “you can’t turn the clock back.” By thus assuming that we are prisoners of the moment, the objection well reveals the philosophic position of modernism. The believer in truth, on the other hand, is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by the passage of time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideas and values, we are looking forward toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

Infidelity matters. Infidelity matters because it’s an indicator of personal integrity and commitment to oath-keeping. If a political figure will not honor the most profound commitments to spouse and children, if his personal desires take precedence over spouse and children, what confidence can the public have in his willingness to honor commitments to his constituency or in his willingness to subordinate personal desire to a larger, more noble cause?

Deceit matters. Deceit matters for all the reasons mentioned above and because the public is entitled to know the truth about those whom they’re entrusting to represent their interests. In addition, there is a more pragmatic reason that deceit matters. It matters because “at length the truth will out,” and distracting scandals will ensue. The sexual profligacy, perversion, and deceit of Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Dan Crane, Gerry Studds, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Elliot Spitzer, John Ensign, Mark Sandford, and Sam Adams should have rendered the public weary of the dissolute and desirous of leaders of forthrightness, transparency, and integrity.

Homosexuality matters. The public is foolish if it buys the claim that the “sexual orientation” of public servants-whether school administrators, judges, or legislators-doesn’t matter. It matters for two reasons. First, volitional homosexual behavior is deviant, immoral behavior regardless of its etiology. That moral claim is not only a legitimate but also a necessary moral claim to make publicly. And we should be making it with at least the same frequency, fervor, clarity, and tenacity with which others are making the claim that volitional homosexual acts are moral and good.

To read the rest of Higgins’ column in Champion News, click HERE

Americans For Truth sent the following letter today to WKMB (Orlando, Florida) anchorwoman Lauren Rowe. You can reach Rowe through her web profile page, and WKMB’s News Director HERE (scroll down on the pull-down menu to “News Director”)

____________________________

Dear Ms. Rowe [Anchorwoman, WKMB, Orlando, FL],

I’m writing as President of Americans For Truth and as a pro-family conservative opposed to the homosexual activist agenda, to express our concern about your decision to serve as “host MC” for the Orlando “Gay Days” Kickoff Party tonight. Here’s the web link citing your participation: http://www.gaydays.com/events/kickoff/.

Pro-family advocates and conservatives are rightly concerned about escalating media bias surrounding the homosexual debate. It is difficult for a well-known newsperson like yourself to maintain a reputation for fairness and neutrality while simultaneously hosting a “Gay Days” event that celebrates homosexuality. You must know that homosexuality and related issues like “same-sex marriage” are deeply divisive issues in our culture, and I would hope that you see it as your role, as a professional journalist, to “play it down the middle” in this debate. Also, the fact that Orlando Gay Days centers around Disneyworld — a destination for children and families — makes this homosexual celebration all the more concerning to pro-family Americans.

Moreover, all proceeds from the Orlando Gay Days Kickoff event that you will be hosting reportedly will go to the pro-homosexual youth organization Be Real Orlando. This group promotes the controversial homosexual activist practice of encouraging young people to “come out” as homosexual, bisexual or “transgender” — at young ages (13, below) — supposedly to embrace their “true” self. Be Real Orlando’s website states:

Our mission is to raise community awareness, lend support & provide resources for GLBT youth & their families in order to create safe places to work, learn, live, and thrive….

Coming Out is now more than ever a youth issue. Studies indicate that many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) young people are aware of their sexual orientation/gender identity by the time they are 13. Chances are that more than a few students at your middle or high school are wrestling right now with how and when to tell their friends and families they are LGB or T.

Perhaps you are unaware of the disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual behavior — e.g., the CDC reports that in 2005, “men who have sex with men” (MSM) accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm). Leaving aside the question of whether adolescent youth are mature enough to make the critical decision of embracing “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” identity/behavior, it is reckless to promote such (immoral) lifestyles while youth remain largely ignorant of the tremendous health risks associated with them. Be Real Orlando is also surely a part of the organized pro-homosexual activist network that equates traditional beliefs about sex and marriage with “hate, bigotry, and homophobia.” This itself is a form of bigotry: demonizing people of faith for their sincere and loving embrace of Biblical truth and the hope that is in Jesus Christ to overcome any besetting temptation, including same-sex desires.

We believe it is wrong and lacking in compassion to promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality identities and behaviors to impressionable young people — especially without providing the other side of the issue, such as that represented by former homosexuals — men and women who have left homosexuality behind (www.exodus.to). Every person receiving this email loves young people enough to tell them the truth: that homosexuality is not “who you are” but a behavior that can be overcome. Pro-homosexual/transgender organizations put youth directly in harm’s path by promoting the “gay” ideological construct — belied by “ex-gays” — that homosexuality and gender confusion are fixed (inborn) identities or unchangeable, innocuous traits. Through your appearance tonight, you are helping them to advance this false message.

Too often these days, the media are getting their cues for covering “same-sex marriage” and other homosexuality-related issues from gay activists themselves. This creates the impression among people of faith and traditionalists of whatever background — including some who are not religious but who oppose the promotion of aberrant sexuality — that media professionals are essentially part of the pro-”gay” movement. By MC’ing this event, you risk undermining your viewers’ trust in WKMG and you as a professional, objective newsperson — at least among pro-family citizens who will learn of your promotional role in Orlando Gay Days. Many will question your and your station’s ability to fairly cover the Florida Marriage Amendment and other critical questions related to homosexuality and gender confusion.

Years ago, New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse, who covered the U.S. Supreme Court, was widely criticized for marching in a pro-abortion “rights” rally in the nation’s capital. Many pro-lifers were offended at Greenhouse’s participation in a high-profile event celebrating one side of a controversial moral and human rights issue. In the same vein, we at Americans For Truth are troubled by your breach of journalistic neutrality here. We urge you to reconsider — even at this late hour — serving as host at the Orlando Gay Days Kickoff event this evening. Please indicate to us how you plan to recover a balanced approach on this divisive cultural issue.

Thank you for considering this request. I will cc a copy of this letter to the WKMB News Director.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth
Naperville, Illinois
www.americansfortruth.org
W: 630-717-7631

CC: PRO-FAMILY LEADERS: John Stemberger, Florida Family Policy Council; David Caton, Florida Family Association; Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family; Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America; Robert Knight, Culture and Media Institute; Timothy Graham, Media Research Center; Tony Perkins c/o Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council; Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media; Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America; Sandy Rios, FOX News contributor and Culture Campaign; Phil Burress, Citizens for Community Values; Matt Barber, CWA; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Alan Chambers, Exodus International; Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition; Pastor Ken Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church; Janet Folger, Faith2Action; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; Gary Glenn, AFA-Michigan; Don Wildmon, Buddy Smith, and Tim Wildmon, American Family Association; Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel; Mike Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine.

By Peter LaBarbera

Here we go again, everyone. Can both sides of the homosexuality debate agree that it is incumbent on political candidates to be completely open and honest about their involvement in homosexual behavior — or any sexual misconduct? We understand that homosexual activists and many social liberals do not view homo-sexual behavior as misconduct, but many voters do, and even those in the middle on this issue have a right to know what their representative is up to and what biases he holds. Too many politicians with a homosexual problem are hiding this “special interest” from the voters; they should run as openly homosexual Republicans (or Democrats) so we can avoid post-election surprises like the pathetic Gov. Jim (“I’m a gay American”) McGreevey scandal in New Jersey.

We will need another column to discuss the new, post-Mark Foley politics and media ethics surrounding “outing.” Suffice it to say that such “outings” are usually done (or forced) only when they suit pro-”gay” interests — putting pressure (unbeknownst to the voters) on pols who are publicly conservative yet privately homo/bi-sexual. The message is clear: if you don’t want to be “outed,” stop opposing the “gay” agenda. I was told as much by homosexual “outing” activist Mike Rogers, who said he is not interested in “outing” politicians whose politics are pro-homosexual.

Enter Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a popular Republican who is reportedly under serious consideration for the party’s vice-presidential nod. Based on what’s already out there, if Crist were to be chosen, it would only be a matter of days — make that hours — before there would be national political and media speculation about his “sexual orientation.” You won’t believe the amount that’s already been written and discussed in the media about Crist’s sexuality and related issues in the homosexual and liberal press (see links below).

In our view, that’s a reason right off the bat not to consider Gov. Crist for the highly visible and important position. But the biggest reason is that Gov. Crist is weak on protecting marriage as between a man and a woman, having straddled the fence on whether and how strongly he would support the Florida Marriage Amendment that will be on the state’s ballot this November after much hard work by pro-family forces (see links at very bottom).

We called the Florida Governor’s office to ask if the governor is a homosexual or bisexual, and whether he has ever engaged in homosexual behavior — odd questions, to be sure, but necessary ones in this situation. We did not hear back. Here are just some of the links we’ve found, or that have been forwarded to us, on Gov. Crist:

Washington Blade (nation’s premier homosexual newspaper), Oct. 20, 2006:

Opponent outs GOP candidate for Fla. governor
Crist has denied rumors, opposes gay marriage

www.washingtonblade.com/2006/10-20/news/national/outed.cfm

Denies He is “Gay”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4DyPTEJ6A

www.expressgaynews.com/2006/10-27/news/localnews/localnews.cfm

www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/charlie-crist-is-not-gay/

www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-11-02/news/crist-denies-trysts-ii/

www.democrats.com/Crist-I-Never-Had-Sex-With-That-Man

Denies Out-of-Wedlock Child
www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060923/NEWS/609230380/1004

www.sptimes.com/2006/09/17/State/For_GOP_mantle__dirt_.shtml

www.sptimes.com/2007/01/25/Tampabay/A_girl_wonders__Is_Cr.shtml

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/did-governor-charlie-crist-father-a-child-out-of-wedlock-17-years-ago/1117563460

Denies He Roomed with Homosexual Republican Mark Foley for Years in Legislature
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/10/crist_not_foley.html

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-gop-candidate-crist-straight-was-he.html

First Homosexual VP?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980201/posts?page=6

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/does-the-media-advise-and_b_90014.html

Crist Supports the FL Marriage Amendmenmt AND
Crist Does Not Support the FL Marriage Amendment- take your pick:
http://ccsfla.org/MarriagePetition

www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6266.article

www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070214/NEWS/702140308

www.bilerico.com/2007/12/charlie_crist_doesnt_support_floridas_an.php

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2008/02/log-cabin-repub.html

www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4007

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/02/crist_against_u.html

www.sptimes.com/2007/12/14/State/Crist_takes__live_and.shtml

Denounces Homosexual “Civil Unions” Right before Election
http://files.meetup.com/80123/BASTARD.doc