ACLU – Gay & Lesbian Project
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Higgins: transsexuals are “asking state to commit fraud”
The Chicago Tribune ran this photo of Kari Rothkopf (left) and Victoria “Tori” Kirk, Illinois residents who had horrific, emasculating “sex change” operations in Thailand and are now suing the State of Illinois to switch the gender on their birth certificates from male to female. Not one to miss out on a politically correct opportunity to promote gender confusion and the GLBT agenda, the Tribune refers to these men with a female pronoun and calls them “women.” Pray for these terribly confused men, who have already successfully changed the sex identifier on their driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security cards. (Click to enlarge photo, by Tribune photographer Kuni Takahashi)
By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, first published 1/29/2009
In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate. Apotemnophiles, as they are referred to in some circles, identify with amputees and seek to align their bodies with their psychological identities through amputation of healthy body parts. Dr. Anne Lawrence explains the condition:
Desire for amputation of a healthy limb has usually been regarded as a paraphilia (apotemnophilia), but some researchers propose that it may be a disorder of identity, similar to Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or transsexualism. Similarities between the desire for limb amputation and nonhomosexual male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism include profound dissatisfaction with embodiment.
Read the rest of this article »
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008
New Jersey NOW activists demonstrate for lesbian so-called “marriage”: there is no shortage of single-minded (non-apologetic) pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion activists on the Left.
Below is an excellent column by Joel Belz, founder of WORLD magazine, answering some of the current Christian gibberish critical of believers who fight for Truth in the public square. (Click HERE for the full column in WORLD.) While we’re at it, here are 20 more good reasons why Christians (or anyone) should never feel guilty about a single-minded focus in countering the homosexual/transsexual activist and pro-abortion lobbies:
- Human Rights Campaign (largest pro-homosexual PAC);
- National Gay and Lesbian Task Force;
- Lambda Legal;
- NARAL Pro-Choice American (formerly National Abortion Rights Action League, which cruelly defends even later-term abortions).
- GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation;
- GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network);
- NOW (they manage to promote both lesbianism and abortion-on-demand);
- MTV (obnoxious in its one-sided promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.);
- Soulforce and other Bible-twisting, “queer theology”-promoting groups;
- Radical, reason-challenged, pro-homosexual websites like young Jeremy Hooper’s Good As You blog, Wayne (“Anything But Straight”) Besen’s ‘ex-gay’-hating Truth Wins Out, and lesbian Pam (“Jeebus”) Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend;
- National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association;
- EMILY’s List (a pro-abortion PAC)
- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (working to open up the military to homosexuals);
- ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project;
- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
- Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
- Tim Gill (homosexual money-man)
- Pro-homosexual activist groups like Equality Illinois fighting in all 50 states for radical legislation that undermines marriage;
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
- PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays), a radical pro-homosexual group.
Belz writes for WORLD:
It’s not always wrong to be a “single-issue” advocate
It’s become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by “single issues.”
Read the rest of this article »
Thursday, May 8th, 2008
Congratulations to the Thomas More Law Center, AFA of Michigan and all the pro-family groups, legislators, citizens, and churches in Michigan for successfully defending marriage in your state!
LANSING, Mich. (Catholic News Agency), May 8, 2008 — The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples. Click HERE to read the Michigan Supreme Court ruling.
The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.
The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.
“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”
Related news release from Thomas More Law Center: “TMLC Praises Michigan Atty General Cox for Defending Marriage Amendment; Blasts Gov and Universities”
Thursday, January 17th, 2008
ACLU’s homosexual Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Read the ACLU’s outrageous, pro-bathroom-sex legal brief here: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf.
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, could any of us on the Right make up something this nutty, this extreme? The ACLU is defending DEVIANT SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS as a “privacy right.” This was too much even for lefty MSNBC “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, who makes a living slamming conservatives. Here’s a paragraph from their amicus brief in the Larry Craig case (emphasis added):
Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. … Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. … [cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down Texas’ sodomy law]. The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. … It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. … This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.
Activists courts are the tool that the Left has used to advance what pro-family attorney Jan LaRue calls America’s “unholy trinity”: abortion-on-demand, pornography, and homosexuality. If killing one’s unborn child (with his or her own, separate DNA) can be justified as a “privacy” right; if owning or buying even child pornography can be defended as a First Amendment “right,” then hey, why not homosexual perversion in bathroom stalls?
We know enough about the ACLU to assert that even if a homosexual activist (Anthony Romero) were not running the organization, it would have joined this case. “Sexual freedom” is the Libertine Left’s new clarion call to legalize and expand the “rights” of even the most outlandish perversions: sadomasochistic house parties; the hetero “swingers community”; the “right” of sex businesses to set up shop in your neighborhood; “polyamory” (multiple-partner “marriage,” anyone?); and, yes, even public bathroom sex.
Can you picture the liberal protesters chanting: “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!! “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!!
Wackiness aside, if America’s modern history has taught us anything, it is to take the Left’s legal gambits and cultural aggression seriously. Using the courts, the ACLU lawyers and their comrades in the Homosexual, Radical Feminist (Abortion) and Porn Lobbies are destroying America, in the name of freedom.
Think about that later this year when you vote for our next U.S. President, who will pick the nation’s highest-level judges. God help us.
P.S. Click HERE for a great piece on the ACLU’s folly by Brenda Zurita of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.
Read the rest of this article »
Wednesday, January 16th, 2008
And the Punch Line Is …
Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?
By Brenda Zurita
Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008
Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.
Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.
The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.
Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.
Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?
Read the rest of this article »
Friday, October 26th, 2007
This photo of ACLU activist (or should we say actress?) Sarah Loy crying at the rally where she falsely accused pro-family advocate Larry Cirignano of violently assaulting her, appeared in the December 17, 2007, Worcester Telegram and Gazette’s initial report of the incident. Telegram Reporter Richard Nangle (email@example.com) wrote that Cirignano “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.” But a jury rejected this story, which echoed Loy’s account. (The jury found that Loy tripped rather than being pushed.) Nangle, testifying in court, could not find himself among enlarged photos of people at the center of the rally crowd — casting into doubt whether he could have seen what actually transpired. Nevertheless, a defiant Nangle says he “stands by everything” that he originally reported. Telegram photo is by Paul Kapteyn.
By Peter LaBarbera
This is a fascinating case involving media bias: a reporter whose story was proven false — or at least not credible — in a court of law is “stand[ing] by everything ” he originally wrote.
On December 16, 2006, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette published a story under reporter Richard Nangle’s byline, regarding a pro-marriage rally in Worcester protested by Sarah Loy and the local ACLU. Nangle, an ACLU Board Member, reported that Catholic family advocate Larry Cirignano had “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.”
Nangle’s vivid depiction of the alleged attack echoed Loy’s own charges of assault and battery against Cirignano, and helped created an impression in the public’s mind that she was a victim of violence (and that he was violent man who attacks women). A photo accompanying Nangle’s story (see above) showed Loy in tears at the rally scene. However, on October 22, a jury found Larry Cirignano innocent of assault and battery against Loy, a week after presiding Judge David Despotopulos had thrown out Loy’s “civil rights” complaint against him. See our story relaying MassRessistance’s account of the case and trial.
Here are the first three paragraphs in Nangle’s story, under the headline (which he did not necessarily write), “Worcester Rally Takes Ugly Turn; Gay Marriage Backer Pushed,” with emphasis added:
WORCESTER- Tempers boiled over at an anti-gay marriage rally yesterday when the executive director of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship emerged from behind a lectern outside City Hall, rushed toward a female counter-demonstrator, and pushed her to the ground.
Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green “Let the People Vote” signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.” Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.
“It was definitely assault and battery,” said Ronal C. Madnick, director of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Police interviewed Mr. Madnick and several others moments after the incident.
Read the rest of this article »
Thursday, October 25th, 2007
Larry Cirignano (with yellow tie in bottom photo) with attorney Mike Gilleran, after their triumph over ACLU activist Sarah Loy’s harassing lawsuit. At top, ACLU Board Member Loy (in middle, holding sign) describes her phony “assault” to police after she disrupted Cirignano’s rally and then lied about him pushing her down. If you look closely, you can see Loy’s nose growing in the photo — not really. You can congratulate Larry for his court victory over the ACLU at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“That’s what hate does!”
— Massachusetts activist Sarah Loy’s chant after she had fallen to the ground at a pro-family meeting she was disrupting; a judge and jury found no basis for her claim that Larry Cirignano had pushed her in an attack on her “civil rights.”
By Peter LaBarbera
Every freedom-loving American owes a debt of gratitude to Larry Cirignano and all those like him who refuse to give up or “settle” in the face of the radical Left’s lies, dirty tricks and intimidation tactics. Cirignano is a Catholic family advocate who was “set up” by an ACLU activist at a pro-marriage rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, turning the pro-family event into a 10-month personal nightmare. (See below, or go HERE to Mass Resistance’s excellent background story on the case; their final write-up is HERE.)
You simply won’t believe this case: alleged “victim” and pro-homosexual protester Sarah Loy invaded a pro-marriage rally on December 16, 2006; then, as Cirignano was leading her away from the rally that she was trying to disrupt, she fell to the ground and started screaming about “hate” as if he had attacked her! (You can view a sample of the leftist tripe on this website, which identifies Loy as a Board Member of ACLU.)
Loy claimed that Cirignano shoved her to the ground but the jury found that she tripped and fell. You can watch some amateur video footage of the rally HERE. (The video, which is of low quality, might be called, Anatomy of a Smear; a longer version of it, along with still photographs, was used in court to show that some of the government’s key “witnesses” to the alleged assault — including Richard Nangle of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, who reported it as fact — were not in the crowd but standing dozens of feet away.)
The whole case is further proof — as if we needed it — that nobody lies like the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Left, whose members are so consumed with hatred for those defending life and the natural family that they will stoop to evil tactics like this in their ends-justify-the-means crusade to destroy them.
Loy’s story was a complete fabrication, but Worcester’s prosecutors — in bed with the ACLU, the liberal media, and the state’s powerful “gay” lobby — took it seriously, wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars and smearing a good man’s reputation in the process.
Read the rest of this article »
Friday, October 19th, 2007
The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. For the full story, click HERE:
GOP Reps save ENDA in close committee vote
Kucinich, others vote ‘no’ citing lack of trans protection
By LOU CHIBBARO JR., Washington Blade | Oct 18, 8:14 PM
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) cleared a pivotal hurdle in committee today after four gay-supportive Republicans joined the Democratic majority to save the bill from defeat.
Four pro-gay Democrats, including [a presidential candidate and Congressman], voted against the bill, saying they did so because a provision protecting transgender persons had been removed.
The bill passed in the House Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 27 to 21, with 23 Democrats and four Republicans voting for the measure, which calls for banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation, a category that includes gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Seventeen Republicans and the four Democrats voted against the bill.
If the Republicans voting for the measure had voted the other way, it would have lost by a vote of 23 to 25.
“We have never been able to pass a gay rights bill with only Democrats,” said gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the lead sponsors of ENDA. “We’ve always known we need some Republicans.”
The bill is scheduled to go to the full House for a vote next week.
Click HERE for the full Blade article
Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.