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

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooks Backs Buggery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

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

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

Sacred Sodomy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last turn of the knife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

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

New Jersey's new governor-elect Chris Christie, a Republican, campaigned against homosexual "marriage" -- and beat two pro-"gay marriage" opponents in a deep blue state.

By Peter LaBarbera

Social conservatives did quite well on Tuesday. Not only did traditional marriage win in Maine, but in several high-profile races, such as New Jersey’s governor’s race, the pro-traditional-marriage candidate won. In Virginia, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won the race for attorney general handily despite being smeared as a “bigot” by the powerful Washington Post for his principled opposition to granting “rights” based on unnatural behavior.

The victorious candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a strong pro-family, pro-life conservative who helped enact legal protections for the definition of marriage in the state. The following is from his website:

Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.

In the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation. In his 2005 race for Attorney General, Bob was honored to receive the endorsement of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

Christie ran on traditional marriage

In New Jersey, GOP victor Chris Christie was the only one of three candidates to oppose homosexual “marriage,” and sent out a mailer on that issue (this “gay” Advocate account sums it up). The Advocate reported Nov. 2:

The New Jersey legislature is widely expected to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session following the election. Governor Corzine has pledged to sign the bill. Christie opposes marriage equality.

Even in the only race that the White House likes to talk about — Democrat Bill Owens’ victory in the heated NY-23 Congressional race (he was endorsed by the GOP’s exiting moderate liberal candidate, Dede Scozzafava) — the news is not good for “same-sex-”marriage” advocates. Turns out that Owens, running in upstate New York, opposed allowing homosexuals to “marry.” However, he appears to support “civil unions.” See HERE and HERE.

The New York Observer reports:

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage–he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue”–telling me, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.”

By Bay Buchanan, Townhall.com, 11/2/09

According to a recent Gallup study, 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative, 36% call themselves moderate, and only 20% fall into the liberal category. While this may be great news for conservatives, the Grand Old Party did not fare so well.

Last Spring a Pew poll found that only 23% of voters consider themselves Republicans. This month an ABC/Washington Post survey suggests the number has fallen even further—to 20%. Meanwhile the largest block of voters, 36%, classify as Independents, with 35% calling themselves Democrats.

One more number: 72% of Republicans identify themselves as conservative.

Bottom line—the Republican Party is deeply conservative while America is predominantly conservative. It is the party label that has trouble, not the philosophy which was once its driving force.

The key to expansion then is to realign itself with that which is conservative and regain the trust of the 35% of Independents and 21% of Democrat swho also call themselves conservative. You do this with candidates who appeal to these voters—conservative populists who speak with boldness and clarity about their vision for America. Then you paint democratic candidates with the Obama brush– fiscally irresponsible, socially radical, out of touch liberals fully engaged in bankrupting the nation.

So what are Republican Party leaders doing? With 20% of the electorate in their pocket they’re running to the middle, adding even more credibility to Sam Francis’ description of them as the “Stupid Party.”

According to story in Politico this past week, “many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities.” But it was on their “big tent, big spending, big amnesty” watch that the referenced defeats took place!

This same article reports that John McCain and his little side-kick Lindsey Graham are working to move the party in a “more centrist direction”. But a year ago McCain, as the party’s nominee, couldn’t energize a Republican convention without first inviting the fire-breathing right-wing Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to join him on stage. ….

Go here to read the rest of Buchanan’s column on Townhall:  “Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?”

Schlussel writes on her website:

We’ve Lost: U.S. Census to Count Gay Marriages

[Aug. 3, 2009] On Friday, the U.S. Census Bureau and its parent, the U.S. Department of Commerce, announced that legally married gay couples (from California pre-Prop 8 and from other states in which it’s legal) will be counted as marriages in the 2010 U.S. Census.  But, strangely, you can only find out about this disturbing prospect in the gay media.

Although the federal government left the issue of who can marry to the states, this is a frightening turn, as it essentially transforms the issue into a federal one–very dangerous when liberal Democrats run the show in almost every branch.  Today, the U.S. Census Bureau, tomorrow, the IRS and lots of other federal agencies.  And, as you probably know, the Census isn’t just used to apportion Congressional districts.  It’s used for doling out lots of federal cash.

What’s that rustling sound? The fast revolutions of several Constitutional drafters spinning in their graves.  No doubt, the Founding Fathers never intended us to count men “married” to men and women “married” to women when they crafted, Article I, Section 2–the portion of the Constitution requiring that a national census be taken.

Exit Question:  Now that we’ve lowered the bar, when do we start counting menages-a-trois as marriages?  And will they count as two marriages or one-and-a-half?  Most of Hollywood need to know. ….

Click HERE to read more from Debbie Schlussel’s website on the liberal push to get government to recognize sodomitic couples.

McCain Exposes Democrats’ ‘Gay’ Political Payoff Priorities over the Best Interests of our Men and Women in Uniform

The following are Sen. John McCain’s floor remarks,  July 15, 2009, regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to tack a “hate crimes” amendment (S 909) on to an unrelated defense appropriations bill:

“Mr. McCain:  Mr. President, we have just seen, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interest of my colleagues and the American people such as the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the “Help” committee of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars in history and we have this bill on the floor and there are other issues so it has probably gone unnoticed we’ve seen another really, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority.

Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences.  What we have just seen is an amendment before this body that I think you could argue is probably of more importance than any other that we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military and future threats that we will face in the 21st century.

So what has happened here is that the majority leader with the agreement of my friend from Michigan who I highly respect and regard have made it clear that their highest priority is not that.

Their highest priority is a hate crimes bill, a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatever with defending this nation.  Now, my friend from Michigan just complained we haven’t had time for a vote.  Of course we haven’t had a time for the vote on the pending amendment because we have been made aware a hate crimes bill, 17 pages, encompassing piece of legislation before this body that has not moved through the judiciary committee, the Appropriate Committee of oversight.

So the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the floor after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment – an amendment of some consequence, $1.75 billion expenditure and a far more important than even the money, a real confrontation between special interests and the national interests so that we can move to the hate crimes bill.  Now, the hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say.  In fact, it’s interesting that on June 16, 2009, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Vice President, to the leaders of the Congress, opposing — opposing — the hate crimes bill.  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be made part of the record.

The presiding officer:  Without objection.

Mr. McCain:  The United States Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter saying Dear Mr. President, Distinguished Senators, we write today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That’s basically the bill that the majority leader has just inserted into the process of the legislation designed to defend this nation’s national security.  And of course there are strong feelings on it.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period.  While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

I’m sure the men and women in the military serving in his home state would be interested to know about his priorities.  So here we are.  Now we will go through – I’m sure the majority leader will file cloture and we’ll go through 30 hours of debate and have another vote and all of this is unnecessary.  Why couldn’t we move the Hate Crimes Bill?  Remember, this is not a single shot amendment on a small issue.  This is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes is a huge issue.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period.  While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

It requires citizens hearings, and debate. But what are we going to do?  For reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don’t get it, wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way.  Now, [he will] probably succeed and he’s calling it bipartisan.  The last time I checked it has 44 Democrat sponsors and two Republicans.  That’s the definition around here of ‘bipartisan’ bills.  That’s the way the stimulus package was bipartisan.  That’s how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan.

And I’m confident if the health care reform – “reform” – it will be reasonable in another “bipartisan” fashion.  So we’ll have some hours of debate.  We’ll have more exacerbated feel ensure between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle.  I would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the way, the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization.  A huge issue.  A huge issue.  It will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the congress and signed by the president.  That’s a great disservice to the American people, Mr. President.  The American people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation.

They don’t deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatever to hate crimes.  Now, I’ll probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead but I’ve been around this body a fair amount of time.  I’ve watched the defense authorization bill move its way through Congress and occasionally, including at other times.  I’ve seen amendments put on the bills which are non germaine.  But I haven’t seen the majority leader of the Senate whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate -- take a totally nonrelevant, all encompassing controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the nation’s security as this legislation is.  We’re breaking new ground here, Mr. President. Let’s have no doubt about it.

Its one thing to have one member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve, sometimes; it’s an entirely different thing, an entirely different thing, and I have never seen it before that the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the near and introduces an irrelevant piece of legislation that is controversial., that is fraught with implications for this and future generations to a bill that is totally nonrelevant and after 30 hours of debate we’ll have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation.  I’m deeply, deeply disappointed.  And I would question anyone’s priorities, anyone’s priorities who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage, and distinction.  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

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

WARNING: Crude language, inappropriate for children

TAKE ACTION: 1) e-mail this video to your elected Republican officials at the national (202-224-3121; www.congress.org), state and local level and urge them to reject the Log Cabin’s radical homosexual agenda (which includes joining with other “gay” groups in trying to use the courts to overturn California’s pro-traditional-marriage Prop 8 vote). 2) call or write Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at chairman@gop.com or 202-863-8700; 2) Call or write Nettelhorst Elementary’s principal, Cindy Wulbert, at Cw1411@gmail.com or (773) 534-5810.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, fielded a float in Chicago’s annual “gay pride” parade on June 28. 2009 — with a couple of crude signs: “BIG DICKS, small government” and “A Strong Military Shoots Big Loads.” If that’s not bad enough, the “gay” parade — like others across the country — saw the participation of many young children, brought by their same-sex parents or gay-sympathetic adults. A Chicago school, Nettelhorst Elementary, participated semi-officially after parents rallied to have their children be part of the first-ever grade school contingent to march in the parade.

As you can see from the video, beyond the crude signage, the “pride” parade featured sexual images and even public nudity (a woman atop a float is shown flashing her bare breasts — covered up in this video). Homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting and “gay” adoption are good for children. Then they take their impressionable kids to annual “gay pride” celebrations that feature erotic and perverted behavior and language that are clearly inappropriate for children. They can’t have it both ways.

This video was produced by Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.  At previous Chicago “gay pride” parades, AFTAH has witnessed public nudity and even a vile gay sex act between two men, which was allowed to take place on the street directly in front of a row of Chicago cops, who stood by and did nothing.

__________________________

Watch AFTAH’s other Chicago “gay pride” 2009 video:  VIDEO: Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Chicago ‘Gay Pride,’ and the Homosexual Cop-Haters

Related Log Cabin and “gay pride” stories:

• Homosexual Group ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ Has Measly 20,000 Members Nationwide
• Should Children Attend Lewd ‘Gay Pride’ Parades? LaBarbera Asks Biased Chicago Tribune Reporter
• [Illinois Family Institute - 2004:] Will Mayor Daley Again Allow Homosexuals to Commit Illegal Sex Acts on Chicago Streets at Upcoming ‘Gay Pride’ Parade?
• AFTAH Gives RNC Chief Michael Steele 20,000 Reasons NOT to Embrace Divisive Homosexual ‘Log Cabin Republican’ Agenda
• Tony Peraica, Christine Radogno Cozy Up to the Homosexual ‘Log Cabin Republicans’
• Log Cabin Republican Jamie Ensley Comes Out of his Bigot Closet
• Log Cabin Republicans Erase Photo of Boy-Seducing Predator Mark Foley from their Website
• Judy Baar Topinka Featured at Pro-Homosexual Log Cabin Republicans Fundraiser
• Public Nudity Tolerated as Angry Mob Assaults Peaceful Christians at Chicago ‘Gay Pride’ Parade
• San Diego School Superintendent: “Parents Don’t Have a Problem with Their Kids Being in Gay Pride Parade!”
• Coach Daubenmire Is Right: Christian Man, You Need to Observe a ‘Gay Pride’ Parade!
• San Diego City Councilman Blocks Public Display of Photos from “Gay Pride” Parade
• Ex-Log Cabin Republican Leader Takes over Pro-Homosexual-’Marriage’ Effort – Cal. Teachers Ass’n Pledges $1 Million to ‘No on [Prop] 8′

______________________________________

Does a Republican Precinct Committeeman have to support all GOP candidates?

By John Biver, Editor of Champion News; posted4-27-09

Last week a good friend who is newly involved in his township GOP organization asked me if I thought he was obligated to work for Republican candidates he felt he couldn’t support. As an example, he said he can’t support Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert because of her co-sponsoring of Republican Mark Kirk’s dangerous and wrong-headed H.R. 1913 [the "Thought Crimes" bill].

It’s a good question, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of precinct committeemen, the party itself, and the people it elects.

Many Republicans hold the view that we owe a blind fealty to those who appear on our party’s ballot line. I disagree. The party is the servant to the principles, nothing more. The party has no purpose outside of that service.

Those principles are outlined nicely in the state and national platforms. Simply stated, those principles are: limited government, traditional values, and a strong national defense policy.

It has long been the position of those of us at Champion News that there are some actions taken by our GOP candidates and elected officials that disqualify them from the support of platform supporting Republicans.

The evidence is abundant that our party’s problem isn’t the Democrats – it’s liberal or incompetent “Republicans” that misuse the GOP brand. Often, it’s better to have a lousy Republican candidate lose and a Democrat win. Why? Republicans are the only people who can do lasting damage to the public’s perception of the Grand Old Party. Democrats can’t.

Click here to read the rest of the article on Champion News: http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1841

TAKE ACTION:  Call or e-mail Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (202-863-8700; chairman@gop.com) and kindly inform him that it is erroneous to equate unchangeable skin color with changeable homosexuality. There are no “ex-Blacks.” There are many ex-homosexuals. Also remind him of the perils of using self-serving feminist terms (”choice”) to describe abortion, the taking of innocent unborn life. (For guidance see Ken Ervin’s excellent column below and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber’s comments on One News Now HERE.)

_______________________________________________

Steele’s Aim Off on Social Issues

By Ken Ervin

Originally posted on CWA’s website, 3/13/2009
According to Ron Gunzburger over at Politics 1, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele seems to be steering the party ship to the left. In a GQ magazine interview, the newly minted chairman dubs abortion “an individual choice,” directly opposing his own party platform, which labels abortion “a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life.”

He also demonstrates a woefully misinformed view of the homosexual lifestyle. “I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view that you can turn it on and off like a water tap,” says Steele. “You just can’t simply say, oh, like, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.’ It’s like saying ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”

What an unfortunate comparison. I don’t believe anyone’s ever said that leaving homosexuality is as easy as turning it “on and off like a water tap.” That’s a deeply oversimplified view of the process – and a process it is. The ex-gay movement (a la Exodus International, et al) is more like Alcoholics Anonymous. They recognize that same-sex attractions are more easily broken one day at a time.

Where Mr. Steele errs, obviously, is in comparing sexual attractions to skin color. Mr. Steele rightly says that he will never be able to “stop being black.” However, he can’t say that about homosexuality because it’s not about genetics, it’s about temptation. No white man has ever been tempted to become black (or vice versa). And even if one has, there is no way to act upon it. The same is not true in regards to a sexually broken person dealing with same-sex attractions. And that’s where Mr. Steele’s argument breaks down.

I think former homosexual Tim Wilkins said it best: “One of life’s mysteries is that we don’t get to choose what we are tempted by. But we do choose how we respond to those temptations.” [Read Wilkin's heart-warming testimony HERE.] The power of the cross is not that we cease to be tempted, but that sin no longer has such a strangle hold on our lives as to force us to yield to our temptations. By His death and resurrection, Jesus became the Victor over sin. Those who are under His blood have access to that victory and, by virtue of that Power, can successfully stand against those temptations.

In reality, Mr. Steele’s views on homosexuality are like his views on abortion. It’s an individual choice. But just like abortion, it’s a bad choice. Always. Every single time.

TAKE ACTION: Support SB600 in the Illinois State Senate by calling the Senators listed in this Illinois Family Institute Alert; the Capital Switchboard number in Springfield is 217-782-2000). This legislation could be effectively killed in committee soon so please call today.

Dear Readers,

I endorse this article by my friends at Champion News (based in Carpentersville, Illinois) — advocating a bill, SB600 (sponsored by Sen. Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora), which would allow the direct election of the Republican State Central Committee in Illinois — with the following proviso: though I am active in Republican Party politics in Illinois, Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) is a non-partisan organization that promotes pro-family values in all parties and all areas of society. We are not a GOP organization; in fact, some Republicans do not like AFTAH when we criticize pro-homosexual pandering within the Republican Party (see our campaign urging RNC Chief Michael Steele not to embrace the homosexual “Log Cabin Republican” agenda). They especially don’t like us when we assert that all de facto homosexual activist Republicans (and Democrats) working behind the scenes to promote the GLBT agenda should be open with the voters about their sexual special interest (instead of hiding behind the homosexual closet).

The reality here in the Land that Gave America Obama (sigh) is this: the Illinois Republican Party leadership has failed to stand boldly for conservative, pro-family ideals, and the party desperately needs some competitive energy. The ILGOP is hurt by its own “moderates” (read: social liberals) who continually talk down pro-family policies and proclaim their disdain for the ILGOP becoming “too conservative” (even as they lose one election after another). We hope that SB600 will become a vehicle for MORE pro-family advocacy in the party — and that it will help bring an infusion of new blood and Reaganesque thinking to the Party of Lincoln. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________________

Direct Elections: Awaken the IL GOP

First published in Champion News, March 3

By John Biver

My Champion News colleague Doug Ibendahl has been advocating for a return to Direct Elections for several years now, and along the way has thoroughly made the case in articles such as this one from last June: “Reawaken our Illinois Republican Party – Vote for a Return to Direct Elections.” Doug opened the article by asking rank and file Republicans to stand-up for the restoring of “a basic legal right that was taken away two-decades ago, with devastating consequences.” Devastating indeed. Here are excerpts from Doug’s article:

All Republicans in Illinois used to have a say in electing the top leadership of our Illinois Republican Party (the “State Party”). Our State Party is run by a 19-member State Central Committee, one member from each of our state’s U.S. Congressional Districts.

Our State Central Committee is the political equivalent of a board of directors – it’s charged with setting policy, overseeing operations, and looking out for the best interests of all Republicans.

In the late 1980’s the good-old-boys decided they wanted to consolidate power in Illinois. So they changed the system of selecting that board of directors – without asking Republican voters by the way. The Illinois Democrats kept direct elections for their Central Committee, but we adopted a much more closed, easily rigged system, with some really bad incentives.

Myth: “Returning to direct elections will mean only the wealthy will get on the State Central Committee.”

TRUTH:  The wealthier candidate is often the loser in an election, especially in Illinois. Our recent GOP primaries are full of examples.

Doug’s following point is huge – as it gets right to correcting the perverse incentives of the current system (emphasis added in bold and reformatted into bullet points).

We’re talking about an unpaid party post in the case of the State Central Committee. Making the members accountable to Republicans again will do much to change the job from being a mostly do-nothing ceremonial post, into one where the members have an incentive to become doers, working to build our Party.

Let’s create some common sense performance expectations for this State Central Committee for a change. Let’s measure that performance and share it with Republican voters in advance of election.

• For example, how many get-out-the-vote efforts did the person lead?
• How many new Republicans were registered to vote?
• What were the recruitment efforts for candidates, volunteers, election judges, poll watchers, etc.?
• And most importantly, how did the Republican vote fare in their districts?

Let’s see who runs for a volunteer service position that actually has some real work involved. And if someone wants to spend a significant sum of his or her own money to attain a volunteer job where they have to work hard on behalf of Republicans – is that a bad thing? Might that be exactly the kind of committed leader we need to reawaken this Illinois GOP?

A campaign for the State Central Committee means more energy and more people engaging and getting Republicans to the polls. Again, how can that be a bad thing?

Myth: “With direct elections, only public officials or those with high name I.D. would get elected.”

TRUTH: Our State Central Committee has lots of public officials NOW – plus there are a few more who are essentially the stand-in for a public official in the district.  If our party really wants to keep public officials off the State Central Committee, there is a simple solution. That State Central Committee could amend its By-Laws to include the prohibition.

If this public official point were truly a legitimate concern, our State Party could call a meeting and make the change today — if it wanted to. But passage would mean several of the current incumbents who are already public officials would have to give up a post. . .

Myth: “Direct elections will help Chicago Democrats get on our State Central Committee.”

TRUTH: We’ve got Chicago Democrats for all intents and purposes on there NOW. Think Skip Saviano for example. Enough said.

The truth is it’s our current system that’s encouraged Democrats to seek our party titles. This is evident in Chicago especially. Under our current system we’ve had lifelong Democrats in Chicago Ward Committeemen posts. Our current system encourages the State Central Committeemen not to say a peep or lift a finger, as long as they get that person’s vote to help stay on the State Central Committee.

Myth: “All of the County Chairmen are against returning to direct elections.”

TRUTH: Lots of County Chairmen support the reform. (Click HERE for a partial list of those supporting direct elections, which now includes former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald.)  More importantly, no other proposal impacting our Illinois GOP has generated as much energy and support from the rank-and-file in recent years as this direct elections reform.

Myth: “Direct elections would take power away from the precinct committeemen.”

TRUTH: Direct elections make the precinct committeemen MORE important. A State Central Committee member who wants to stay in office is going to have to build a much closer working relationship with his or her precinct committeemen – and the County Chairmen. And the relationship is going have to revolve around getting-out-the-vote, and less on just currying personal friendship.

Direct election of the State Central Committee is crucial to better align the interests of all party officials, at all levels, with the interests of Republicans. This is a big reason why every corporation gives every shareholder a direct vote for the board of directors for example.

More importantly, our current system has in fact been devastating to the precinct committeeman ranks. Note how our State Party consistently refuses every two years to help recruit precinct committeemen to fill the huge number of vacant slots around the state. This is just one of the bad disincentives built into our current system. It’s pretty obvious there’s a major concern among a few insiders about expanding the pool of voters, i.e., precinct committeemen.

Myth: “Going back to direct elections constitutes a ‘risky’ change.”

TRUTH: It’s our current system which is odd and extreme. Changing back to direct elections means going back to the sensible system, and the one that’s more like how every well run corporation is structured. Don’t forget, we were consistently a Red State when we had direct elections. Since abandoning direct elections, the GOP Presidential nominee has lost Illinois every time, usually by a lot.

To our knowledge, no other state party in America has a system as closed as the one we’ve tried.  It’s high time we ended the radical experiment that’s been an obvious failure.

Again, click HERE to read Doug’s entire article. Also recommended are these:

• Issue Brief: In Support of Direct Elections;
• Step 1 for an Illinois GOP recovery is giving Republicans back their vote;
• Illinois needs a Republican Party that can credibly push for a special election.

John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups and other GOP Utah Senate leaders and urge them to reinstate Utah St. Sen Chris Buttars (right) and NOT to punish him for speaking his mind against the aggressive and often hateful homosexual activist movement. Use the following contact information: e-mail: waddoups@utahsenate.org (other GOP State Senate leader e-mails HERE); Waddoups’ senate office: (801) 538-1407 or Utah Senate switchboard: 801-538-1035. Support Buttars at dcbuttars@utahsenate.org.

___________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I don’t know which aspect of this story is more preposterous: the notion of anti-Christian, homosexual lobby groups like Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — with their long history of demonizing people of faith as hateful bigots — setting themselves up as arbiters of responsible speech; OR … the specter of Republican Party leaders bending to pro-Democratic HRC’s pressure tactics.

My good friend Matt Barber (a Board Member of AFTAH) is correct below: if the Republican Party’s leaders think they are going to succeed in the long run by caving in to the Left’s version of “tolerance,” then we’re looking ahead at decades of Democrat Party rule in these United States. You simply cannot appease the homosexual activist movement, and groups like HRC are now engaged in a campaign of intimidation against pro-family lawmakers nationwide. Their unsubtle campaign attempts to classify any discussion of organized homosexual activism as a “threat” as beyond-the-pale hate speech leading to violence. More ominously, savvy homosexual moneymen like Tim Gill are targeting pro-family legislators for defeat using out-of-state “gay” PAC bundling, and it’s working [see this 2007 NPR story, "Wealthy Gay Donors a New Force in Politics," featuring Americans For Truth].

Chris Buttars is hardly alone: remember Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern, who was trashed by hateful homosexuals across the country for a speech she gave identifying the “Gay” Lobby as a serious threat to our nation? (Kern easily won reelection last year despite the hate campaign.) There have been other pro-family lawmakers who have been targeted in what is becoming a new “gay” direct-action political tactic of Intimidate, Demonize and Isolate Politically. (Take note of how the Left tried to erroneously paint Buttars as a racist; here’s a link with Buttars’ response.)

We understand that Sen. Chris Buttars is somewhat of a curmudgeon who comes from a different generation of Americans less apt to use politically-correct nuances and obey the speech codes set up by hypocrites on the Homosexual Left (who are among, of course, the most intolerant activists in the nation). But for Waddoups and the Utah State Senate GOP leadership to buckle to a group like HRC (see their pressure-letter against Buttars HERE) is unconscionable and a good example of why so many cynical conservatives call the GOP the “stupid party.”

The Republicans need to follow the example of their new chairman, Michael Steele, and get a backbone, and St. Sen. Chris Buttars should be reinstated to his post on the Judiciary Committee ASAP.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups and other GOP Utah Senate leaders and urge them to reinstate Utah St. Sen Chris Buttars and NOT to punish him for speaking his mind against the aggressive and often hateful homosexual activist movement. Use the following contact information: e-mail: waddoups@utahsenate.org (other GOP State Senate leader e-mails HERE); Waddoups’ senate office: (801) 538-1407 or Utah Senate switchboard: 801-538-1035. Support Buttars at dcbuttars@utahsenate.org. 

________________________________

Statement by Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel (and Board Member of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality):

Contact: jmattbarber@comcast.net; February 24, 2009

Homosexual Activists Target Veteran Utah Legislator

Lynchburg, VA – During recent comments to a documentary film maker, Utah State Senator Chris Buttars observed that – as every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held – the homosexual lifestyle is immoral. Buttars further opined that militant homosexual activism poses a grave threat to American culture. Tens of millions of Americans and the majority of Utahns happen to agree.

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel*, released the following statement today in response to news that Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups has caved to pressure by an anti-Christian homosexual hate group (the “Human Rights Campaign”) and has taken punitive action against Buttars by removing him from his post as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“If you need a prime example of why the Republican Party is presently spiraling into the abyss of political irrelevancy, you need look no further than to Utah,” said Barber. “The conservative majority in both Utah and across the country is starved for leaders who will represent the traditional values upon which our great nation was founded, and who will do so boldly and unapologetically. Sen. Buttars has done just that. He was elected in Utah to represent his constituents and the conservative values they hold near and dear. He’s been tested and has passed that test. By bucking left-wing extremism and speaking truth in plain and simple terms, Buttars has shown true leadership. Although his comments certainly lacked in political correctness and were quite direct, they were acutely accurate. Wouldn’t it be nice if more politicians would speak directly and accurately?

“Unfortunately, Senate President Waddoups has failed the same test. He’s responded in exactly the wrong way. No one should be surprised that HRC and other radical leftists are calling for Buttars’ head on a silver platter. That’s what bullies do when they don’t like what they hear. The self-styled proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ are the most intolerant and hateful among us.  They allow zero room for dissent and seek to destroy anyone who stands in their way.

“But what is troubling is that Senator Waddoups has played right into their hands. He’s given their radical left-wing agenda an illusory air of legitimacy. He had a golden opportunity to shine here by standing firmly behind Senator Buttars. He could have told these liberal extremists to take their extremism elsewhere. Instead, he threw Senator Buttars under the bus.

“Waddoups’ equivocation is a slap in the face to his own constituents. He’s indirectly told every American who holds a biblical view of sexual morality and who rightfully believes that radical homosexual activism poses a grave threat to our American culture, that they should be ashamed of these traditional beliefs – that they should keep these beliefs to themselves.

“Therefore, I’m asking that people contact Sen. Waddoups and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Sen. Buttars to his post as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and publicly apologize to both Buttars and to the millions of Americans whose traditional values Waddoups has impugned,” concluded Barber.

(*Titles provided for identification purposes only.)

###

 __________________________________

TAKE ACTION: Contact Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups and other GOP Utah Senate leaders and urge them to reinstate Utah St. Sen Chris Buttars and NOT to punish him for speaking his mind against the aggressive and often hateful homosexual activist movement. Use the following contact information: e-mail: waddoups@utahsenate.org (other GOP State Senate leader e-mails HERE); Waddoups’ senate office: (801) 538-1407 or Utah Senate switchboard: 801-538-1035. Support Buttars at dcbuttars@utahsenate.org. 

MIKE GALLAGHER:  Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” […]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What’s the difference?

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Well, folks, the homosexual activist “Log Cabin Republicans” didn’t call GOP Chairman Michael Steele a Nazi or a “domestic terrorist,” but they slammed him nonetheless for his principled stance against “civil unions.”  Come to think of it, I think the Democratic homosexual activists and bloggers are slamming Steele, too. What a coincidence.    Now is the time for all Americans who believe in marriage and time-tested Biblical morality to call or write Steele to thank him for wisely not capitulating on a core moral principle in his interview with Mike Gallagher (excerpted below; you can listen to the interview segment on this left-wing blog post).

Your calls and letters to Chairman Steele made a difference! Don’t let anyone tell you — even your church leaders — that involvement in public policy and defending life, freedom and a moral code that honors God — is a waste of time or futile. We live in the freest and greatest nation on earth and we must do what we can as good citizens to stop the Secular and Religious Left from destroying America’s moral foundation!

“Civil unions” are merely “gay marriage” by another name — or at minimum a monumental stepping-stone to same. And now we are learning that wherever “civil union” laws are in place (and open to all “orientations,” as in France), heterosexual couples are getting “civil-unioned” instead of getting married — thus eroding the institution of marriage and the lasting commitment for raising children that it represents.

Below is the excerpt of Steele’s remarks on the Mike Gallagher show, and below that is the press release condemning Steele from the Log Cabin Homosexual Activists Republicans. Can you believe the chutzpah of Log Cabin blathering on about being “inclusive” after one of their state leaders, Jamie Ensley, president of the Georgia Log Cabin, slandered Americans For Truth with charge (reminiscent of the rhetoric used by the Hard Left) that we are Nazi-like “domestic terrorists”? (And no apology has come yet from Log Cabin, although the Georgia Republican Party did put out a statement condemning his smear of us, as WND reported.)

Call today and thank Mr. Steele (202-863-8700; chairman@gop.com) for being a principled leader. Going Politically Correct on transcendent moral issues like life, homosexuality and marriage will not help the Republican Party recover as a party, but it could destroy it. God bless you. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

____________________________________

Michael Steele transcript of interview with Mike Gallagher (you can listen to the interview segment at this left-wing site: www.ThinkProgress.org):

MIKE GALLAGHER:  Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” […]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What’s the difference?

____________________________________

Log Cabin press release:

Log Cabin Responds to Chairman Steele

As ThinkProgress first reported, GOP Chairman Michael Steele was asked on a radio show Monday whether the party should “consider” civil unions. “No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?” he replied. The Log Cabin Republicans condemned Steele’s comments in a press release put out yesterday:

“The politics of the past were clearly rejected in the November election. We hope Chairman Steele will work to build a more inclusive Republican Party that can win elections,” said Log Cabin Republicans National Chairman Terry Hamilton. Hamilton continued, “Such comments marginalize gay and lesbian Americans, and further alienate the mainstream, moderate, and independent-minded voters that left the Republican Party in the November election.”

“We need an inclusive GOP to reach out to new constituencies and to attract younger voters, women, Latinos, African Americans, and others who share our view of limited government and low taxes. The Log Cabin Republicans remain committed to working with other mainstream GOP groups and fair-minded Republicans to rebuild the Party.

Just last month, the Log Cabin Republicans had enthusiastically cheered Steele’s election to the chairmanship. “It’s a great day for our Party. Steele is an inclusive leader who will bring a new energy and a new vision to the GOP at a critical time,” president Patrick Sammon said. Steele has been invited to speak at LCR’s convention in April but has not yet said whether he’ll attend.

UPDATE ON MICHAEL STEELE AND THE LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS:  In a new interview with radio talker Mike Gallagher, GOP Chief Michael Steele firmly rejected “civil unions” as an acceptable GOP compromise on homosexual “marriage” (see this left-wing account HERE). Your calls and e-mails to Steele made a difference!  Stay tuned for updates and you can thank him by calling 202-863-8700, or e-mailing: chairman@gop.com. Here’s the text of the interview (audio link available HERE):

GALLAGHER:  Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” […]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What’s the difference?

GEORGIA GOP DISTANCES ITSELF FROM LOG CABIN:  WorldNetDaily.com reports that the Georgia Republican Party has issued the following statement on the anti-Christian remarks by Jamie Ensley, president of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans, who called AFTAH a “domestic terrorist” group and compared us to Nazis: “While a healthy debate on the issues can help strengthen us as a party, to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe those that disagree with you is not appropriate.” See the full WND story HERE and the AFTAH article containing Ensley’s hateful e-mail to GOP Chairman Michael Steele HERE.

The Georgia Republican Party has distanced itself from homosexual activist and Georgia Log Cabin Republicans president Jamie Ensley’s vicious comments calling Americans For Truth a “domestic terrorist group” and comparing us to Nazis, WorldNetDaily.com reported Friday. Conservatives and pro-family Republicans across the nation have expressed outrage at Ensley’s bigoted remarks, but some homosexual groups like the leftist Gay Liberation Network have commended them.  

[UPDATE ON THIS STORY: WorldNetDaily.com reports that the Georgia Republican Party has issued the following statement on the Jamie Ensley-Log Cabin Republicans controversy: "While a healthy debate on the issues can help strengthen us as a party, to use the word 'terrorist' to describe those that disagree with you is not appropriate." Georgia GOP spokesman Doug Reineke emphasized to WND that the Log Cabin Republicans "are an independent group not officially associated with the Georgia Republican Party." See the full WND story HERE and the AFTAH article containing Ensley's hateful e-mail to GOP Chairman Michael Steele HERE.]

________________________________________

Log Cabin Republican Jamie Ensley Comes Out of his Bigot Closet

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted from the Illinois Family Institute website.

An un-righteously indignant James Ensley, President of Georgia Log Cabin Republicans, has sent a vitriolic tirade against Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth to the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. For those unfamiliar with Log Cabin Republicans, they are a homosexual political action group that is committed to subverting the Republican Party position on issues pertaining to “gay rights.”

Once again, the hypocrisy of the claims of homosexual groups’ commitments to tolerance is laid bare in all its ugliness in Mr. Ensley’s letter. He has charged Mr. LaBarbera and anyone else who shares the orthodox Christian, mainstream, historical view of homosexual behavior as immoral with being bigoted, anti-American, anti-Christian, fringe, radical, extremist domestic terrorists who shouldn’t have a voice in the Republican Party [see AFTAH piece HERE].
Here are some inconvenient truths upon which Mr. Ensley and other like-minded dogmatists might spend some time ruminating:

• There is no research proving that homosexuality is biologically determined: none.
• There is no research proving that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex: none.
• It is no more anti-American to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral than it is to believe that polyamorous or incestuous behavior is immoral. I think it’s safe to assume that most, if not all, of our pro-American Founding Fathers believed homosexual behavior to be immoral. It would be fascinating to see what evidence Mr. Ensley would provide to justify his rather remarkable claim that beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality constitute anti-Americanism, particularly since those arguments tend to rely on the erroneous and unproven presupposition that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race.
• There is a body of thought emerging from the homosexual community called “queer theory” that holds that homosexuality is neither inherent nor immutable.
• Although homosexual feelings are not chosen, homosexual conduct is.
• Even behaviors that emerge from feelings that may be shaped in some way by biological influences are not automatically moral. All humans experience feelings that are likely shaped in some way by biology, but that existential reality does not mean that it is always and automatically morally legitimate to act upon those biologically influenced feelings.
• The view that homosexual conduct is moral is an unproven, ethical belief —not a fact.
• The belief that homosexual conduct is immoral does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred. It no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does the belief that polyamory or selfish behavior is immoral constitute hatred of polyamorists or selfish people.
• The belief that volitional homosexual behavior is immoral is not an extreme position. Throughout history, it has been the dominant cultural view and remains so both in this country and many other countries throughout the world.
• Ensley’s comparison of those who believe homosexuality is immoral to Nazis is a classic association fallacy, best known as “guilt by association.” He is implying that because conservatives believe that homosexuality is immoral and Nazis believed it’s immoral, then conservatives are equivalent to Nazis. It’s a fallacious and absurd non-argument. Surely, Mr. Ensley recognizes that he likely shares in common some views with some Nazis. The fact that conservatives believe that volitional homosexual behavior is immoral and that some Nazis believed that also does not prove that the belief itself is evil.
• It is not bigotry to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Moreover, “prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.

It appears that James Ensley just came out of his bigot closet, hurling pernicious charges —with no evidence—at not only Mr. LaBarbera but also at countless others who share the view that homosexual behavior is immoral behavior. In the future, it might behoove the ad hominem-hurling Mr. Ensley to study the art of argumentation.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of School Advocacy for the Illinois Family Institute and a frequent contributor to Americans For Truth.

MEDIA NOTE:  I will be the guest on Liberty Counsel’s outstanding new radio program, “Liberty Live” – airing today at 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern Time (3:00-4:00 Central).  The host (in Liberty Counsel Founder Mat Staver’s absence) will be my good friend, Matt Barber, LC’s Director of Cultural Affairs and an AFTAH Board Member.  (Matt is the guy who was fired by Allstate a few years back after writing a private web article against “gay marriage”– on his own time; this was God’s way of launching him into full-time pro-family work!)  “Liberty Live” airs on more than 150 stations through the American Family Radio Network.  You can also stream the show live and take part in the interactive blog discussion at www.afr.net or www.lc.org.  We’ll be discussing the Obama Administration’s and Log Cabin Republicans’ shared homosexual agenda.  Click HERE to listen to the archived show shortly after the program, and HERE to find AFR radio stations in your area.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST OBAMA’S “QUEER” AGENDA:  Meanwhile, please understand when you read the story below this one on AFTAH’s front page (”So Many Gender Identities, So Little Time”) that all major “queer”-oriented legislation on Capitol Hill – i.e., President Obama’s pro-homosexuality agenda, which was barely discussed in the general election – has a radical transsexual component.  That means, for example, if ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) becomes law, federal “discrimination” lawsuits and government prosecution could be brought against businesses and faith-based business owners and entrepreneurs who oppose using their private company resources to promote and subsidize gender confusion (and homosexuality).

Call Congress at 202-224-3121 (www.congress.org) to oppose:

1. “Hate Crimes” (Thought Crimes) bills HR 256 and HR 262;
2. Transsexuality-Promoting ENDA (think men in dresses entering corporate female restrooms);
3. Allowing open homosexuality in the military (Obama’s plan to overturn “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); and
4. The pro-homosexual immigration bill euphemistically called the “United American Families Act of 2009” – which would allow Americans caught up in immoral homosexual relationships to sponsor their foreign-living homosexual lovers for immigration into the United States.  We might rename this last bill the “Foreign Homosexual Lovers Importation Act of 2009.”

Thanks for taking action!  And thanks for the thousands of supportive phone calls and e-mails that have poured into the office of RNC Chair Michael Steele (202-863-8700; chairman@gop.com) urging him to reject the divisive “Log Cabin Republicans” homosexual agenda! (See this incredible article highlighting one LCR leader’s extremism and anti-Christian bigotry, and the other Log Cabin stories below on the main page of the AFTAH website.) God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Americans For Truth writer Allyson Smith sent the following e-mail to pro-family activists urging them to contact Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to urge him not to promote the homosexual activist “Log Cabin Republican” agenda:

From: Allyson Smith
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:38 AM
To: Pro-Family Advocates
Subject: PLEASE READ – MY CALL TO GOP CHAIR MICHAEL STEELE’s OFFICE

Dear Everyone,

I just spoke with a staffer at RNC [Republican National Committee] chairman Michael Steele’s office and explained to her about the Log Cabin Republicans [LCR] and their nefarious activities. [The staffer] thanked me for the call and asked me to ask all of you to call in to ask Michael Steele to NOT give any accommodation or quarter to LCR members within GOP ranks. He assured me that my message would be passed on to Chairman Steele.

I gave her the following talking points and urge you all to call in and repeat them:

• Log Cabin Republicans are homosexual activists first, Republicans second.
• Because they are homosexual activists above all else, LCR members actively work to oppose the party’s plank on traditional marriage.
• California Log Cabin members actively worked to oppose Proposition 8, even as the GOP supported it.
• [Lesbian columnist] Deb Price recently wrote an article saying that LCR members are cheering Michael Steele’s election. To people like me, that is a red flag and cause for alarm.
• The GOP likes to pride itself on being the “big tent” party. However, when you admit so many members without discretion, you end up with people who think 180 degrees differently from the platform and then end up with a house divided against itself–and we all know what happens then.
• The key to the GOP regaining its power and membership is NOT to tack more to the left, but to reclaim and stick to its platform and get rid of people who work against the platform.
• The moral issues are the foundation and key to everything else the GOP is trying to accomplish. It does no good to talk of shoring up the economy or national security when the party permits and promotes immorality. We cannot secure the blessings of liberty when we accommodate pro-aborts, sodomists and other immoral people.
• I left the [Republican] party because it was becoming too much like the Democrat Party, and will be happy to rejoin when the party proves it is serious about adhering to its own platform.

I’m sure you can think of more things to add, but these are the main points I made to to [the RNC staffer]. Please call in using the numbers in Peter LaBarbera’s [AFTAH] message [RNC phone: 202-863-8700; e-mail: chairman@gop.com; see Americans For Truth story HERE].

God bless you all,

Allyson Smith
San Diego, California

Allyson Smith is contributing writer to Americans For Truth about Homosexuality. She can be reached through the AFTAH website.

February 12, 2009
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

NAPERVILLE, Illinois – Americans For Truth (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today urged Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele not to promote the divisive agenda of the homosexual activist group ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ – which has just 20,000 members nationwide — at the expense of the huge, grassroots pro-family conservative GOP base.

AFTAH is encouraging Republicans and pro-family citizens nationwide to contact Steele and the RNC to urge them not to sell out the conservative GOP platform by courting an organization that works to undermine tradition marriage and supports anti-religious, pro-homosexual special-rights legislation.  (AFTAH is also launching a parallel effort encouraging pro-life and pro-family Democrats to appeal to their Party to stop promoting a “Culture of Death” agenda.) Steele can be reached at:

Office of RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Phone: 202-863-8700;
E-mail: Chairman@gop.com;
RNC (www.gop.com): 202-863-8500

“Michael Steele and the GOP need to do the math: it is foolish and impractical to risk alienating millions of pro-family, pro-life, conservative grassroots Republicans to appease a tiny homosexual special interest group with fewer members than the population of Liberal, Kansas,” LaBarbera said. “If the Republican Party is to turn itself around, it must reach out aggressively to real, pro-family minorities like Steele himself — not homosexual activists whose agenda would restrict our precious religious and First Amendment freedoms by using the government to promote aberrant sexual lifestyles.”

Log Cabin praised Steele as a “Big Tent” Republican who will reach out to its supposedly “mainstream” cause. But LaBarbera said LCR’s liberal agenda and rhetorical smears against religious conservatives have more in common with other anti-Christian homosexual activist pressure groups than with the pro-family base of the Republican Party.

“The Log Cabin ideologues are ‘gay’ activists first and Republicans second,” LaBarbera said. “Just look at their current effort – joining fellow homosexual activists on the Left – to reverse Proposition 8, passed by California voters, reinstating marriage as God intended it: between a man and a woman.”

Log Cabin Republicans have proudly offered an elitist amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8 – inexplicably calling homosexuality-based “marriage” a “fundamental,” constitutional right against all evidence from our nation’s history and Judeo-Christian heritage. Polls show Black and Hispanic minorities favored Prop 8 at higher rates than whites.

I stumbled upon this interesting seminar about American evangelicalism on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. The event was put on last year by the Pew Forum. A brief excerpt is below and the full transcript is HERE. Note Michael Lindsay’s dichotomy — not “left vs. right” but “cosmopolitan vs. populist” evangelicals.

The question with regard to homosexuality is this: insofar as acceptance of homosexuality (or, in politically correct jargon, the “gay and lesbian community”) has become a defining feature of modern big-city culture, how will the “cosmopolitan evangelicals” react as they seek to retain their influence in “elite” circles? So far we have seen left-leaning evangelicals like Jim Wallis embrace a “rights” framework regarding the pro-homosexual agenda — while still claiming fealty to the Bible. (Wallis favors “civil unions” laws for homosexual couples.) Homosexual activists have applauded the leftward evangelical shift, but Christians who take the Bible’s proscription of homosexual acts seriously view the Evangelical Left’s posturing on this issue as a capitulation to worldly forces, and a violation of Scripture.

Given the media’s unprecedented subservience to the homosexual activist movement, pressures will only grow on “elite”-sensitive evangelicals to water down their opposition to homosexuality as a sin — thus chipping away at a longstanding assumption of Bible-believing Christians. But can they do that and keep their evangelical “brand”? After all, evangelical Christianity is defined to a great extent by a strong allegiance to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and even most “gay”-affirming evangelicals do not try to argue biblically that homosexual sex is not sinful (not yet, anyway).

Will a more “gay”-friendly “Christianity” coming out of younger and “emergent” Christian quarters have staying power, or will orthodox views on sexual morality regain strength — just as pro-life momentum is on the rise after many cultural and political observers began writing off that virtuous movement over a decade ago (how wrong they were)?

Politically speaking, if you factor in a Republican Party with a very strong strain of libertarianism that naturally butts heads with “religious right” moralism, and it appears likely that the internal battles over homosexuality within evangelicalism (and the GOP) will only grow more intense in the coming years. — Peter LaBarbera

____________________________________

[Click HERE for full transcript of the seminar]

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Publication Date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life.

TRANSCRIPT: American Evangelicalism New Leaders, New Faces, New Issues By Michael Cromartie

Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2008

EVENT TRANSCRIPTS Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; publication date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life. D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, described eight fallacies or misconceptions he held as he began his book. In the three years of his extensive research, he made surprising discoveries about the true power brokers and centers of power in American evangelicalism. He also found that the deep divisions in this movement are not between the political left and right, not between young and old, but between “cosmopolitan” and “populist” evangelicals. Lindsay discussed the implications of his findings for this election year as well as the future of the evangelical movement. David Kirkpatrick, Washington Correspondent for The New York Times, added some history about “old-school” evangelicalism and ways of categorizing the changes that are occurring within the American evangelical movement.

[Michael Lindsay:]

And I began to realize that there is a whole segment of the evangelical movement –many of those folks who are in the elite — who were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the evangelical subculture. And so I began to think more about this and pay more attention to it. And the real divide, in my opinion, in evangelicalism is not between the left and the right; it’s not between the young and the old. It is between a group that I call the “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and “populist” evangelicals. And these are very, very significant divisions.

You see, populist evangelicals are what we oftentimes think about evangelicals. These are the folks who are culture warriors, who say that they want to take back the country for their faith. They see themselves as embattled against secular society. They are very much concerned that they are in a minority position, and they’ve got to somehow use very strong-arm tactics to win the day.

So that populist evangelicalism is alive and strong, especially in the evangelical subculture: the music, the publishing, the entertainment segment of the evangelical subculture. But there is a whole other segment. The people who I interviewed, by and large, fit more this cosmopolitan outlook. They are less interested in taking back the country for their faith. They really are more interested in their faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and winsome. So they still have an evangelistic impulse, but their whole modus operandi looks quite different. Because of that they have different ultimate goals of what they are actually trying to achieve. They want to have a seat at the table. They want to be seen as legitimate. They are concerned about what The New York Times or TIME magazine thinks about evangelicals because they [the cosmopolitan evangelicals] are concerned about cultural elites. They want legitimacy. Legitimacy is actually more important to them than necessarily taking back the country. And so that cosmopolitan-populist divide I find to be quite significant.

Click on cartoon to enlarge. Reference articles: “Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don’t give up” (LA Times, 11-10-08); “Schwarzenegger says gay marriage could be good for economy” (Sacramento Bee, 5-21-2008); “Schwarzenegger will battle gay marriage ban” (NY Daily News, Associated Press, 4-11-08); “Governor backs same-sex marriage ruling” (San Francisco Chronicle, 5-17-08).

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

Election Results from Hamtramck, Michigan:

President

Obama: 4,945
McCain: 708

Obama wins with 87% of vote

Hamtramck “Gay Rights” Ordinance

YES: 2,333
NO: 2,903

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

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

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

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

___________________________

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

CONTACT:   Gary Glenn through www.afamichigan.org

Hamtramck voters reject “gay rights” ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #