“Man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights,” asserts GOP’s guiding document
No Longer Free: New Mexico photographers Elaine and Jon Huguenin were fined more than $6,000 for politely refusing to shoot photos at a lesbian commitment ceremony, due to their Christian faith. The suit against them was filed under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law. The Huguenins appealed the decision but ultimately lost in the New Mexico Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to one day hear a case that will help decide whether “gay rights” supersedes Americans’ freedom of conscience on homosexual “marriage.” The next president could pick as many as four SCOTUS justices.
The following are extended excerpts of the newly minted 2016 Republican Party Platform, with a focus on the social issues and religious freedom (emphasis ours):
We the People
We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation. …
In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable rights of its citizens. These constitutional rights are not negotiable for any American. We affirm that all legislation, regulation, and official actions must conform to the Constitution’s original meaning as understood at the time the language was adopted.
Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
“Reaffirming support for marriage between one man and one woman was a key victory of the platform, and affirming the traditional family — which is where, as social science clearly shows, children thrive best.”
“Mad As Hell”: That’s how homosexual Republican Greg Angelo of the LGBT activist group Log Cabin Republicans reacted to the Republican Party platform committee’s adoption of a solidly pro-family and pro-life platform. But Angelo has plenty to cheer about with the GOP’s doormat response to President Obama’s imposition of a radically pro-homosexual and pro-transgender agenda on America.
The following is reprinted from the July 13, 2016 newsletter of Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council Action Update:
The GOP Platform: Solid, Conservative
Republicans now have a platform to stand on, a solidly conservative platform. The GOP platform committee met for two days with 112 delegates from every state and territory and came to a consensus, a conservative consensus for the principles of the Grand Old Party. There was lively discussion on a number of issues ranging from agriculture to economics, to health care, to immigration, to national security.
Issues effecting the national moral and cultural climate were also prominently discussed among the delegates from all 50 states and U.S. territories. I am very happy to say that the final platform document overwhelmingly approved by the delegates maybe the strongest statement of conservative principles by a GOP platform to date. As Gayle Rozika, a Utah delegate for whom this was the 6th platform, told me this is the most conservative platform in her experience. Her efforts, along with those of delegates like Carolyn McLarty (Okla.), Len Munsil (Ariz.), David Barton (Texas), Jim and Judy Carns (Ala.), Kris Kobach (Kan.), Sandy McDade (La.) and a host of other conservative leaders were effective in ensuring the GOP platform provides a clear and compelling understanding of the core conservative principles that those associated with the Republican party prioritize and pursue.
Our coalition of delegates — including FRC Action and other groups like the March for Life Action, Eagle Forum, and Concerned Women for America — proved invaluable. The platform is an important document, showing the Party of Lincoln continues to respect freedom, and the rule of law, the idea that all humans deserve respect, not because of some category, but because we have inherent dignity and are made in the image of our Creator. The platform is a useful document, a standard, for the party in local, state, and federal elections, use in town halls, and provides standards to which we should hold our elected officials. Platform Chairman Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), led by co-chairs Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.) and Governor Mary Falin (R-Okla.) all did an excellent job allowing delegates to offer amendments and debate the issues with sincerity and respect. They deserve much respect for their efforts.
Fox News stars — Megyn Kelly excluded — lavish attention on Trump and treat him with kid gloves, turning off many conservatives
TED SLIGHTED: Conservative Republican Sen. Ted Cruz has received far less media coverage than Donald Trump in the GOP race. Many conservatives are troubled by the adoring coverage that Trump has received from “conservative” journalists and the influential Fox News. Trump’s decidedly anti-conservative past pro-“gay” advocacy has barely been covered by either the “mainstream” or conservative media.
Folks, to say this is an odd election season might be the political understatement of the century. I saw this graphic on the left-wing Media Matters site, which is running articles about how weird it is that conservatives are complaining about “conservative media” (e.g, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) going too easy on GOP front-runner Donald Trump. I have followed this election closely, and I too am appalled at the “conservative” media’s sycophantic treatment of Trump. (I have my favorite, but Americans For Truth does not endorse candidates–and in interviews I have criticized them all on some point or another.) I believe that Republican voters and the American public in general have been cheated by media coverage that has shown incredible deference to “The Donald” (with some key exceptions, like Wisconsin radio host Charles Sykes’ tough interview of Trump).
Seasoned pro-family observers will note that while Trump’s past support of abortion-on-demand (including “partial-birth abortions”) has been well-covered by the media, his radically pro-homosexual positions as a New York businessman have not. [See Randy Thomasson’s and SaveCalifornia.com’s “Presidential Scorecare on the Natural Family” comparing the remaining three GOP candidates’ records HERE.] In fact, in a 2000 interview with the homosexual Advocate magazine, Trump came out for adding homosexuality to the Civil Rights Act, but this has received barely any serious media coverage.
Note how many Fox News hosts and “contributors” (paid commentators like Laura Ingraham) are in the Trump camp. It has gotten to the point where I cut back watching Fox News because of biased “Trump cheerleaders” like Eric Bolling, Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity (whose wimpy Trump interviews are criticized on the (#NeverTrump) Red State site HERE). I don’t normally pass on Media Matters material, but this graphic is pretty accurate in identifying the Trumpsters versus the Anti-Trumps. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
Rubio Aide Supports Radically Redefining Marriage: Rubio campaign aide Rich Beeson signed on to an amicus brief for the Supreme Court Obergefellcase supporting the legalization of “marriage” based on homosexuality. Graphic: AFTAH; photo by Fox News.
Folks, Sen. Marco Rubio is known as a social conservative, so this revelation of a top campaign staffer (Rich Beeson) signing on to a Republican PRO-homosexual-“marriage” friend-of-the-court brief–for the Obergefell SCOTUS case nationalizing “gay marriage”–is a big deal.
In the next few weeks AFTAH will be reporting facts about the remaining candidates in the Republican (and Democratic) primaries. [See our report on Trump’s past radical pro-homosexual advocacy HERE.] We are non-partisan and do not endorse any candidate–nor do we refrain from pointing out pro-homosexual advocacy wherever we find it. (AFTAH does not carry water for Republicans: this writer once caught a lot of GOP flak for co-authoring a report for Concerned Women for America about President George W. Bush’s “Homosexual Agenda.”) As I have said many times, God does not make a special provision for Republican homosexualism compared to the Democratic variety.
Moreover, GOP establishment big shots are pushing the Party to ditch social issues–and include the homosexual activist “Log Cabin Republicans” in the Party’s “big tent.” As you can read below, Rubio staffers have met regularly with Log Cabin Republican staffers, and the head of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference; 202-347-9388) just allowed Log Cabin Republicans to serve as a sponsor for next year’s gathering. The following is an excerpt from our friends at LifeSiteNews (which relies heavily on The Baptist Message, which broke the story). — Peter LaBarbera, AFTTAH
Marco Rubio’s deputy campaign manager is a gay ‘marriage’ activist
CHARLESTON, South Carolina, February 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A pivotal member of Marco Rubio’s campaign actively encouraged the Supreme Court to impose gay “marriage” on the entire nation by judicial fiat.
Senator Rubio’s deputy campaign manager, Rich Beeson, signed a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to redefine marriage in last summer’s Obergefell v. Hodges case.
The amicus curiae brief, which was signed by 300 Republican operatives whose names spill over 24 pages, argued that having the court discover a nationwide right to same-sex “marriage” served “conservative values.”
New York values: Trump bragged that he came up with homosexual “civil rights” idea before Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley
Donald Trump’s interview with The Advocate magazine in 2000. Trump boasted that he was ahead of Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradly in crusading for adding homosexuality to the 1964 Civil Rights
Dear AFTAH Readers,
This is our first foray into the positions past and present of the leading presidential candidates in the 2016 race. AFTAH is non-partisan–we expose all politicians by the same principled standard without deference to party–so these articles will be factual. We begin with the current GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, who back in 2000 sat down with the editors of the nation’s leading homosexual magazine, The Advocate.
Interestingly, as you can read below, Trump bragged about being ahead of Democratic presidential candidate (former U.S. Senator)Bill Bradley on “gay rights”–by calling for the addition of “sexual orientation” to the landmark 1986 Civil Rights Act. That proposal is embodied today in the so-called LGBT “Equality Act” (HR 3185), which was backed exclusively by Democrats until it received its first two Republican co-sponsors this week: Sen. Mark Kirk and Rep. Bob Dold, both from Illinois. AFTAH has renamed the HR 3185 the “Criminalizing Christianity Act,” since it would negate religious freedom protections in the name of LGBT “equality.”
Of course, many candidates have changed their position on issues, but Trump among all the GOP contenders holds several past positions that are more in line with “progressive” Democrats than Republicans–on key issues like abortion, homosexuality, and national health insurance. In a much talked about 1999 interview with the late Tim Russert [partial YouTube video HERE], he chalked that up to living in liberal-dominated New York City.
Trump says he is now conservative but does not appear to be so on the homosexual issue–see the LGBTQ lobby group Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of his record HERE. Unlike several other Republican 2016 contenders, he has not committed to signing the “First Amendment Defense Act” in his first 100 days as President—-but did say he would support it. And the real estate magnate-turned politician–though a longtime opponent of homosexual “marriage”–now opines that due to the Supreme Court’sObergefell ruling, the issue is over; he told the Hollywood Reporter that “anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.” We will have more on Trump and other presidential candidates in future posts.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
So-called LGBT “Equality Act” will surely escalate State oppression against people of faith
Will Speaker Ryan Back the Anti-Christian LGBT Agenda? As a Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan voted in 2007 for the pro-homosexual ENDA bill–the precursor to today’s HR 3185 (Homosexual Superiority Act aka LGBT “Equality Act”). Contact House Speaker Ryan at 202-225-0600 and urge him to OPPOSE the radical “Equality Act” (HR 3185)–which would only escalate State oppression against people of faith across America.
The following is an excellent summary by Matthew Kacsmaryk of dangerous new LGBTQ legislation, HR 3185 (S. 1858), which AFTAH is labeling the “Homosexual Superiority Act”–or perhaps the “Criminalizing Christianity Act”–but which congressional sponsors (all Democrats) propagandistically refer to as the “Equality Act.” Kacsmaryk’s analysis first appeared in the outstanding website, “Public Discourse,” which I highly recommend (sign up for their emails HERE).
NOTE: I do have one quibble with the writer: the phrase “sexual liberty” is unfortunate Newspeak and the latest semantic invention by “progressives” that perverts historic notions of ordered liberty. It does so by attaching immoral and unnatural sexual conduct condemned in the strongest terms by God Himself to “liberty.” That connection–which is now employed by the most extreme libertines in the LGBTQueer coalition–e.g., the pro-sadomasochism National Coalition For Sexual Freedom–should be avoided at all costs, especially by social conservatives. Postmodern “sexual liberty” is in reality sexual license. Also, we usually affix quote marks to the word homosexual “marriage” but did not add them in Kacsmark’s article below.
Words matter. A lot of leftist harassment, intolerance and oppression is now being carried out in the lofty name of “equality.” The bottom line: when people caught up in homosexuality and/or gender rebellion are given superior (special) rights based on their aberrant lifestyles, moral-minded people lose their free-conscience rights. We already see escalating government prosecution–read: persecution–of faith-motivated Americans–mostly people who do not want to participate in same-sex “marriage” ceremonies–under local and state “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” laws. Now try to imagine the expanded assault on citizens’ religious freedom and First Amendment liberties if the ACLU and the rest of the Homosexual-Transgender Lobby were to be given the added power of the federal bureaucracy and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to enforce their pro-homosexual-transgender groupthink.
TAKE ACTION: 1) Contact Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (202-225-0600) and urge him to oppose HR 3185–the “Homosexual Superiority Act,” aka the LGBT “Equality Act.” (The other phone numbers for Speaker Ryan–who is now “America’s Congressman”–can be found HERE.) In 2007, as a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, Ryan voted FOR the pro-homosexual Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the precursor bill to HR 3185. It is disturbing that Ryan, a self-styled “conservative,” would support growing federal homosexual-agenda power at the expense of faith-based Americans who defend natural marriage and Judeo-Christian morality. Ominously for Bible-believing Americans, the LGBT “Equality Act” is ENDA on steroids–and even more dangerous than ENDA to our cherished religious and First Amendment liberties.
Target Corporation has backed the anti-Christian homosexual activist “Equality Act”–which AFTAH has dubbed the “Homosexual Superiority Act.” Contact Target at 800-440-0680 or write them at email@example.com.
3) Contact Target Corporation [(800)440-0680; firstname.lastname@example.org], which just endorsed HR 3185, and urge them to reverse their support of this anti-Christian “Equality Act”; suggest to Target that they would be smarter to at least stay neutral in the Culture War over redefining marriage and civil rights rather than side with homosexual and transgender activists. The latter now openly embrace anti-Christian bigotry and make shameful comparisons between anti-women “transgender” behavior (e.g., men in dresses using Female restrooms) and racist Jim Crow persecution of Black Americans. [AFTAH will have more on this story.]
4) Support FADA! Contact all the same legislators above and urge them to SUPPORT the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), HR 2802, which would prohibit the federal government from taking any punitive action against an American who believes that marriage solely between a man and a woman.
If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters, giving no quarter to Americans who continue to believe that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.
On June 26, 2015, five justices of the Supreme Court found an unwritten “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage hiding in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—a secret knowledge so cleverly concealed in the nineteenth-century amendment that it took almost 150 years to find. Facebook and the White House were awash in rainbow flags proclaiming the arrival of “marriage equality.”
Just three weeks after Obergefell, congressional Democrats filed House (H.R. 3185) and Senate (S. 1858) versions of the “Equality Act,” seeking to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the protected classes listed in the federal code. Americans are on an “equality” roll. What could go wrong?
As it turns out, quite a bit. If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters who disagree with same-sex marriage by using the enforcement tools of the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964, but with even greater force and scope. The Equality Act seeks to weaponize Obergefell, moving with lightning speed from a contentious five-to-four victory on same-sex marriage to a nationwide rule that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are privileged classes that give no quarter to Americans who continue to believe and seek to exercise their millennia-old religious belief that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.
The Contents of the Law
So, in concrete terms, what would the proposed law do? Here are just a few of the potential areas of impact, given how the Equality Act would amend various provisions of the Civil Rights Act:
Employment: would amend Title VII to create new protected classes for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” with no countervailing exemptions for faith-based organizations that maintain internal standards of sexual conduct rooted in longstanding religious tenets.
Federal Programs: would amend Title VI, historically limited to race, color, and national origin, to create new protected classes for “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,” with no countervailing protections for faith-based providers who willingly serve every program-eligible person but maintain internal standards of sexual conduct rooted in longstanding religious tenets.
Public Accommodation: would drastically expand the Title II definition of “public accommodation” to cover “gatherings” and facilities historically owned and operated by churches or religious organizations—“shelters,” “food banks,” and “care centers”—extending far beyond the categories at issue during the Civil Rights Movement: common carriers (freight, bus, taxi, train, and air lines), public utilities, hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues.
Public Education: would amend Title IV definitions of “desegregation” to include new protected classes for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” placing in the litigation crosshairs all sex-restricted facilities like dormitories, restrooms, or locker rooms.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act: would omit exemptions for religious organizations contained in prior drafts of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and expressly state that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) may not be used as a defense or a basis for challenging the Equality Act.
Sex: would enter a congressional finding that “federal agencies and courts have correctly interpreted  prohibitions on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes,” thereby adopting the EEOC’s most aggressively extra-textual recent rulings.
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications: would amend Title VII exemptions for employers who have sex-based “bona fide occupational qualifications” (BFOQ) for specialized jobs—for example, male security guards in a maximum security prison or female undercover officers in a sex-trafficking sting operation—to require recognition of persons “in accordance with their gender identity.”
Question and answer fit homosexual activist narrative; Kelly’s and Fox News’ pro-“gay” evolution continues
Fox News’ Pro-Homosexual Bias: America’s Survival’s 90-page report on the “conservative”-leaning network’s pro-“gay” bias, authored by Peter LaBarbera. Photo on cover is of Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly posing for a photo at the — annual fund-raiser of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. To download a PDF copy of the report, go HERE. For an HTML version, go HERE. See a transcript of the debate HERE. See the video of LaBarbera discussing the report with Michael Voris below.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Fox News and urge the network to stop promoting homosexual “marriage” and the rest of the LGBT agenda (as Megyn Kelly, Dana Perino and other on-air personalities are doing). Call 888-369-4762 or use their Online Contact Form. Or e-mail Fox News at email@example.com. Download a PDF of the author’s in-depth 2013 report on Fox News’ pro-“gay” bias HERE.
In a nation that professes to be “under God” but is teetering on the edge of moral collapse, perhaps it was inevitable that–in the most watched U.S. primary political debate ever–the opportunity for candidates to defend marriage between a man and a woman would get short shrift.
Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly, one of the three debate moderators at the Fox-sponsored Republican presidential primary debate August 6, may be known as a tiger for her tough questioning of guests, but when it came to her team’s debate question on homosexual “marriage,” she was a pussycat for the LGBT Lobby, asking a hypothetical that evoked sympathy for the homosexual cause. Sadly, this has become a trend with Kelly and Fox News, which, as this writer has documented (see report HERE or at right), increasingly has a pro-“gay” bias.
According to a Pew Research study in 2013, Fox News ran more stories that were biased towards homosexual “marriage” rather than against it (see Page 2). And Fox News also funds the advocacy-oriented National and Lesbian Journalists Association (NLGJA) every year; Kelly and other Fox journalists have attended NLGJA fund-raisers in support of the homosexual organization.
In the days leading up to Thursday’s prime time debate in Cleveland, Fox News anchors had been telling us how hard they were laboring to prepare penetrating, specific questions that would prevent their GOP targets from being evasive.
Electoral politics led by media pundits is pretty much a “biblical morality-free zone”–at least on the issue of homosexuality–as journalists obsess over the political “horse-race” rather than right versus wrong. Many journalists and even some conservatives have become cheerleaders for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) cause, while others simply bow to the prevailing political correctness.
So I was prepared for the worst as I sat down Thursday night to watch the main Fox News GOP debate, and, well…here is an excerpt of the key prime time exchange on same-sex “marriage,” posed to Ohio Gov. John Kasich by Kelly:
KELLY: Governor Kasich, if you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same-sex marriage?
KASICH: Well, look, I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I’ve also said the court has ruled —
KELLY: How would you — how would you explain it to a child?
KASICH: Wait, Megyn, the court has ruled, and I said we’ll accept it. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or can’t love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them.
Who knew that the toughest question that the Fox News brain trust could come up with on homosexual “marriage” could have been penned by the Media Department of the Human Rights Campaign?! Some LGBT activists and liberals must have been checking their TV remotes to make sure they weren’t watching MSNBC.
It was telling that the Fox team directed its “gay’-sympathetic query not to a strong social conservative candidate like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Dr. Ben Carson–who likely would have vigorously defended traditional marriage and religious freedom, and assailed the SCOTUS Obergefell ruling—but to “moderate” Kasich, who pathetically boasted about attending a friend’s “marriage” ceremony based on a sexual sin. Coincidentally (or not), Ohio’s U.S. Senator, Rob Portman, a Republican, changed his position in 2013 and backed homosexual “marriage” to support his homosexual son–a theme echoed in Kelly’s debate query to Gov. Kasich.
Now, it goes without saying that parents should love their children unconditionally–Kasich got that part right. But the governor offered no reasons behind his stated opposition to homosexual “marriage”–typical of GOP politicians who avoid discussing immoral homosexual behavior like the plague.
A close friend of mine shared my observation about Fox News’ strange priorities, and astutely noted regarding Kasich’s weak answer:
Kasich’s three-part answer, which resulted from a carefully planted question by Megyn Kelly, could have been drafted by the Human Rights Campaign:
“I’m old-fashioned….” This makes natural marriage merely a matter of personal preference, one that could be eclipsed by time and reason. Anytime a pol starts this way, he is selling out a traditionalist moral stance. Right up there with “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but….”
“Love everybody” — If you don’t go along with the fiction of a brideless or groomless “wedding,” you don’t love people.
Attended a “gay” wedding – See how tolerant I am, as opposed to all those bigots who voted for the 31 state constitutional amendments protecting natural marriage?
No wonder liberal praise has been pouring in for the Fox News debate moderators (and Kasich)–although the moderators’ aggressive questioning of Donald Trump has drawn most of the commentary and public criticism.
To be fair (and balanced), Kelly followed up her Kasich question with one from Facebook sent in by a social conservative. It dealt with people’s religious freedom NOT to support same-sex “marriage,” and was directed to libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, who hardly hit it out of the park. (See questions and answers in “gay marriage” debate excerpt at bottom.)
But the damage had already been done by the Fox News star’s emotion-laden question and Kasich’s rambling, Chamberlain-esque response, in which he simultaneously extolled his own Christian faith and his willingness to attend a blasphemous, homosexuality-based “wedding.” The one-two punch of Kelly’s “gay”-sympathetic hypothetical and Kasich’s guilt-ridden reply perfect illustrates how conservatives and Christians have lost on homosexuality-based “marriage.”
Megyn Kelly: growing ally of “gays”
Not Always Fair & Balanced (or Unafraid): Fox News’ Republican debate moderators (left to right): Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier. Each has demonstrated pro-homosexual bias in their reporting or actions in recent years. In 2011, Kelly berated Dr. Keith Ablow for suggesting that parents need to guard their children from media celebrations of “transman” “Chaz” (Chastity) Bono. In January of this year, Baier, a Catholic, cancelled a scheduled speaking appearance at a meeting held by the Catholic organization Legatus following criticism from an online homosexual activist of the organization as “anti-gay.” Baier said he did so at the request of his employer, Fox News. See a YouTube of Kelly’s unprofessional interview with Dr. Ablow below, or read about it in pages 25-30 of the author’s Fox News-“gay” biased report.
First, representing the media—which is easily the most powerful force driving the “gay” revolution–is Kelly, a professed Catholic, the prime-time star of Fox News who seems to be a “conservative feminist.” In a rather creepy 2010 interview with perverted shock-jock Howard Stern, Kelly declined to label herself and said she is conservative on some issues and liberal on others.
As this writer has documented in a 90-page America’s Survival report on Fox News’ pro-homosexual bias—Kelly is increasingly public as an LGBT “ally” who uses her considerable TV power to defend gay/transgender positions. In 2011, she grilled psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow and recklessly accused him of “adding to the hate” for daring to question whether female-to-male “transman” “Chaz” (formerly Chastity) Bono is an appropriate TV role-model for kids (who might want to imitate Bono’s transgenderism). Homosexual activists heaped praise upon Kelly for her agenda-driven interview berating Dr. Ablow. [Read about it on pages 25-30 in my Fox News-pro-homosexual-bias report, or watch a YouTube of the interview below.]
It deserves mentioning that Megyn Kelly and Fox News–unlike more liberal media networks–still give voice to Christian conservatives. She welcomes Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on as a frequent guest of her prime time show “The Kelly File”–even as Perkins has been targeted by intolerant, pro-LGBT leftists who demand that he be banned from TV talk shows due to his supposed “anti-gay hate.” Kelly was invited as a speaker at FRC’s upcoming annual “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, D.C., but she is not now on the list of scheduled presenters.
Nevertheless, Kelly’s sympathies on homosexual and transgender issues are not hard to discern. Recently, she took on the role of straight ally/“protector”* of Guy Benson, a newly “out” young, homosexual conservative and political editor of Townhall.com. In Benson’s “coming out” interview with Kelly [see YouTube below], she describes Benson as “very brave” for revealing his homosexuality on national TV, and says her show is a “safe space” for Benson amidst (mostly “progressive”) criticism of him. In a subsequent June interview with Benson–who himself is a Fox News Contributor–after the Supreme Court imposed homosexual “marriage” on the entire nation, Kelly seemed quite taken with the youthful Benson, who applauded the SCOTUS ruling and described himself as “someone who’s gay and Christian.” [See Dr. Michael Brown’s column dealing with the “gay Christian” controversy.]
Hastert allegedly chose homosexuality for his young student and coach’s assistant, who later died at 42
“…you may be sure that your sin will find you out.” (Numbers 32:23, NIV)
A Denny Hastert Victim? Yorkville, Illinois High School student Steve Reinboldt (shown here in his school yearbook)–told his kid sister Jolene that his first homosexual sex experience was with then-Yorkville High wresting coach Dennis Hastert. The latter abused Reinboldt thoughout the boy’s high school years, according to Jolene, before going on to become a U.S. Congressman and ultimately Speaker of the House. Meanwhile, Reinboldt embraced a “gay” identity and died of AIDS at the young age of 42 in 1995. Reinboldt would be 62 today. See video below and full ABC online story HERE.
Dear AFTAH Readers,
There are few things as evil and tragic in this fallen world as an adult who abuses the trust of a child–be it a son, daughter, niece, nephew, student, family friend, etc.–to fulfill his (or her) own selfish sexual lusts. I urge you to watch the ABC News interview video below, then watch it again–and then share it far and wide. I applaud Jolene Burdge, sister of the late Steve Reinboldt, for fighting for years to get out the story about the former high school wrestling coach who destroyed her brother’s life, then went on to become a famous legislator before the weight of his past sins came crashing down upon him. That man is former Speaker of the House, Republican Dennis Hastert, who has just pleaded “not guilty” to federal charges of lying to the FBI as the target of an alleged extortion scheme involving–according to an anonymous leak–a former sexual victim. Hastert is not being prosecuted for his sexual crimes alleged by Burdge, but he should be.
Trust Abused: Young Steve Reinboldt and his wrestling coach and alleged sexual abuser, Dennis Hastert. Photos taken from Yorkville High School yearbook.
There is a gripping aspect to this story that most media would dare not cover nor investigate: the sad reality that there are many ostensibly “gay” “Steve Reinboldts” out there: victims of adult homosexual predators–victims whose “gayness” was effectively chosen for them by alleged abusers like Hastert. The media and the powerful LGBT Lobby want us to believe that men and women are “born that way,” or at least that being homosexual (or bisexual or transgender) is their “natural” sexual or gender identity. Yet the many testimonies of homosexual men and women who recall being sexual abused as a child by an adult–or an an older teen or a sibling–suggests otherwise. (They might not call it abuse.) Common sense tells us that such predatory assaults scar, confuse and embitter the victim–and influence his or her volitional choice to embrace a deviant and immoral sexual lifestyle. Common sense also tells us that homosexuals who acknowledge childhood sexual abuse in their past yet claim that it has nothing to do with their out-and-proud “gay” identity are in deep, deep denial.
What would have come of young Steve Reinboldt had he not been cruelly detoured in his formative years by a secret pervert’s manipulations? Only God knows, but it is fair to assume that his name would not be carved into a tombstone as it is today. Perhaps he’d be enjoying his children and maybe even his grandchildren. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
See full ABC Exclusive story by Brian Ross on Jolene Burdge’s startling revelations concerning her brother and Dennis Hastert;
See this compelling Ryan Sorba undercover video that shows several adult homosexual men telling how their first same-sex encounter was being sexually abused by an adult homosexual predator;
See also ex-“gay” and childhood sexual abuse victim Stephen Black’s testimony HERE;
Testimony of openly homosexual CNN host Don Lemon, who was homosexually molested as a boy;