One of the three panelists, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, went out of his way in a concurring opinion to dispute that either the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it provided “a member of the armed forces (with) a constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual acts or to state that he or she is a homosexual while continuing to serve in the military.”

O’Scannlain also criticized the lower court judge who invalidated “don’t ask, don’t tell” last year, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips. He accused Phillips of willfully failing “to apply established law” so she could issue a ruling “that invalidated a considered congressional policy and imposed a wholly novel view of constitutional liberty on the entire United States.”

Per the usual, the Log Cabin Republicans put their pro-homosexuality activism way ahead of loyalty to the conservative Republican Party platform. (After all, for homosexual activists, it’s all about “me.”) The question now is: will the same conservative Republicans and GOP candidates who rightly pledge to repeal Obama-care also work to reinstate the homosexual military exclusion policy – or will they capitulate to the Left’s (and libertarians’) radical social agenda for the Armed Forces? If they surrender, pro-homosexual “diversity” policies will turn the Pentagon into massive “gay rights” bureaucracy that undermines religious freedom and the very conservative values that make our military strong. We shall see. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Excerpted from the Sept. 29, 2011 Associated Press article by Lisa Leff (emphasis added):

Appeals court tosses gays in military lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to decide the constitutionality of the military’s now-repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay troops, saying the issue has been resolved since Americans can enlist and serve in the armed forces without regard to sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco tossed out a lawsuit that had challenged the military policy as a violation of gay service members’ civil rights. In doing so, the appeals court also dismissed a Southern California trial judge’s year-old ruling that the policy was unconstitutional.

The gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans filed the lawsuit in 2004 challenging the policy. The group’s lawyer, Dan Woods, said he would ask the full 9th Circuit to review the panel’s decision.

The group recently argued the lower court ruling, which also barred enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should remain in effect despite this month’s repeal because future administrations and lawmakers could reintroduce a ban on gay service.

The three judges strongly disagreed in their Thursday opinion, saying the case is moot because there is nothing left to challenge regarding the policy enacted as section 654….

The panel specifically rejected Log Cabins’ assertion that the appeals court should decide the underlying constitutional issues to prevent future limitations or outright bans on military service by gay and lesbian Americans….

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said he was disappointed, noting that the favorable ruling his group obtained in the lower court played a major role in persuading policy makers to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States said more than `don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed – it stood for the fundamental constitutional rights of service members not to be discriminated against by the nation they serve,” Cooper said. “This decision by the 9th Circuit denies more than 14,000 discharged gay and lesbian service members an important means of obtaining justice for the wrong perpetuated against them under the ban, and leaves open the possibility of future violations of service members’ rights.”

One of the three panelists, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, went out of his way in a concurring opinion to dispute that either the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it provided “a member of the armed forces (with) a constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual acts or to state that he or she is a homosexual while continuing to serve in the military.”

O’Scannlain also criticized the lower court judge who invalidated “don’t ask, don’t tell” last year, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips. He accused Phillips of willfully failing “to apply established law” so she could issue a ruling “that invalidated a considered congressional policy and imposed a wholly novel view of constitutional liberty on the entire United States.”

Ex-lesbian Janet Boynes was shown in the ABC piece by investigative reporter Brian Ross, but he did not "investigate" her story of leaving lesbianism with God's help.

Folks, it sure didn’t take long for the liberal media to go into Christian-bashing mode against GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Watch this almost comically biased hit-piece by ABC’s Brian Ross — featuring the militantly anti-Christian homosexual organization Truth Wins Out. (TWO denies the reality that people can leave homosexuality behind; I call them “Focus on the Failures” because their nonsensical argument seems to be that since many practicing “gays” fail in their quest to change, transformation away from homosexuality is a myth.)

Incredibly, ABC even went so far as to title its piece “Pray Away the Gay at Bachmann Clinic?” — recycling TWO founder Wayne Besen’s mocking and bigoted attack-slogan for the idea that people can overcome homosexual desires through faith in God. Shouldn’t it have occurred to Ross to sit down with and interview a SUCCESSFUL former homosexual like Janet Boynes, who:

1. lives near Minneapolis, where the Bachmanns’ counseling clinic is located;
2. was mentioned in the story — the undercover TWO “investigative reporter” ominously cites a copy of Janet’s book, “Called Out,” endorsed by Dr. Bachmann;
3. is a happy FORMER lesbian who endeavors to help others out of homosexuality, and who credits God for the power to change?  

We confirmed that no ABC reporter contacted Boynes for their story on the Backmann clinic. I don’t have much hope of changing ABC [but you can contact them HERE]; they and most of the secular “mainstream” media are for all practical purposes a part of Gay Inc. at this point. But let’s use this unfair hit-piece to highlight the truth: that people like Janet Boynes and Linda Jernigan — who once thought they were “gay” — can and do leave homosexuality behind, often through the “Amazing Grace” of Jesus Christ. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

See my comments in bold below in Cliff Kincaid’s excellent Accuracy in Media story (all emphasis added):

________________________________________

Media Guns Fire Blanks at Bachmann

By: Cliff Kincaid, [reprinted from Accuracy in Media] |  July 12, 2011  

Once a greatly feared investigative reporter, Brian Ross has been reduced to recycling left-wing material from the homosexual lobby. But the pathetic hit job he narrated on Monday’s ABC Nightline show on GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has backfired in a big way. The charge was that the Bachmann family counseling service engages in terrible things by teaching homosexuals how to leave their disease-ridden lifestyle.

Ross called this method of counseling, which emphasizes religious conversion, “highly controversial” and said it “could become a campaign issue.” Ironically, however, he presented evidence that ex-homosexuals do in fact exist

It is a sign of the dominance of the homosexual lobby in the media business that such a program would even be aired. The upcoming National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association convention features “Today” show co-anchor Ann Curry and CNN’s Don Lemon as keynote speakers.

The ABC piece, “Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?,” was constructed in such a way as to suggest that ex-homosexuals are non-existent, even though the Brian Ross report itself noted the presence of books by a “self-proclaimed ex-lesbian” in the counseling center. A video from the ex-lesbian, Janet Boynes, was even shown briefly on the air. This was supposed to be shocking.

Of course, the notion of the Bible condemning homosexual behavior, reflected in several passages, was viewed as bizarre and intolerant.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says the phrase, “pray away the gay,” is intended to ridicule Christians and comes directly from homosexual activist Wayne Besen’s group, Truth Wins Out. LaBarbera asks, “Why are the major media repeating these hateful attack slogans by radical gay activists?”

He explains, “We don’t mock the idea of leaving drug addiction or alcoholism with God’s help. Why is it acceptable to mock faith in God to overcome unwanted behaviors like homosexuality in their lives?”

“Wayne Besen’s thesis is that ex-gays don’t exist,” noted LaBarbera. But Janet Boynes is a real person and absolute proof that one can leave the homosexual lifestyle.

Perhaps without realizing it, Ross has presented evidence of the homosexual “change” that he was trying to discredit.

“The homosexual lobby simply can’t deal with the reality that ‘gays’ can change (usually with God’s help),” LaBarbera adds. His group recently hosted an event with another ex-lesbian, Linda Jernigan.

To make matters worse, the ABC hit piece was largely recycled leftist material. Ross borrowed heavily from Truth Wins Out (TWO) and an article in The Nation magazine, in order to concoct the shaky story.

Since the segment was light on anything truly horrifying, he used film footage from a Truth Wins Out operative who had secretly taped a counselor for the Bachmann service. This had the effect of making everything look sinister. The apparently shocking advice to the undercover homosexual operative was that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not. This is what passes for “investigative journalism” these days.

“ABC’s Brian Ross did a terrific job with this Nightline segment…” declared TWO executive director Wayne Besen.

As such, Ross can expect to be nominated for an award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which honors pro-homosexual coverage.

The Brian Ross hit piece follows an attack on the popular Congresswoman by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine,”Michele Bachmann’s Holy War,” where he smeared Bachmann as “a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.”

Blogger Trevor Loudon disclosed that Taibbi was the recipient of an award from the Democratic Socialists of America in Boston for his hard-left reporting.

Loudon commented, “Maybe Matt Taibbi should tell us about his own true beliefs. I’m betting he is not as open about his own convictions as Michele Bachmann is about hers.”

See text of the Washington Times ad in the text of this article.

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 7, 2011 /Christian Newswire/

In a full-page ad in today’s Washington Times, a group of conservative leaders say they are deeply troubled by the direction of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) – which opens on February 10. Click HERE to see the ad as it appears in today’s Washington Times” (including a list of signers).

Vision America President Pastor Rick Scarborough, who initiated the project, noted: “For the third year in a row, GOProud will be participate in CPAC. GOProud seeks repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, without which judges will ultimately legislate homosexual ‘marriage.’ Last year, GOProud advocated for homosexuals serving openly in the military, which will devastate our armed forces and sacrifice unit cohesion on the altar of ‘inclusiveness.’”

Some of the most prominent conservative groups and leaders are boycotting CPAC, due at least in part to the presence of GOProud. They include American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Jim DeMint and Sean Hannity.

“Ronald Reagan spoke at CPAC in 1977. But would Reagan be comfortable at CPAC 2011?” Scarborough asked. “Our 40th president spoke of conservatism’s three-legged stool, economic, defense and social (family values) issues. Remove one, and the entire structure collapses.”

“CPAC organizers have decided that while limited government and national security are sacrosanct, the family is unimportant. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene was quoted in the January 27 New York Times saying that CPAC could allow participation by a group promoting abortion, if it also supported the principles that really count, in his estimation,” Scarborough noted. CPAC is sponsored by the ACU.

“This is ultimately self-defeating,” Scarborough added. “Capitalism depends on individuals willing to make short-term sacrifices. Only families provide the incentive for such sacrifices. Without families to protect, who will want to man the ramparts to defend freedom?” Scarborough added.

The ad charges: “CPAC is betraying conservative principles and threatening conservative unity by creating the false impression that gay activism is somehow compatible with conservatism.” Click here for the ad as it appears in today’s Washington Times, including a list of signers.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Rick Scarborough or other spokesmen for the project, contact Misty at 936-560-3900.

For more information, contact Vision America, P.O. Box 10, Lufkin, Texas 75902 or 936-560-3900 www.visionamerica.org; Christian Newswire

Here is the text of the CPAC-Reagan ad:

CPAC AND THE CONSCIENCE OF CONSERVATIVES

The undersigned are deeply troubled by the direction of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which threatens to divide the movement and undermine everything we’ve worked to achieve since the era of Ronald Reagan.

As President Reagan himself noted, conservatism is a “three-legged stool” – social conservatism (family values), fiscal conservatism (the free market) and defense/foreign policy conservatism (peace through strength).

When one leg is removed, the entire structure collapses. Who undermines the family, undermines America. Our nation can’t have a sound economy or an effective national defense without strong families.

CPAC is betraying conservative principles and threatening conservative unity by creating the false impression that gay activism is somehow compatible with conservatism.

GOProud is a participating organization in CPAC 2011, as it has been since 2009.

The self-proclaimed gay Republicans support hate crime laws (which will be used to bludgeon the church) and oppose the Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment, without which judges will ultimately legislate homosexual “marriage” – making the natural family an endangered species.

Last year, GOProud advocated for homosexuals serving openly in the military, which will devastate our armed forces and sacrifice unit cohesion on the altar of “inclusivenesss.”

Ask yourself: Would CPAC allow participation by the Democratic Socialists of America? Why is the free market an inviolable conservative principle, but not family values?

Would organizers invite George Soros to address the gathering? Then why associate with groups which share his worldview?

What does it profit us to gain tax cuts and lose the family – the foundation of a free society?

CPAC is the largest conservative event of the year. Speakers include many of the movement’s luminaries. CPAC is a focus of media attention. It has been considered by many to confer conservative legitimacy and credentials on participants.

Once, that was true. It is no longer. Because of the participation by organizations openly at war with family values, many of the largest and most prominent conservative groups are staying away from an event they once participated in proudly.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), a regular speaker at past CPACs, has just announced he won’t participate in this year’s conference, in hopes that conservative unity will be restored at next year’s event.

President Reagan used to say that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Sadly, that’s the way many conservatives increasingly feel about CPAC’s current direction.

We appeal to the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (CPAC’s parent organization) to end the moral confusion.

Until that happens, we call on CPAC sponsors and participating organizations to re-think their involvement with the conference — involvement which tacitly condones the direction in which CPAC is moving.

In the war on the family, Judeo-Christian morality and authentic conservative principles, neutrality is impossible. We call for a return to first principles.

Signed

Mark Andrews

Susan Carleson (American Civil Rights Union)

Brian Camenker (MassResistance)

Mandi Campbell (Liberty Center for Law And Policy)

Frank Cannon (American Principles Project)

Chris Carmouche (GrassTopsUSA)

Joseph Farah (WorldNetDaily.com)

Don Feder (Don Feder Associates)

Diane Gramley (American Family Association of Pennsylvania)

Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr. (STAND America PAC)

Phillip Jauregui (Judicial Action Group)

Gordon James Klingenschmitt (Pray In Jesus Name)

Peter LaBarbera (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality)

Shelli and David Manuel (Resurrect America Project)

William J. Murray (Religious Freedom Coalition)

Rev. Rick Scarborough (Vision America)

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition)

Sharon Slater (Family Watch International)

Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel)

Mike Valerio and Helen Valerio, Americans

Tim Wildmon (American Family Association)

 For more information, contact Vision America, P.O. Box 10, Lufkin, Texas 75902 or 936-560-3900 www.visionamerica.com

Ann Coullter comes to Chicagoland Thursday, Oct. 7th. Coulter outraged "queer" liberals like Perez Hilton when she told 'conservative' homosexuals at GOProud's "Homocon" event that same-sex "marriage" "is not a civil right -- you're not black!"

WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS

[CORRECTION: we received a note from homosexual blogger Joe Jervis (Joe.My.God.) pointing us to a Human Events article by Lisa De Pasquale that clarifies some careless reporting by Politico of Ann Coulter's GOProud speech: it was not a GOProud member (as I reported, relying on Politico) but rather a joking Greg Gutfeld of the latenight FOX show "Red Eye" who "heckled" Coulter, blurting out, "What's wrong with fisting?" after she -- using her patented comic hyperbole -- accused liberals of wanting to teach kindergartners about "fisting." Coulter and Gutfeld are friends. (Her point of reference was surely the infamous 2000 Boston "Fistgate" incident, in which middle- high school kids actually WERE instructed verbally about "fisting" -- at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Netword (GLSEN)-sponsored conference. ("Fisting" is a dangerous homosexual sadomasochistic perversion in which a man inserts his arm up another man's rectum.) 

[We have removed the portion of this article in which we speculated that it was a GOPround member or supporter who asked, "What's wrong with fisting?" Also, it also should be noted that, despite the value of correcting the record on Coulter's speech, De Pasquale works for American Conservative Union, which supports GOProud and defended the homosexual group's sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- against complaints by conservative Christian groups who accused CPAC of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. AFTAH opposed GOProud's sponsorship of CPAC.  -- Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org]

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear AFTAH Readers,

If you are near Chicago, I’d like you to consider attending an Ann Coulter speaking event a week from today — put on by my good friend Sandy Rios, president of Culture Campaign, a pro-family action group based in Illinois. Sandy, a FOX News contributor, is a brave truth-teller who surely would have gone farther in the media had she not stayed true to her Christian principles; please support her by coming out this Thursday night!

I know that’s sort of an odd request given the swirl of controversy and debate surrounding Coulter’s recent speech at ‘HomoCon,’ an event put on by the homosexual Republican group ‘GOProud.‘ But trust me, you will be blessed by this event — and you’ll be helping out a solid organization, Culture Campaign, that has stood strongly against the homosexualist agenda.

First, here are the details:

WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 7, 7:30 PM — less than a week away

WHERE: The Meadows Club, 2950 W. Golf Rd., Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 (suburb north of Chicago). Online map here: http://www.themeadowsclub.com/location.htm

WHO: Ann Coulter, feisty conservative pundit and author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and their Assault on America,” and other books.

COST: $50; $35 for students; tickes will NOT BE SOLD AT THE DOOR

HOW TO ORDER TICKETS: Go online to Culture Campaign’s online order form: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/747925064. Tickets can be ordered up to 3 hours before the event’s start time (7:30 PM, Oct. 7th).

SPECIAL VIP DINNER OPPORTUNITY: Before the main event you can be a part of an exclusive VIP Reception & Dinner that includes a photo with Ann along with a personally signed book. For more information on this limited seating function contact Michael Glenn, Executive Director of Culture Campaign, at mglenn@culturecampaign.com.  

_______________________________________

If you come, I will see you there. Here’s why I’m going – even after my disappointment with Ann Coulter for lending legitimacy to a Republican upstart “gay” group (GOProud) that talks a good game about being conservative but really isn’t. As GOProud Chairman Chris Barron said in an August 4 Twitter post: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”

(The core purpose of GOProud is to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. Promoting ”pride” in a sin, supporting a judge who imposes ”gay marriage” against the expressed will of millions of California voters, and backing governmental/taxpayer recognition of aberrant sexual relationships is not conservative — period. However, GOProud does take conservative positions on issues like gun control and lower taxes – and it has even endorsed the Republican opponent of homosexual Barney Frank (D-MA), for which they were pilloried by liberal activist homosexuals.)

All that said, I agree pretty much with Bryan Fischer of AFA below (writing for Renew America) that Coulter redeemed her much-discussed GOProud booking to defend truth, including the idea that “same-sex marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily went further in his recent debate with GOProud founder Christopher Barron in Miami — exposing GOProud’s hypocrisy in claiming to be for “limited government” while failing to condemn a federal judge (reported homosexual Vaughn Walker) for invalidating the people’s vote in California in favor of traditional marriage. After Walker’s ruling, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia made these comments — perfectly reflecting GOProud’s desire to have it both ways on ”conservatism” and “gay marriage.” The FrumForum blog quotes LaSalvia:

“As long as the government is in the marriage business it should treat gay couples as equal to their straight counterparts.  Accordingly, we are pleased with the outcome of the Prop 8 case.”

That said, LaSalvia qualified his satisfaction by noting that, “As conservatives, however, we continue to have reservations about using the courts to achieve these ends.”

GOProud’s Barron debates WND’s Farah

Christopher Barron of GOProud (left) debates WND's Joseph Farah. Photo: WND.com

It took some guts for Barron to come to the WND “Take America Back” conference and debate Joseph Farah (see photo) — although it also fits Barron’s masterful PR strategy of using controversy to stay in the news. I attended the event, and it was fascinating as much for what was not debated as for what was. (For example, when questioned from the floor, Barron acknowledged that rights come from God but he was never asked whether and on what basis he defends homosexual practice itself as moral and “conservative.”) 

Suffice it to say that Barron played a good game of dodging and weaving regarding his promotion of homosexual activist goals – even stating that GOProud did not “celebrate” the recent court ruling invalidating Prop 8 in California when clearly – like all other homosexualist groups — GOProud cheered the radical decision. I would welcome a debate with Barron that is less restrictive and more free-wheeling than the WND event, with more opportunity for follow-up questions.

Some gays don’t want ”gay rights” laws

Despite his and GOProud’s previous cheap shot at me after I challenged Coulter on the GOProud speech, I could sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss issues with Barron and we’d probably agree on as much as we disagree on. (When I met Barron at the debate and challenged him on his attack on me, he responded that I specialize in cheap shots.) The fact is, there are many homosexuals who disagree with the demands of the largely liberal-Democratic Homosexual Lobby – and who also disagree with its anti-religious stridency. Many don’t want “special rights,” as conservatives once widely called “sexual orientation” laws. And while GOProud equivocates and tries to ride the fence by claiming neutrality on dangerous big-government-gay bills like ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), some homosexuals completely reject the “gay rights” political agenda and just want to be left alone. (Barron says he does support Americans’ First Amendment and religious right to disagree with homosexual practice, but by advocating for federal Domestic Partner legislation, he would essentially force all citizens to subsidize it with their tax dollars.)

Like Farah, I will grant Barron this: you can hold conservative positions on a number of issues like guns and taxes yet have a homosexuality problem (or a theological one: Barron considers himself a Catholic yet says he is “married” to another man). But if you form an organization dedicated philosophically to advancing homosexuality – thereby undermining the historic, biblically-based moral/religious basis for American freedoms and prosperity – that ain’t “conservative” because you are working to reconfigure — not “conserve” — marriage and family as God designed them.

As Farah said at the debate: “Chris, your argument is not with me. It is with God. It’s with 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian history and the founding principles of this country.”

The same could be said of anyone — straight or “gay,” conservative or liberal, socialist or libertarian, religious or secular — who advocates for “same-sex marriage” and/or state and corporate recognition of homosexual relationships as a social good – or of homosexuality as the basis for civil rights.

Coulter’s GOProud Gold

I didn’t see a full text of Ann Coulter’s GOProud speech, but good for her for nailing the fraudulent case for oxymoronic “gay marriage” and homosexuality as a “civil right” with a couple of catchy one-liners. From Politico’s Ben Smith, who attended the event:

Coulter’s jokes Saturday riffed on the theme that GOProud doesn’t make same-sex marriage central to its appeal; it considers, Barron says, national security and the economy more important.

Marriage “is not a civil right – you’re not black,” Coulter said to nervous laughter. She went on to note that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”

Hello, Republicans… Want to get more black votes? Then don’t abandon the fight against homosexual “marriage”!

GOProud member to Coulter: ‘What’s wrong with fisting?’

I read this liberal homosexual account of Coulter’s GOProud appearance on the website of homosexual Hollywood gossip writer Perez Hilton, who titled his piece, “Ann Coulter Sinks to New Lows of Vileness!” (emphasis added):

According to Talking Points Memo’s Megan Carpentier:

In fact, despite opening her speech with a joke about the difficulty of “coming out” as a fiscal conservative to one’s parents — something she congratulated the attendees on — Coulter’s speech to GOProud mystifyingly focused on social issues and not the fiscal and foreign policy issues that brought most of the attendees there. For instance, she told GOProud that the conservative gay rights movement ought to make common cause with the anti-abortion movement because, she said, “as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who’s getting aborted.” Coulter also made a forceful case against sex education in schools, accusing liberals of attempting to teach kindergartners about “fisting” (which garnered her a heckler, who shouted out “What’s wrong with fisting?”) [Editor's Note: see clarification at top: the heckler was Coulter's friend and FOX "Red Eye" host Greg Gutfeld--making a joke] and told the crowd that most parents didn’t want their children learning about the “homosexual lifestyle” instead of reading and writing.

As for Coulter being accused of “vileness” by the intolerant, vulgar and über-obnoxious Hilton (the guy who trashed Carrie Prejean with his gay-potty mouth running wild), that definitely commends Coulter. (Hilton, ever the sophisticated critic, completed his attack on Coulter with one of his patented mark-ups of her web photo with horns and something white scribbled on her mouth (don’t ask).

Homosexual activist blogger Jeremy Hooper (“Good As You”) cited this remark by Coulter as evidence that she’s a B-A-A-A-D person:

Coulter: the gays “ought to start being antiabortion because “once they find the gay gene, guess who’s getting aborted”

Hooper is probably too young to know that Coulter was merely parroting the line of a homosexual group called PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), which — at the height of the media’s hype of over the supposed genetic basis for homosexuality – made news by arguing that homosexuals should be pro-life because most parents would abort their unborn child if he or she was discoverd in utero to possess the postulated ”gay gene.”

Gay Porn Kings for the GOP!

Somehow I doubt that homosexual porn magnates make up an important voting bloc for the GOP, but with GOProud’s help, the Republicans could make a dent in that slimy constituency. Check out this from Politico’s coverage of Coulter’s speech (emphasis added):

Coulter’s talk drew a mixed response, but her presence marked the increasingly mainstream Republican embrace of gay rights. Coulter had a falling out with a conservative website that has published her, WorldNetDaily, over her attendance. “She’s doing something important – she’s showing her base that it’s OK,” said one attendee, Michael Lucas. (Lucas also confided to a reporter, “I wonder what Ann will think about the fact that I am the biggest producer of gay porn on the East Coast and probably in the whole U.S.”)

Perhaps Lucas could form another gay offshoot: GOPorn, for Republicans, gay and straight, who proudly produce and use pornography — but who also favor low taxes and smaller government. Traditional morality-hating Libertarians would surely jump on board in solidarity.

In his extremism, Lucas illustrates our basic point: you can support the Republican Party for (most of) its conservative platform – even if, in other areas of your life, you are the farthest thing from “conservative” imaginable. But don’t pretend that forming an organization that will help to mainstream your particular immoral behavior is “conservative.”

I’ll see you at the Coulter event Thursday. She won’t get any questions from pornographers, to be sure. But this will be our opportunity to solicit her views in a friendly setting on the Republican Party, conservatives, and homosexual-agenda politics. We have so few friends in the pundit world … let’s see where Ann really stands on this issue.

____________________________________

Below is a Renew America column by Bryan Fischer of American Family Association expressing satisfaction with Coulter’s GOProud speech:

September 27, 2010

Ann Coulter gets her “Warrior Princess” badge back

By Bryan Fischer

I criticized Ann Coulter last month when news surfaced that she had accepted an invitation to speak at HomoCon 2010, a gathering of so-called conservative homosexuals. (They can’t call themselves conservatives, for the simple reason that using the anal cavity for sex is not a conservative value.)

You also will notice that they have no hesitation calling themselves “homos,” as in “HomoCon,” but take umbrage if anybody else uses their own chosen moniker.

I did say that Ann might surprise us all and take the homosexuals straight on, but guessed that a desire not to upset her hosts, who surely paid a princessly sum to entice her into speaking and appearing on all their promotional posters, would likely prevent her from getting up in their business.

Well, I was wrong.

Ann took them straight on and gave them some straight talk I doubt they were ready for. There is no amount of sugar that will help this medicine go down.

According to the leftwing website Politico.com, she complimented the Christian audiences before whom she speaks by telling these homosexuals that the people who get her “gay jokes are gays.” Christians get them, she hinted, but “out of sweetness they don’t laugh at the gay jokes.” Alas, she was suggesting, if only Christians were as mean-spirited as everyone says they are! I have to leave my gay jokes in the green room because those Christians are just too darned civil and courteous and kind!

Then she let the air out of the tires on the tired argument that homosexual marriage is the civil rights issue of our day. Reminding them that blackness is an innate characteristic but sexual behavior is a choice, same-sex marriage, she said pointedly, “is not a civil right — you’re not black.”

As Gen. Colin Powell himself said, the comparison between homosexual behavior and race is “convenient but invalid.” People are born black, but they are not born gay. And many people who enter the homosexual lifestyle later leave it. So there are plenty of ex-gays, but you will never meet an ex-black.

Then she punctured a hole in the entire oppressed-minority argument by pointing out that homosexuals are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the nation, again making the civil rights argument utterly invalid.

Survey after survey has revealed that homosexuals tend to be more highly educated than their straight counterparts and have higher levels of income.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays, saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’” said Coulter.

So Christians are too tolerant to make fun of gays, homosexuals have no civil right to marry, and homosexuals can’t claim oppressed minority status. This from the keynote speaker at HomoCon, who got at least five figures to get right in the grill of her hosts.

Anybody at HomoCon want their money back?

And Ann, all is forgiven. Humble pie has never tasted so sweet. You are no longer the “Joan of Arc of homosexuality,” as I described you last month, you are now Daniella of the Lion’s Den. Good on ya, lass.

The homosexual activist group Log Cabin Republicans is listed as Plaintiff on the 86-page decision by District Court Judge Virginia Phillips striking down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule against self-avowed homosexuals in the military as "unconstitutional." Several prominent Republican lawmakers led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) are slated to speech at a Log Cabin event in Washington, D.C., Sept. 22nd.

Like we always say: homosexual activists first, Republicans second. What do you do when your Democratic Commander-in-Chief is ramming the pro–homosexual agenda down the military’s and the nation’s throat? Make the Republicans more pro-perversion — yeah, that’s the ticket!

Perhaps the GOP could get a leg up on the Democrats by pushing immediately for the admission of open transsexuals (in addition to homosexuals) into the Armed Forces – with military-covered “gender reassignment surgery” (aka sex-change operations) for gender-confused transgender soldiers as a recruitment incentive. Sen. Cornyn, I’m being facetious…. Read the activist judge’s ruling HERE. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_________________________

Courtesy LifeSiteNews.com:

Federal Judge Deems Military ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Rule ‘Unconstitutional’

By Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews

RIVERSIDE, California, September 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A federal judge in California Thursday night ruled that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy banning homosexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the U.S. military is unconstitutional.

The ruling, which the judge vowed to follow up with a permanent injunction against the policy in two weeks, arrived less than three months before the results of a Pentagon study evaluating the possible detrimental effects of repealing the policy is due to be presented to Congress.

In an 86-page opinion, Judge Virginia A. Phillips claimed that the defendants, listed as the United States and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have failed to prove that DADT “was necessary to significantly further the Government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion.” The Log Cabin Republicans, a national homosexualist Republican group, was plaintiff in the case.

Pro-family leaders immediately condemned the ruling.

“It is hard to believe that a District Court level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on the record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed,” said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran, in a statement late Thursday. “This is a decision for Congress that should be based upon the input of the men and women who serve and those who lead them.”

Phillips argued that the ban violates homosexuals’ First Amendment right to free speech because it disallows them from discussing their sexuality.

“Heterosexual members are free to state their sexual orientation, ‘or words to that effect,’ while gay and lesbian members of the military are not. Thus, on its face, the Act discriminates based on the content of the speech being regulated,” she wrote.

While noting that courts traditionally “apply a more deferential level of review of military restrictions on speech,” Phillips said that DADT fails to win the special protection because it “encompasses a vast range of speech, far greater than necessary to protect the Government’s substantial interests,” as it restricts off-duty socializing and other casual speech.

Phillips also argued that DADT’s restrictions “actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion” by discouraging military employees from reporting anti-homosexual harassment.

The suit was first launched in 2004, but stalled due to the health problems and retirement of the first judge assigned to handle the case, the plaintiff’s attorney, Dan Woods, told the Associated Press.

Defense Department attorneys did not summon any witnesses to defend the policy, presenting only DADT’s legislative history as a defense, and arguing that the debate was a political issue that should be left to Congress. 

The House of Representatives passed a repeal of the ban in May that would go into effect if Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, confirm that the repeal is sensible in light of the Pentagon report.

The liberal media just eat it up when a sin movement (in this case, organized homosexuality) officially goes “bipartisan.” Check out this excerpt from (the giddy) The Atlantic. I suspect that The Atlantic’s (and CBS News’) Marc Ambinder — while sympathetic to the Stupid Republican Party’s current pro-homosexuality tack — wouldn’t agree with our description of homosexuality as sinful. Just a hunch, though. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. I just learned that a group of carefully-selected, right-leaning theologians are working on a version of the Bible (RSV – Republican Standard Version) that reinterprets all passages dealing with homosexuality so that only Democratic same-sex erotic behavior is proscribed. Whew. For a moment there, I thought these Republicans had decided that they were smarter than God.

Ambinder writes (emphasis added):

Top GOP Party Strategists Attending Log Cabin Event

Suddenly, it’s becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party. Not only has former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s 9/22 fundraiser for gay marriage rights attracted numerous high-octane Republican donors and activists, but Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee will help the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, raise money for its political action committee. (Part of this story was first reported last month.)

A glossy pamphlet advertising the Log Cabin Republicans’ national dinner at the Capitol Hill Club highlights an hour-long cocktail gathering with the two party committee chairs, both strong opponents of gay rights. But their attendance will add to the coffers of the LCR’s political action committee, which endorses Republicans who support gay rights.

The LCR national dinner, which follows the private fundraiser, will include Sessions, Rep. Judy Biggert, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson will serve as Master of Ceremonies.

The Log Cabin Republicans’ Mission Statement proclaims fidelity to conservative principles like a “strong national defense” and “limited government” before it discusses marriage rights and an “inclusive definition of the family.” But in practice, the group does not endorse candidates who oppose gay rights…. [continued HERE]

Read the rest of The Atlantic article HERE.

Ken Mehlman

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

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*          *          *

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

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

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth or Consequences

Blogactive, by Michael Rogers, June 1, 2010

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

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

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

Sometimes it’s not so simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try, Mark. The gig is up.

__________________________________

Related articles:

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

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

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

Charlene Cothran of TheEvidenceMinistry.org can never become "ex-Black," but she is thriving as a former lesbian. Cothran lived 29 years as a lesbian and "gay" leader before accepting Jesus Christ and leaving the lifestyle. If RNC Chairman Michael Steele were to take the time to meet people like Charlene, he might retract his unfortunate comparison of homosexuality to race.

TAKE ACTION: 1) Call or write Michael Steele at the RNC and urge him to meet with former homosexuals like Charlene Cothran (right), per PFOX’s press release below). Write chairman@gop.org or call 202-863-8500; and 2) Read this web alert by the radical homosexual group GLAAD targeting ex-”gay” Richard Cohen and use the contact information provided to urge CNN (404-827-1500) to continue featuring ex-gays and critics of homosexuality every time they feature a “gay” activist on their network. How can the ‘Gay’ Lobby talk about “diversity” when they are orchestrating campaigns designed to censor former homosexuals?

____________________________________________

Michael Steele, meet Charlene Cothran. As a former lesbian and one-time leading homosexual activist who now ministers to others seeking to leave that destructive and sinful lifestyle, Charlene might disabuse you of the notion that homosexuality is like race (see PFOX release below).

I recently had the opportunity to present at a Florida church alongside Charlene, who spoke at AFTAH’s 2007 banquet. She is now four years out of the homosexual lifestyle and has a powerful testimony of transformation through Jesus Christ. (Incidentally, Charlene is not a big fan of “Reparative Therapy” and relies on obedience to the Word of God as the primary instrument of change.)

Mr. Steele, you will never meet an “ex-African American” or a “former Latino,” but you can easily get to know some former self-identified “gays” — and you should, to put the issue of homosexual behavior in its proper perspective.

What the homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans” and “GOP Proud” activists want from you and from the Republican Party is to be treated as a legitimate “minority” — even though the purpose of their organizations is to build acceptance for immoral behavior and an illegitimate lifestyle choice. Strangely, if people practicing homosexuality comprise a “minority,” then it is one whose numbers shrink at the expense of another “minority”: ex-homosexuals. The same cannot be said of Blacks, Latinos, or any other real minority.

(And please do not equate deviant-sex-affiliation or homosexual practice with religion as some kind of behavior-based “minority” deserving rights; America was built on refugees from other, oppressive lands seeking religious freedom — so religious liberty is sacrosanct here. Moreover, from the beginning our Judeo-Christian-based legal system proscribed sodomy, so how can it be a “constitutional right”?)

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

P.S. Memo to GLAAD, Wayne Besen, Ex-Gay-Watch, Tim Kincaid, Warren Throckmorton (the “gay” bloggers’ favorite Christian professor, it seems), and the rest of the gang at “Focus on the Failures” — my term for those who regularly cast doubt on the ability of People Practicing Homosexuality to experience profound lifestyle change: you might want to examine Charlene Cothran’s website. She is over lesbianism, she’s not looking back and she is helping many others find freedom in Christ! (Ironically, Besen actually wrote an article attacking ex-gays for Cothran’s magazine, Venus, back when it was devoted to affirming homosexuality among African Americans.)  Check out her 2007 speech at AFTAH HERE and her website HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________

Our friends at PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) write:

RNC Pays for Lesbian Erotica While Refusing to Meet with Ex-Gays

Contact: Christopher Doyle, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) at PFOX@pfox.org

[Note from AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera: Please support PFOX with your tax-deductible donations; dollar for dollar, this is one of the most effective pro-family groups on the planet; sometimes it seems as they get more done with their tiny budget to challenge the GLBT juggernaut than gigantic pro-family organizations; go to http://pfox.org/donate.html and make your gift today!]

Washington D.C. — “Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, has consistently refused to meet with members of the ex-gay community,” said Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX).  “Now we know why. The RNC would rather use donor funds for its staff to watch lesbian erotica at nightclubs than help support individuals who wish to leave homosexuality.”

In last year’s interview with Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine, Steele compared being homosexual to being Black, and was quoted as doubting that ex-gays exist.  PFOX offered to meet with Steele on numerous occasions to show him that ex-gays do exist and explain the process of individual change.  To date, Steele has refused to meet with members of the ex-gay community, including African-American former homosexuals.  In the past, ex-gays have met with Ed Gillespie, one of Steele’s predecessors.

“It’s no wonder the RNC continues to lose factions of its members, such as Tea Party conservatives,” said Christopher Doyle, a former homosexual and PFOX board member.  “Michael Steele would be better off if he extended ex-gays a place at the table rather than paying his staff to watch lesbians dance on it at strip clubs.”

###

Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news. See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family

With the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, the question of homosexual judges is back in the news. Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he could accept a nominee who is openly homosexual to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. On March 24, well before the announcement of Stevens’ retirement, AFTAH received this statement from Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy at Focus on the Family. Minnery emphasized that the Focus clarification has been available to anyone who inquired about the controversial statements made last year by a Focus analyst to The Plum Line.

“This is not a new statement,” Minnery told AFTAH. “And we were quick to correct this mistake.”

The following is the clarification by Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ‘sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

_______________________

Related Articles:

The Hill [Monday, April 12]: “[Sen.] Cornyn: Openly gay SCOTUS nominee might be acceptable”

By J. Taylor Rushing  -  04/12/10 06:59 PM ET

An openly gay nominee to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court might be acceptable, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday.

Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on President Barack Obama to make a measured choice in filling the pending Supreme Court vacancy.

Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, was initially reluctant when asked if he would support an openly gay nominee — as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said last year he might.

“I’d have to think about that,” he said. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with their job, it’s not a particular issue.”

AFTAH: “Flashback:  Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

The Plum Line: Top Religious Right Group: We Won’t Oppose Gay SCOTUS Pick

In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right group, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator  Jeff Sessions‘ claim today that he’s open to a Supreme Court nominee with “gay tendencies.”

The spokesperson confirms the group won’t oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation….

AFA’s OneNewsNow: “Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?”

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus [on the Family], says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.” ….

Politico.com: “[Sen.] Sessions Could Support Gay Justice”

P.S. It says a lot about the left-wing ninnies over at Media Matters that they thought this video would embarrass the Right; we used their Youtube because the quality was better than the others:

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. E-mail: cpac@conservative.org. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

'One of these groups doesn't belong': the homosexual activist group GOProud joins truly conservative organizations co-sponsoring the annual CPAC conference. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel is leading a pullout of CPAC by social conservative groups unless GOProud is removed as a co-sponsor.

[Note: since publication of this article we have published a letter to AFTAH clarifying that GOProud does NOT support "hate crimes" laws, as most other homosexual groups do. -- Editor]

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, for years religious conservatives have been complaining about getting  the short end of the stick from CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. There is usually only a token panel or two dealing with “Culture War” social issues like abortion and homosexuality (and rarely one explicitly on fighting the “gay” agenda) – as organizers seek to appease the CPAC libertarians, some of whom support goals like homosexual “marriage” that are anathema to socially conservatives.

Now CPAC’s tenuous ”Big Tent” could collapse altogether as social conservatives led by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber threaten to launch a boycott of the conference (scheduled for Feb. 18-20, 2010) unless CPAC drops a homosexual activist group, GOProud, as a co-sponsor. Barber, my good friend, an AFTAH Board Member, and the Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel, is leading the charge to keep the CPAC sponsorship list … conservative.

GOProud describes itself as “the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies,” but we at AFTAH dispute their definition of “conservative,” which would have the movement’s Founding Fathers, like Russell Kirk (see quotation at bottom), rolling over in their graves.

Matt Barber, author of The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War (www.righthookbook.com)

I received an email sent by Barber to conservatives nationwide in which he wrote:

“I was disturbed to learn that CPAC is allowing the ‘Republican’ homosexual activist group GOProud to sponsor a booth at the 2010 conference. Among other things, GOProud advocates in favor of both ‘gay marriage’ and ‘civil unions,’ against pro-marriage constitutional amendments ; is pushing for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and advocates in favor of federal ‘partnership benefits’ for homosexuals. This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God.”

In other words, GOProud is just another “gay” activist group, with a twist: the rest of its agenda (outside its pro-homosexual special interest) is conservative.

Barber is committed to leading a social conservative pullout of a pro-homosexuality CPAC, and AFTAH has learned that a number of leading pro-family organizations have already hinted that they will heed his call if CPAC retains GOProud as a co-sponsor.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

What is conservatism?

It boils down to this: there is nothing “conservative” about — as Barber inimitably puts it — “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations or raising a child together in an intentionally fatherless home. This does not mean that people practicing those and other immoral (and changeable) behaviors cannot think and act conservatively on other issues like lowering taxes, cutting government spending, ending abortion, etc. But let’s be honest: the “proud” in GOProud is not about pride in opposing the death tax, or defending the right to bear arms; it’s about proudly embracing sinful homosexual behavior – and that is hardly a conservative value.

I challenge every thinking conservative to explain why we should jettison our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage (which clearly rejects homosexual acts as immoral) for some new, secularized brand of “conservatism” that fails to conserve natural, normal, and noble sex within God-ordained marriage. Where does the expansion of “conservatism” stop? Would CPAC welcome “Republicans for Abortion” as a co-sponsor? How about “Conservatives For Higher Taxes”? We doubt it. So let’s stop the double-standard on one issue — homosexuality — that happens to be politically incorrect in this decadent age.

Libertarians for a Big Gay Government?

And for you protesting libertarians who attend CPAC: please tell me what part of the statist Big Gay Government agenda you support: the part that expands newfangled federal “rights” based on aberrant-sex and -gender preferences — at the expense of Americans’ historic religious and First Amendment freedoms? The part that redefines criminal prosecution to factor in people’s thoughts (“hate crimes”)? The part that forces men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces to bunk and shower with people who define themselves by their sexual attractiom toward those of the same sex — thus sublimating straight soldiers’ and sailors’ privacy concerns to the demands of activist homosexuals? Or could it be the part that uses taxpayer-funded public schools to indoctrinate innocent, impressionable children in one side of the homosexuality debate?

We’re all ears.

_____________________

“A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.”
–Russell Kirk, historian, essayist, author, among many other books, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot

_____________________

The following item was posted on GOProud’s website Dec. 8:

GOProud to Cosponsor CPAC 2010

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director – “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

(Washington, DC) Today, GOProud, the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies, announced they are a cosponsor of CPAC 2010. Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s Executive Director, said, “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will take place February 18-20 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. “GOProud’s participation at CPAC is one of the most important things we will do all year,” continued LaSalvia. “This gathering of the nation’s most influential conservatives gives us an incredible opportunity to deliver our message.”

“GOProud looks forward to continuing to work with the conservative movement to promote policies that will improve the lives of all Americans – including gays and lesbians,” concluded LaSalvia.

__________________________

Bauer writes:

Not Even Close

My Inbox was overflowing this morning with responses to yesterday’s question on preferred presidential candidates in 2012 – and they are still pouring in. But as my staff worked furiously to sort through the barrage of e-mails, two things stood out.

First, I was surprised by the wide range of names that came back. Granted we asked a very open-ended question, but folks obviously are thinking outside the box and willing to consider many options. Quite a few people insisted on a fresh face, such as Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who tied for fifth place with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Other suggestions included Senators John Thune and Jim DeMint, as well as General David Petraeus.

Nevertheless, the final results were quite surprising. There was a spirited contest for second place with Mike Huckabee edging Mitt Romney, while Newt Gingrich finished fourth. But to say there was a clear favorite is an understatement. In fact, one individual got more votes than the other 23 names combined. If my emails and her book sales are any indication, Sarah Palin has a very bright future indeed!

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′