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

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Kameny (center) holding one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in 2007. President Obama has hailed Kameny as a "civil rights pioneer" and thanked the homosexual activist for his "leadership."

Folks, there is no shortage of sinful pride and presumption among “gay” activists and their allies, that’s for sure.  How appropriate is this coming from the hero of a movement that redefines changeable sexual sin as a “civil right”? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S.  If you wish to write Frank Kameny, send your letter to me at americansfortruth@comcast.net, and I will pass it on to him.  May the living, holy, omnipotent, omniscient — and merciful — God bless you in 2010!

________________________

Frank Kameny, a “pioneering” homosexual activist celebrated by fellow homosexuals the world over — and honored by President Obama and his administration — says the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to “repent of his sinful homophobia.”

The octogenarian Kameny (born in 1925) made the assertions about the Judeo-Christian God in a letter to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, October 13, 2009:

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.” wrote Kameny to LaBarbera. “It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner….”

An astronomer who was fired from his federal government job in 1957 due to his homosexuality, Kameny led the first public homosexual protest in America (over his firing), in 1965. Kameny, who gained notoriety with his aggressive, counter-cultural slogan “Gay is Good,” was a leader of the organized homosexual activist campaign to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders (which succeeded when the APA capitulated in 1973). He says that he is an atheist but curiously also claims that “Gay is Godly”; he now adds “for those who so believe” to the latter slogan after being questioned as to how someone who rejects God could make definitive statements about Him.

On June 17, 2009, Kameny received the official White House pen from President Obama in a White House signing ceremony enacting Obama’s executive order providing domestic partner benefits for certain federal employees. The ceremony was intended to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City that homosexual and transgender activists claim were the catalyst for the modern “gay rights” movement.

Later, at a June 29 White House speech honoring “gay pride month,” President Obama praised Kameny with the following words:

[Describing the history of the homosexual rights movement:] “That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — [applause] Frank [Kameny] was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. [Applause.]

Kameny was also honored by John Berry, Obama’s openly homosexual Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in a special ceremony June 24, 2009 sponsored by the OPM “gay” employees organization. There, Kameny received the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the OPM’s highest honor, “For More Than a Half-Century of Leadership in the Struggle for Civil Rights.” Berry also issued a formal U.S. government apology to Kameny for his firing over 50 years ago.

Responding to Kameny’s letter asserting that God needs to repent, AFTAH’s LaBarbera said:

“Of course Frank Kameny’s outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God’s plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone.”

The following e-mail letter was sent by Kameny to Americans For Truth on October 13, 2009. Various typos in the original letter have been corrected:

Peter [LaBarbera]

You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, “on the wrong foot”.  It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole)  himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia.

Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia.

Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years.

It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)..

Your claim that advancement of the gay agenda would deprive you people of your religious and other rights is flatly untrue.  If you disapprove of homosexuality, you will remain free to abstain from involvement with it.  That is the proper limit of your freedoms.  You do not have a valid right to impose your disapproval upon those of us who disagree with you, as you people endlessly seek to do.  Those whose beliefs in a round earth prevail do not in the least deprive the Flat Earthers of their rights to believe and speak as they wish.  So with gay rights and you homophobes.  You can continue freely to make intellectual and rational fools of yourselves, just as the Flat Earthers continue to do. — and, in your case, un-American and anti-American ones as well.

Gay is Good, Godly (for those who so believe), and American.  You homophobes are not.

Franklin E. Kameny
Washington, DC

More AFTAH stories on Kameny:

• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’;
• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981;
• Your Tax Money at Work: Preserving Homosexual Activist Frank Kameny’s Papers;
• Frank Kameny Responds to AFTAH Report that He Spoke at NAMBLA Event in 1981;
• Will PETA Respond to Frank Kameny’s Endorsement of Sex with Animals?;
• ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist;
• WATCH IT: Video and Transcript of Obama’s White House Speech Celebrating ‘Gay Pride’ Month: (President Obama heralds Kameny as a “civil rights pioneer” and thanks him for his leadership; see full quote above)

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

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

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney Craddock explains that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Stephen Boissoin

By Tim Bloedow; reprinted from ECP Centre website, Dec. 4, 2009

The ECP Centre (Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre) is very encouraged to see that sanity prevailed in Alberta’s court system with the decision Thursday to overturn the abusive Human Rights Commission ruling against Stephen Boissoin. We are also grateful to have played an important part in the case, raising awareness of the case over the past several years and organizing three successful fundraising dinners in the spring of this year which helped to bring in over $25,000 from generous Canadians towards Mr. Boissoin’s substantial legal costs. We continue to receive donations designated to Mr. Boissoin’s legal defense and we are grateful for the Christians who take their faith seriously enough to be aware of these disturbing cases and who are able to donate to support fellow-Christians in today’s battles.

Those familiar with the case will know that seven years ago, a “human rights” complaint was filed against Stephen Boissoin due to his sharp criticism of homosexuality in a letter to the editor printed in the Red Deer Advocate. In December 2007, the Alberta Human Rights Commission issued a ruthless decision against Mr. Boissoin which itself was an expression of hatred against Christianity. The provincial HRC essentially became a tool for a homosexualist inquisition whereby Mr. Boissoin was ordered to give a false apology for the substance of his letter. He was banned from ever criticizing homosexuality again in public or private communications, and even from the pulpit. The implications of the decision were stunning in terms of the imposition of the state over the church and the restrictions on religious liberty. Mr. Boissoin was also fined $5,000.

Needless to say, Mr. Boissoin filed an appeal of the decision. His legal counsel Gerry Chipeur was very confident that they would win the appeal because the historic principles of fundamental justice were on Mr. Boissoin’s side so, in a real court where such rules applied, the absurd HRC decision wasn’t expected to stand. The plaintiff Darren Lund, however, is reported in the Calgary Herald as not having made up his mind whether to appeal the decision.

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

In his decision, Justice Earl Wilson said that whatever one thinks about Mr. Boissoin’s comments, they didn’t violate Alberta’s human rights legislation which is to say, as the Edmonton Sun reported, that “there was nothing in the letter to suggest it was exhorting Albertans to discriminate against homosexuals in areas of employment, tenancy or goods and services which fall under provincial jurisdiction.” Justice Wilson said, “”Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter’s message.”

Of course, that wasn’t really the issue. Mr. Lund, who does not acknowledge being homosexual himself, but who thinks he has enough sensitivity to represent homosexuals, wanted Mr. Boissoin’s comments to be judged a hate crime and outside of free speech protections. Justice Wilson’s decision also rejected this spin on Mr. Boissoin’s comments.

But the references to discrimination aren’t unimportant. As Colby Cosh noted in an analysis posted on Macleans.ca today, “a province, Wilson observed, isn’t allowed to duplicate the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech. It’s only allowed to suppress hateful speech that can also be shown to encourage discrimination in the specific areas that lie within provincial powers and are enumerated in the statute – i.e., housing, employment, access to goods and services.”

Following the announcement of the decision, Stephen Boissoin expressed great joy over this victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada,” adding: “I am overjoyed that this malicious and frivolous process is over. It’s been seven and a half years of my life being run through the mud. I’ve been called a bigot and a hate-monger. What a waste of time.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, Canada’s freedom fighting legal defense organization, was also pleased that Justice Wilson threw out the Commission’s decision, but they remain concerned that the anti-freedom provision which was exploited in the complaint against Mr. Boissoin remains on the books. “Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to a expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years is still on the books,” said executive director John Carpay. That law forbids anyone from publishing a statement that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of several criteria including “sexual orientation.” “In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint,” said Mr. Carpay. “No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive.”

Canada’s hard-left media not interested

A stunning development from Thursday’s decision is the lack of development, which is to say, the total lack of interest in the ruling by Canada’s media. Alright, I admit it, I’m not stunned at all by this totally predictable result from Canada’s anti-Christian, pro-homosexual media.

Canada’s national media fawns over homosexuals, so any victories they receive in law, politics or the culture are widely reported. In a sharp shift from their traditional role, Canada’s news media almost universally despise the “little guy,” who today is often the Christian, especially when homosexualists are the aggressors.

Certainly when Alberta Christian Stephen Boissoin got strung up by the provincial HRC, acting on behalf of pro-homosexual Darren Lund, Canada’s passionately pro-homosexual media was on top of this story, providing lots of sympathetic coverage to the homosexualist agenda and the HRC.

But, today (Friday), following the announcement of the decision throwing out the anti-democratic HRC ruling, how much media coverage did the story receive across Canada? Who wants to guess?? Based on the results of two media search engines we used, we discovered that the Canadian Press dutifully wrote up the decision. And four Alberta papers reported on it: the Calgary Herald, the Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Sun and the Edmonton Sun, but we could not find one single newspaper outside of Alberta which covered the story. Perhaps they were so amazed with the profundity of the decision that they wanted at least 24 hours to analyze it, so maybe on Saturday we’ll see the 35 or more cross-Canada media hits on the story that we would have seen today if the decision went against Mr. Boissoin. Even late this evening, a Google News search for “stephen boissoin” only produces 8 hits: One is Canoe which is the Sun Media article printed by the Edmonton and Calgary Sun papers, one is Xtra [a homosexual publication], another is the social conservative LifeSiteNews, one is CTV, another is Macleans.ca, another the Vancouver Sun and the last two are both from the Montreal Gazette.

Even if our media searches missed one or two articles, the point is still vivid in terms of how the media reflects a strong pro-homosexual advocacy agenda, working hard to self-censor any stories that undermine the march towards a homosexualist hegemony. They would deny it, but the evidence is before us for all to see. If it’s an unconscious bias, then that means that this anti-Christian bias is even more ingrained than many of us thought.

Ezra Levant has done a great deal of valuable work publicizing all the diverse people who have spoken out in defense of freedom and against the HRC agenda in the past few years. This includes many media outlets, journalists and editorial boards from across Canada. It’s great to emphasize and publicize these comments in the hope that it will pressure these media personnel to be consistent with their subsequent comments on liberty, but you don’t want to take these defenses of liberty too seriously or place too much hope in them. Most Canadian journalists are die-hard leftists and most of the rest are left-leaning, and leftists will only defend freedom on a case-by-case basis if they see it as in their own best interests to do so. And secularists never seem to see it as in their best interests to defend liberty when the case involves a Christian defendant and a homosexualist complainant.

Despite the fact that Canada’s liberty tradition is rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, Christians have very few friends in today’s Canada, especially in positions of influence. Most people, including all special interest groups, are fighting for power and control, not for liberty. If Mr. Lund appeals this recent decision, we may have to rally the troops again on behalf of Mr. Boissoin and the fundamental constitutional principles of liberty which are at stake with this case.

Justice Wilson slams the Alberta government

By implication, Justice Wilson’s decision is a damning indictment of Alberta’s anti-liberty Conservative government. Many patriotic Canadians were shocked when the Stelmach government chose to intervene in the Boissoin HRC case – AGAINST Stephen Boissoin. Even the national homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) spoke out against this case, arguing that Darren Lund’s complaint went over the top with its censorship agenda. Despite the number of responsible people and organizations which condemned this complaint, the Stelmach Conservative government, with no obligation to do so, chose to intervene against freedom of speech, against religious liberty, against freedom of conscience, against Christianity.

Justice Wilson was more direct in his repudiation of phony experts. Mr. Cosh reported in his Macleans article: “Wilson thus ended up throwing several witnesses who testified against Boissoin overboard: the ex-cop who thought Boissoin’s anti-gay babblings might make teens ‘act out’, for example, and the shrink who warned that the Reverend’s letter might provoke a second Columbine. … Wilson has thus made expert evidence in future tribunal proceedings a lot harder to come by: the logic of his decision suggests that complainants will no longer be able to round up every bleeding-heart social scientist or self-styled hate expert they can find, but will have to provide evidence of potential economic impacts from hate speech.”

Even the homosexual publication Xtra in an online article about the decision today declared: “Gays also stand to benefit from yesterday’s court decision. As we continue to face censorship — whether it be at the Canadian border or on major TV networks — it’s in our interest to promote free speech and expression. Censoring homophobes is an easy way to shut them up, but it does little to address the outrageousness of their arguments. Speech should be fought with speech.”

Justice Wilson’s decision to throw out the HRC decision against Mr. Boissoin by extension is also a decision against the Alberta government and its shockingly imprudent decision to intervene on the wrong side of that case. If the Stelmach government is not intelligent enough to realize this, the Wildrose Alliance is likely to benefit from such Conservative arrogance.

——-

We would be most grateful for any donations you would consider giving to the work of the ECP Centre in defending Christians facing persecution in Canada and as we confront hostile forces in our culture through NoApologies. Please send your donation to: ECP Centre, PO Box 7, Russell, ON K4R 1C7 or visit our website to make a donation online. Thank you very much for your support.

- 30 -

You can reach NoApologies/ECP Centre at ecpcentre@gmail.com or at 613-496-0091.

Former homosexual Pete Lines shares about his life at AFTAH's banquet last month.

“[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land….“

“But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’ “ — 2 Chronicles 7

Dear Readers,

I want to wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your support of Americans For Truth this year, and for standing up for God’s Truth in an era (and in a country) in which true biblical values have fallen out of fashion.  America is the most spectacular nation every formed –  with blessings from God too great to quantify.  But like the Israelites, we will be judged if we continue to reject the will of our Creator.

This has been a good year so far for Americans For Truth, despite the challenges brought by the severe economic downturn.  We opened a new office in Carol Stream, where we have hosted several fine pro-family speakers (please note that our scheduled Laurie Higgins dinner-lecture has been postponed until January).  Our banquet a month ago was a great success, and our website continues to draw readers who are frustrated by the media’s incessant cheerleading for homosexuality and gender confusion (the “transgender” “T” in the “GLBT” movement).

AFTAH is founded on a simple idea: that homosexual behavior is as wrong, changeable, unnatural and unhealthy today as it was thousands of years ago.  We confront the “Gay” Activist Lobby directly, and expose its destructive agenda without apology — as we did in Maine just before that state’s citizens voted to reject “same-sex marriage.”  In a culture in which even many conservatives seem reluctant to publicly oppose homosexuality as a matter of principle, Americans For Truth stands out as bold and uncompromising.  In our vocabulary, political correctness is a dirty word because it’s all about fearing man instead of God.

For our adherence to God’s truth we are hated by “queer” activists.  But we do not hate them back: one of my goals for 2010 is to pray more for lost people caught up in homosexuality — who desperately need the grace, forgiveness and love of God.

As I look out at the moral landscape of our country on sexual issues and marriage, I am haunted by the spectacle of a post-Christian America squandering its immense spiritual heritage, as we fall from a biblical standard into amoral relativism.   A country in which even the “Christian” kids have lost the ability to tell right from wrong.  The other day, Christianity Today article reported on one group’s study that found that “younger evangelicals … are more tolerant of same-sex marriage” than older evangelicals.

More “tolerant” of government-sanctioned “marriage” based on perversion that the Bible calls an abomination (Lev. 18:22)? Has the term “evangelical” — with its presumed allegiance to Scripture as the source of Truth — lost its meaning?  How is it that young Christians (and older ones) are ditching the Bible’s truth in favor of a sin-enabling worldliness, and what can be done about it?  I wish I had all the answers, but I do know that abandoning God’s heart on homosexuality is not one of them.

If our nation’s moral trajectory is not reversed, we will sink further into ungodliness and inevitable judgment, all the while patting ourselves on the back for our “tolerance” and new ideas about sin.  And yet, Christians know the way back: a humble return to following Almighty God through the daily study of His Inerrant Word, the Bible — which reveals His Son, Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, Truth and the Life.

(Yes, whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, you can trust your life to Christ.  He will forgive you and take the punishment for your sins.  Salvation is a free gift from God — you can’t earn your way to heaven — “so that no one can boast.” And God’s grace is limitless: did you know that David Berkowitz, the infamous “Son of Sam” New York City serial killer, is now a powerful Christian witness to the life-changing power of the Gospel?!  Watch Berkowitz’s amazing YouTube Testimony HERE.)

We must teach a new generation that they have no right to redefine God’s timeless moral code just because, well … they’re young and hip.  (I write this as a hipness-challenged 47 year old.)  Young followers of Christ must understand that they cannot truly love homosexuals without telling them the full truth — that “gay identity” and “same-sex relationships” are not part of God’s plan for anyone.  “Feelings” can lead people astray (our hearts are deceitful), but there is freedom through Christ, as ex-”gay” Pete Lines told our banquet audience last month.

On this Thanksgiving Day 2009, let us give thanks to God for the blessing that is America, and repent for our creeping toleration of all kinds of sin. And let us pledge to return to biblical fidelity — each in our own sphere — as a path toward national healing.  God bless you.

P.S.  I found this online CWA interview with David Barton on America as a “Christian nation” extremely informative.  Share it with your friends and family!

Sincerely in Christ,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
E-mail: americansfortruth@comcast.net

Millions of young Americans saw this simulated homosexual oral sex act on ABC thanks to Adam Lambert pushing his "queer" lifestyle choice on the rest of us. Lambert deliberately sought to be provocative and characterized criticism of his vulgar stage act as "discrimination."

Folks, we’ll have much more on Adam Lambert and his calculated use of his nationally broadcast American Music Awards stage act to advance homosexual immorality and sadistic perversions in the name of “nondiscrimination”:

Liberty Counsel Files Complaint with the FCC for Indecent Acts of Adam Lambert

November 24, 2009
From the Liberty Counsel website:

Liberty Counsel has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) for airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance by Adam Lambert on November 22, 2009 during the 2009 American Music Awards.

Prior to going on-air, Lambert explained that his motive went beyond performing. According to the Associated Press, Lambert “wanted to break down a double standard that existed where female performers are often sexually provocative while men don’t do it that often.”

When faced with the opportunity to edit the performance before airing it on the West Coast, ABC’s reaction was to promote Lambert’s indecent acts and actually tease and tout his actions as “what everyone will be talking about tomorrow.” This shows that ABC used Lambert’s obscene sexual conduct and not his vocal performance to promote its show.

Contact ABC about their indecent decision at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521. You can also call ABC at 818-460-7477, or, you may contact ABC on the web through their Audience Relations Department.

Read Liberty Counsel’s FCC letter requiring decency in broadcasting here.

“As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. … … While I was initially drawn to the idea of providing an exemption to those enterprises that advertise solely in very limited milieus (such as the bed & breakfast that advertises only on Christian Web sites), I became wary of such an approach as a practical matter….”
– Homosexual legal activist, Georgetown law professor, and Obama EEOC appointee Chai Feldblum, “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion,” 2006, p. 52. Feldblum favors a limited exemption to “gay rights” laws for religious teaching institutions and the “leadership” of faith-based groups.

Will Her ‘Rights’ Replace Yours? In the world of Chai Feldblum (above), defending sodomy and homosexuality-based relationships is a “moral” endeavor. Legally speaking, she sees the battle between “gay rights” and religious/moral opposition to homosexuality as a “zero sum game” — i.e., one side wins and the other side loses. But if the “right” of homosexuals and transsexuals to have their lifestyles approved supersedes the freedom of Americans to act on their belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, then wouldn’t Christians and moral Americans become second-class citizens?

_____________________________

TAKE ACTION: The U.S. Senate will be taking up the Chai Feldblum nomination, probably in the next few weeks. Call and write your two U.S. senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose her confirmation to be a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tell your Senators that you oppose awarding superior rights to people based on their homosexual, bisexual or transsexual lifestyle — which they would have if Feldblum’s radical egalitarian philosophy takes hold in the employment realm. Explain that Americans’ First Amendment liberty to follow our conscience should never be made subservient to special interest sexual agendas.

Dear Readers,

AFTAH is featured in the report below by American Family Association’s “One News Now.” about President Obama’s latest homosexual appointee: Georgetown law professor and lesbian legal activist Chai Feldblum as a commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (Think “sexual orientation discrimination” EEOC lawsuits against businesses if Obama gets his way legislatively.)

Unlike some “gay” activists, Feldblum at least grants that we religious Americans have a legitimate “belief liberty” to oppose homosexuality. But she also asserts that according to her reading of the law and Constitution, homosexuals’ “moral” claims should usually eclipse ours under. (And please forgive me if I don’t gush over Feldblum’s recognition of our moral rights — considering that homosexual practice has been linked as a dominating causal factor for HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases, and that it ranks up there with incest, bestiality and child sacrifice in the Old Testament not-to-do list.)

If her paper trail is any indication, Feldblum will help destroy religious liberty in this country (albeit, with some exemptions; see pp. 50-55 HERE) by elevating modern, newfangled “gay rights” and “transgender rights” above our precious, foundational American freedom to live by our religious and moral convictions. Beware: Obama just made it easier for this smiling legal activist with a very “queer” understanding of morality to steal your precious American liberty, and trample over your conscience in the name of “gay equality.”

  Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

P.S. What is a homosexual activist doing teaching law at a Catholic university, anyway? Oops, I forgot: Georgetown is CINO (Catholic In Name Only); its “Catholicism” does not guide its public actions — in fact, GU profs like Feldblum actively undermine historic Church teachings. Isn’t that sort of like the “gay” vision of impotent “Christianity” that Feldblum and fellow secular activists have for faith-motivated Americans in the public square? They are redefining “core American values” to include the celebration of “gay” tolerance — and neutering our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage — through a radical egalitarian ideology that masquerades as “equality.” (Their rally cry? “Sexual liberty”!) Doesn’t it make more sense for our historic, genuine First Amendment liberties — established by a fledgling nation fleeing religious oppression in the Old World — to remain sacrosanct in the law?

Study this: Feldblum’s 2006 Beckett Fund symposium paper, ‘Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion”

AFA’s One News Now reports:

President taps lesbian activist to EEOC

By Allie Martin – OneNewsNow – 10/12/2009

Chai Feldblum (Obama EEOC appointee) President Barack Obama continues to deliver on his promises to the homosexual activist community.

The president has nominated Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist, to be commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Her appointment is awaiting Senate confirmation.

Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University, has signed an online petition titled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships.” That petition chides conservatives for opposing same-sex “marriage” and also calls for a “new vision” for achieving recognition from the government and private sector for diverse kinds of partnerships.

“Chai Feldblum is on record saying that the battle between our religious freedoms and homosexual so-called rights is a zero sum game,” says Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

“She says she can’t think of a case where the religious rights — in other words, our moral right to oppose homosexuality, our First Amendment freedom — trump their gay rights. So, effectively, Chai Feldblum is for superior rights for homosexuals, and I think that’s very dangerous for our country.”

Speaking at a forum in 2004, Feldblum stated that “gay sex is morally good.” (View her comments on YouTube)

_____________________________

Additional Resources:  “If You Hate America, You Have a Lawyer: Chai Feldblum”

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Folks, take a look at the shocking photo at left and the Idaho Statesman article sent our way by conservative blogger Clayton Cramer — about a transsexual prisoner who received a state-funded “sex-change” operation. I agree with Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan about the absurdity of how words are twisted to accommodate the “trans” agenda.

Glenn remarks:

“One of the both most inane and insidious aspects of the ‘transgender’ issue is the mainstream media’s depiction of delusion as if it were reality…

“She cut off her own testicles.”

“She amputated the tip of her penis.”

These reporters must either have mush for brains or, in rare cases, feel like total idiots for being forced to report something so obviously inane.

But this is a delusion that the opposition will compel us all by force of law to treat as reality.  And subsidize with our tax dollars.

Hmmm. I didn’t know “she’s” had testicles, but then again, Gary and I (and Clayton) are just a bunch of “transphobes” (another preposterous GLBT term).

Glenn was reacting to conservative blogger Clayton Cramer, who wisely points out that body-disfiguring “sex change” operations are already funded by the taxpayer, making it likely that they ultimately would be covered under “Obama-care” (just like abortions, by the way). That is, unless Americans stand up and say, “NO!” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to reject Obama-care with its likely result of taxpayer-paid abortions and sex-change mutilations operations.  

______________________________________

Cramer writes:

Why I Get Real Nervous About Government Health Care

By Clayton Cramer

Here’s a purely elective medical treatment being done for convicted felons because a judge ordered it done. From the August 6, 2009 Idaho Statesman:

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Department of Correction has settled
lawsuits with two transgender inmates who castrated themselves after
they were denied feminizing hormone therapy.

The terms of the settlements were not disclosed, but the department
has changed its policy for identifying and treating transgender
inmates. The policy now limits the time inmates must wait for
treatment, specifies how they may be diagnosed, and clarifies when
they qualify for hormone therapy.

Josephime Von Isaak sued the state in 2006 and Jenniffer Ann Spencer
sued the following year. Both inmates, who were born with male
anatomy but consider themselves female, contended they were
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because they were denied
treatment for gender identity disorder.

Spencer was serving time on a 2000 conviction for possession of a
stolen car and escape when she cut off her own testicles with a
disposable razor blade in 2004 an apparent effort to rid her body of
testosterone. Spencer survived the self-castration, and prison
doctors prescribed testosterone replacement therapy – refusing to
prescribe the estrogen Spencer wanted.

Isaak, who is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, said
she was also compelled to remove her own testicles with a razor in
2004 after the state failed to diagnose and treat her disorder. Even
then, Isaak said in the lawsuit, she went without the estrogen
treatment she wanted, and a year after self-castrating she amputated
the tip of her penis with a razor blade.

The state cited Isaak’s birth gender and schizophrenia diagnosis
when it denied her female hormones and a surgical sex change. In
Spencer’s case, the state said a diagnosis of gender identity
disorder wasn’t warranted and that Spencer had lied about living as
a woman and taking birth control pills before her incarceration.

These are convicted felons — and a judge orders the state to provide them with medical treatment to assist them with self-inflicted sex changes.

What do you suppose the chances are that judges are going to order the “government option” to cover this?

America is getting to know the real Barack Obama — and he’s a lot more radical than a 2008 presidential candidate by the same name. This aggressively pro-homosexual speech by Michelle Obama to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (June 27, 2008) had only 56,805 views on YouTube as of August 7, 2009. Most Americans have never seen this side of Michelle Obama, just as most have not seen the side of her husband that celebrated America’s biggest abortion “provider,” Planned Parenthood, in a 2007 campaign speech. (That speech had only 84,875 views on YouTube as of Aug. 7.) Social liberals and “gay” activists will cheer this speech by Michelle; everyone else won’t recognize her vis-à-vis the “apolitical” First Lady described by the national media. (A transcript follows the video; emphasis and web links added.) — Peter LaBarbera

To put it in perspective: timeless truth from that “obscure” passage in the New Testament.–Ed.:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)

_______________________________________

Incomplete transcript of Michelle Obama speech to DNC’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council, June 27, 2008 (emphasis and web links added):

Reprinted from TransGriot website: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obamas-remarks-to-dncs-gay-and.html

Thank you Howard Dean [then Democratic National Committee Chairman], for all your hard work building our party. We are proud to have you as our party Chairman. I want to recognize the members of UNITE HERE Local 6 who are working this event tonight. And thank you all for inviting me to spend some time with you.

I’m honored to be with you in a week that reminds us just how far we’ve come as a country. Five years ago today, the Supreme Court delivered justice with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through use of criminal law. And on Saturday, we recognize the anniversary of the day people stood up at Stonewall and said “enough.”

These anniversaries remind us that no matter who we are, or where we come from, or what we look like, we are only here because of the brave efforts of those who came before us. That we are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in a pursuit of that more perfect union that is the promise of this country.

Over the course of this campaign, we’ve seen a fundamental change in the level of political engagement in this country. We’ve seen a renewed sense of possibility and a hunger for change. We’ve seen people of all ages and backgrounds investing time and energy like never before; writing $20, $30, $50 checks; investing for the first time ever in a political candidate. We’ve seen people talking to their neighbors about candidates and issues; working hard to clarify misperceptions; challenging one another to think differently about the world and our place in it.

It’s precisely this type of individual engagement and investment that has been the mission of my husband’s life. Barack has always believed that there is more in this country that unites us than divides us; that our common stories and struggles and values are what make this country great; that meaningful change never happens from the top down but from the bottom up.

I’ll never forget the first time I realized there was something special about Barack. It was nearly 20 years ago this summer. Barack and I were just getting to know one another, and he thought the best way for me to get to know him better was to get a better sense of the work he cared about most — his work as a community organizer.

He took me to a small church basement on the South Side of Chicago, where a group of neighborhood residents were gathered; folks he knew from his years as a community organizer before he went to law school. They were desperate for change. They were regular Americans struggling to build a decent life for themselves and their families. Single mothers living paycheck to paycheck; grandparents raising grandkids despite an income that wouldn’t allow it; men unable to support their families because jobs had disappeared when steel mills closed. Like most Americans, they didn’t want much; they weren’t asking for much: just dignity and respect.

I watched as Barack walked into the room, took off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves, and instantly connected with each and every person in that room. He spoke eloquently of “the world as it is” and “the world as it should be.” He said the key to change is understanding that our job as citizens of this nation is to work hard each and every day to narrow the gap between those two ideas. He explained that we often settle for the world as it is even if it doesn’t reflect our personal values. But he reminded us that it is only through determination and hard work that we slowly make the world as it is and the world as it should be one in the same. His words were powerful not only because they made us believe in him – they challenged each of us to believe in ourselves.

One of the many reasons I’m proud of the way Barack has handled himself in this campaign is that he is still the same man I fell in love with in that church basement. His unyielding belief in that simple idea – closing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be – is precisely why he’ll be a President you can be proud of.

Barack is not new to the cause of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community. It has been a conviction of his career since he was first elected to public office. In his first year in the Illinois State Senate, he cosponsored a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT men and women. He worked on that bill for seven years, serving as chief cosponsor and lobbying his colleagues to reject the political expedience of homophobia and make LGBT equality a priority. In 2004, his efforts paid off as that bill finally became law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, in housing, and in public places.

He’s led on gender-based violence with his work on the Illinois Gender Violence Act, successfully reaching across the aisle to put in place the nation’s strongest law giving the survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence legal remedy against their attackers. He joined his colleagues in fighting to include explicit protections for the LGBT community in that act. He lost that battle, but his efforts brought gender violence in the LGBT community into the political consciousness like never before.

In 2004, after hearing from gay friends and supporters about the hurtful impact of DOMA, Barack went on record during his U.S. Senate race calling for its complete repeal. And as a U.S. Senator, he voted to protect our Constitution from the stain of discrimination by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Barack’s record is clear. There is so much at stake in this election. The direction of our country hangs in the balance. We are faced with those two clear choices: The world as it is, and the world as it should be. We have to ask ourselves: Are we willing to settle for the world as it is or are we willing to work for the world as it should be?

Despite the extraordinary challenges we face today, we have a candidate who believes that the country is moving in the right direction, despite the inequalities created over the last 8 years.

And then we have Barack Obama, who believes that we must fight for the world as it should be.

A world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

A world where LGBT Americans get a fair shake at working hard to get ahead without workplace discrimination.

A world where our federal government fully protects all of us — including LGBT Americans — from hate crimes.

And, a world where our federal laws don’t discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.

A world that recognizes that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. Barack has made crystal clear his commitment to ensuring full equality for LGBT couples. That is why he supports robust civil unions. That is why he has said that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. And that is why he opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments – whether it’s a proposed amendment to the California and Florida Constitutions or the U.S. Constitution. Because the world as it should be rejects discrimination.

But, it’s not just about the positions you take, it’s also about the leadership you provide.

Barack’s got the courage to talk to skeptical audiences; not just friendly ones. That’s why he told a crowd at a rally in Texas that gays and lesbians deserve equality. Now, the crowd got pretty quiet. But Barack said “now, I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday.” And the crowd started cheering. Then he said, “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian.” And you know what? The crowd kept cheering.

That’s why he told evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback church that we need a renewed call to action on HIV and AIDS.

That’s why he went to Ebenezer Baptist Church and said that we need to get over homophobia in the African-American community; that if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll embrace our gay brothers and sisters instead of scorning them. And that’s why he stood up at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and told all of America that we refuse to be divided anymore.

That’s the choice in this election. Between slipping backward and moving forward. Between being timid or being courageous. Between fighting for the world as it should be, or settling for the world as it is.

My husband is running for President to build an America that lives up to the ideals written into our Constitution. We have just come through a historic primary election where a woman and a black man were running to become President of the United States. It hasn’t been painless, but change never is. As I travel this country, I am certain that we have arrived at a moment in our collective history where we are ready to move forward and create the “world as it should be.”

I know which world Barack will fight for each and every day as your President. But he can’t do it alone. As he said in that church basement, change happens when ordinary people are ready to take the reins of their own destiny. He needs you by his side every step of the way. That kind of change won’t be easy. There will be powerful forces who believe that things should stay just the way they are.

That’s where you come in. Your voices of truth and hope and of possibility have to drown out the skeptics and the cynics.

If you stand with my husband; if you reach for what is possible and if you refuse to let this chance get away; we can begin building that better world in November.

Thank you.

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