Law banning pro-heterosexual Reparative Therapy for minors now likely to go into effect
June 30, 2014
Washington, DC—The Supreme Court passed on Liberty Counsel’s petition regarding California’s ban on change therapy in the case of Pickup v. Brown. Two lower court judges and two separate appellate panels have issued conflicting opinions upholding and blocking the ban on change therapy. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal, followed by a three-judge panel that upheld the law. That panel then agreed to continue the injunction blocking the law until he Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in on the case. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to pass on the case means the proceeding will go back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could lift the injunction and allow the law to go into effect.
The California law was the first to restrict licensed counselors from offering, and minor clients and their parents from receiving, any counsel to change unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity.
“I am deeply saddened for the families we represent and for the thousands of children that our professional clients counsel, many of whom developed these unwanted attractions because of abuse of a pedophile. The minors we represent do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior. They are greatly benefiting from this counseling. Their grades have gone up, their self-esteem has improved, and their relationships at home are much improved,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “These children have been victimized twice – first by the likes of Jerry Sandusky, and second by legislators and judges who have essentially barged into their private therapy rooms and told them that they must pursue their unwanted and dangerous same-sex sexual attractions and behavior,” said Staver.
By Peter LaBarbera
Jack Roeser, a phenomenally successful entrepreneur, leading Illinois conservative philanthropist and a faithful AFTAH and pro-family benefactor, passed away June 13 at the age of 90.
I got to know Jack long after he had achieved his business success. I remember a decade ago when he gave me a tour of Otto Engineering–which he started humbly in his basement in 1961 in Park Ridge, Illinois (childhood home of Hillary Rodham Clinton)–and which makes specialty electronic and communications products, including control switches for American fighter jets. Though by this point Jack was retired from day-to-day operations at Otto, he was hardly detached as he proudly explained the history of Otto, including products he invented that were still key to the company’s success.
It was Jack’s ingenuity and determination that built Otto. A friend, relaying a conversation with Jack, told how he was awarded a coveted supplier contract by simply out-hustling much larger, competing corporations and by demonstrating Otto’s ability to rapidly turn around his innovative switch design. Jack was truly a classic American success story–a living testimony of what one person can accomplish in a free society that rewards hard work and creativity. [See this Breitbart tribute to Jack.]
A little-known legacy of Jack’s is how Otto’s continued growth and success dramatically transformed the small town of Carpentersville, Illinois, where it is based. Otto, now run by Jack’s son, Tom, employs around 600 people in its beautifully-restored factory complex on Main Street along the Fox River. In 2008, Tom and Jack launched a remarkable home renovation project, Homes by Otto, that has rejuvenated Carpentersville, one gutted-and-rebuilt house at a time. It is a model for private industry and charity doing efficiently what governments the world over have failed to do despite their profligate spending of taxpayer dollars (think HUD projects). [See this FOX News interview with Tom Roeser.]
So Jack’s legacy of productive and compassionate conservatism lives on through his son. I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree after all.
You can watch a short video celebrating Jack’s fascinating life produced before his death below.
Fighting the Left
Jack was an engineering genius with more than 50 patents, but he was no fan of the Left’s social engineering. He possessed the wisdom and common sense of a more grounded and God-fearing generation that instinctively knows the difference between right and wrong. Scoffing at the idea of legal “same-sex marriage,” he didn’t need to be convinced of the immorality of homosexuality–and the folly of promoting it through the government as a “civil right.”
WARNING: contains photo with male rear nudity; graphic acts described
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, one of many “elephants in the room” of politically incorrect topics that most people dare not discuss in debating homosexuality is that–for self-described “gay” men–homosexuality is a masculinity crisis. The bottom line, confirmed tragically by nature and the design of our bodies, is that men were never intended by their Creator to have “sex” with other men–and certainly not with adolescent boys, a common practice of male homosexuality throughout history. The converse is also true: lesbianism is a femininity crisis, although there are some key differences between male and female homosexualities.
When we as common-sense, God-respecting conservatives bring out basic points like this, it enrages our “progressive” foes. How dare we publicly violate the tenets of their core, deviant orthodoxy–that LGBT practice and ideology are not to be questioned, at least by outsiders. Thus it was to be expected that Right Wing Watch–a mischievous arm of People For the American Way (PFAW), the leftist outfit founded by Norman Lear–would not like my recent interview with YouTube host David Ortiz.
Below is the short excerpt of my June 2 Skype interview with Ortiz, a portion of which was posted by Right Wing Watch, followed by the actual interview divided into three parts. Ortiz started the discussion by declaring, “You cannot be a masculine nation and support homosexuality, in my opinion.” From there I brought up the pitiable homosexual “leathermen,” with their “overkill” attempt at being “macho men”–even as they engage in the most degrading (and unmanly) sexual perversions known to the human race–not the least of which is male-to-male anal sodomy.
I brought up with David Ortiz the uber-debauched “International Mr. Leather” (IML) spectacle held every Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, and hosted by a major hotel–this year the Marriott Hotel on Magnificent Mile. Once again, purveyors of leather-sex hawked their deviant wares and twisted pornography at IML, as the nights were filled with homosexual orgies so vile that it is difficult for the Average Joe to imagine such evil. (Then the poor hotel staff have to disinfect the rooms afterward.)
What is fascinating about left-wing “tolerance/diversity” ideology is that it invariably leads to the acceptance and lack of questioning of even the most extreme–and obviously dysfunctional–subcultures of whatever “protected category” is in question, in this case, the LGBTQ movement. As AFTAH has shown and will continue to show, there is nothing more bizarre, and wrong, than the homosexual BDSM (bondage & discipline, dominance & submission, sadism & masochism) world, which is now drawing plenty of “kinky” heterosexuals as well.
My friend Bill Whatcott–the leading pro-family activist in Canada fighting the aggressive LGBT Lobby–just sent out this notice:
Heath: “Gay marriage” equates the “sterility and harm of homosexual perversion with the fruitfulness and sanctity of marriage”
First published Jun 21, 2014, on MikeHeath.net
By Michael Heath
No ray of sunshine, no warm ocean breeze rustling through the palm leaves can bring cheer to Isla Vista. A cloud of sorrow covers the picturesque college town and seeps though every fastened gate, through every locked and bolted door, and pierces every bewildered heart.
Nothing is more precious than the life of a young woman who eagerly awaits the joys of life. And no hurt exceeds the pain of a father or mother who sees a cap and gown replaced by a funeral shroud.
America should weep bitter tears over this. America must. Like the Prodigal Son who abandoned his father’s ample table to feed on the husks of swine, America has exchanged traditional views on marriage and the family for an unworkable code of sexual liberation. Under this dubious code, each man and woman becomes a law unto himself. If anyone doubts this, let him contemplate the words of the perpetrator. In his final message to society, Elliot Rodger declared himself to be beyond the commands and prohibitions of any law, human or divine.
Elliot Rodger’s understanding of human existence and sexual morality was gleaned at random from pop culture, lurid movies, and violent video games. Far from regarding women as a helpmate, life-long companion, and future mother of his children–which is the Christian view of marriage–Rodger saw women as a potential sexual conquest, a sort of prey.
In my 30-year battle for the family and marriage, insofar as God gave me the strength and wisdom to do so, I warned of the extreme danger which results from a wrong understanding of human sexuality. My warnings were rejected, both by society at large and by the pro-family movement, as alarmist, intolerant, and divisive.
VIDEO: LaBarbera Disappointed in Bruce Rauner’s Weak Position on Marriage, Warns GOP about Going AWOL on Social IssuesJune 23rd, 2014
Even since the recent recording of this video interview by Monte Larrick of the Illinois Family Institute (published June 21, 2014 and recorded the week before), yet another Republican governor has capitulated to judicial activism on same-sex “marriage.” Go HERE for a local CBS-Pittsburgh TV news report on Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett deciding not to appeal U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III’s ruling imposing homosexual “marriages” on Pennsylvania. Note that Corbett–like Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, as well as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder–does not want to discuss “gay marriage” publicly. Since when did defending marriage as between a man and a woman become the third rail in Republican politics?–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
LaBarbera, Whatcott Plead Not Guilty to Canadian ‘Mischief’ Charge Stemming from University of Regina ProtestJune 19th, 2014
Folks, my friend Bill Whatcott and I have entered a Not Guilty plea to the charge of “mischief” leveled against us at the instigation of left-leaning University of Regina officials who didn’t like our pro-life and anti-homosexual-agenda viewpoint being aired at their campus. Bill and I were arrested and jailed April 14, 2014 after merely standing up for life and traditional marriage at the university in a peaceful and civil protest. The arrest came just days after this writer was first denied entry into Canada–and then allowed in after appeal–to give a presentation as an invited speaker at a Saskatchewan pro-life event. Here is a report on our not guilty plea in the Regina Leader-Post. There are additional links to other aspects of the Canada story at the Leader-Post website. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Whatcott, LaBarbera plead not guilty
BY TERRENCE MCEACHERN, REGINA LEADER-POST JUNE 17, 2014
REGINA — Two anti-gay advocates entered not guilty pleas on Monday regarding an incident on the University of Regina campus in April.
The not guilty pleas for mischief for Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera were entered by Weyburn lawyer Michael Weger. The matter is scheduled to be back in Regina Provincial Court on June 23 to set a trial date.
Whatcott and LaBarbera were arrested on April 14 after refusing to leave the U of R campus when ordered to do so by security and the Regina Police Service.
Whatcott and LaBarbera set up an anti-abortion display on campus and handed out anti-LGBT literature, deemed by university officials as potentially harmful to members of the university community.
The incident came days after LaBarbera, head of the organization Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, spoke in Weyburn at the Saskatchewan Pro-Life convention.
LaBarbera was initially denied access to Canada over concerns of spreading hate speech, but won an appeal and agreed to leave Saskatchewan by April 17.
Whatcott has been in trouble before for distributing anti-homosexual literature. In 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled he was guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals in pamphlets he distributed to homes in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002.
On Feb. 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the SHRC’s decision.
Folks, each day, it seems, brings another outrage by the Obama administration, to the point where it is difficult to keep track of them all. Amidst the swirl of mendacious spin, crass political lies, imperious law-breaking and general incompetence, Attorney General Eric Holder found time to promote allowing homosexual men as Boy Scout leaders. [See the full Holder speech HERE.] Perhaps putting adult men who are sexually attracted to other men (and/or adolescent boys) in tents out in the woods with 12-year-old boys is a priority for LGBT-enthralled liberals, but we doubt it sits high on the list for the rest of America. (Last year, the BSA caved on allowing homosexual youth members.)
Perhaps Mr. Holder is so busy promoting a leftist social agenda that he is unaware that the BSA has already been forced—under a victims’ lawsuit–to release a portion of its “perversion files” documenting boy-molesting Scoutmasters; AFTAH has called on the Scouts’ leadership to release ALL the sordid files. So the current policy banning homosexual men is hardly about “perpetuating stereotypes” but actually about protecting boys. Moreover, there is now a group, B4UAct.org, that is working to help and humanize pedophiles as “minor-attracted people” (MAPs), which will invariably contribute to the “mainstreaming” of pedophilia in society. Penn State research mathematician and pro-family writer Gary Morella responds to Holder on the potential of the Boy Scouts acquiescing to a full “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy on homosexuality, i.e., including adults. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
By Gary Morella
The morally bankrupt elitists that make up the totality of the Obama Administration are owed nothing but the contempt of Americans in more than name only opposing their diabolic agenda via their constitutional freedom of religion rights to oppose that which the invariant moral teaching of their faith summarily condemns for the sake of the common good rooted in the “laws of nature, and of nature’s God.” Theirs is a morally bankrupt social engineering agenda which has two main priorities–the mandated promotion of baby killing via abortion and sexual perversion under force of unjust law which is owed no obedience whatsoever.
How can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality? A Scout takes an oath to be “morally straight,” which makes the concept of “homosexual Scouts” oxymoronic.
And what about the well-documented correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality? Are we obliged to put our Scouts at risk because a radical minority hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles won’t be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice, demanding acceptance of their perverted lifestyles by all aspects of society including the religious community?
I have a simple question. If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals?
A new relativism?
Those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the “absolutist” moral position, to the “relative” position that it can sometimes be beneficial. A controversial 1998 article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near-unanimous congressional condemnation with the notable exception of a handful of representatives to include a prominent homosexual, furthered exactly this position.
In a lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality [published in 1999], Harris Mirkin argues that the “sexually privileged” have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheer political force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement. One would hope that supporters of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., could see that, if Christianity meant anything to Dr. King, he would roll over in his grave to see such a perverted analogy with a civil rights movement that had nothing to do with promoting aberrant self-destructive behavior. His niece, Alveda Celeste King, has been outspoken to that effect, saying in a CNN report “that to equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights.”
In 1991, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal of Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives. [Editor's note: the book was published by Harrington Park Press, an imprint of Haworth Press, publisher of the Journal of Homosexuality.]
This volume provided devastating information on the way psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are starved for adult nurturance and protection.
In the foreword, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes “successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult’s love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an ‘enormously nurturant relationship’.”
Another writer [the late Edward Brongersma] said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve “miracles not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them.” The loving pedophile can offer a “companionship, security and protection” which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. 162). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home…” (p. 164).
In yet another deeply disturbing article in Male Intergenerational Intimacy, revealingly titled, “The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children.” pedophiles reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his activity as a search for love, and complains that: “Although I’ve had physical relationships with probably, I don’t know, maybe a hundred or more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true relationships over that time.”
The volume also contains an introductory article that decries society’s anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the difficulty studying man-boy relationships in “an objective way,” and they hope that the social sciences will adopt a broader approach that could lead to understanding of the “diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy.”
“Right” of children to enjoy sex?
Mirkin says the discussion must move on to such issues as the “right” of children to have and enjoy sex.
To pedophile advocates, any discussion of the benefits of child-adult sex is a victory. The APA should have understood this, and should have been well aware of, and vocally resistant to, the growing movement to legalize pedophilia as promoted in homosexual journals.
Have we devolved as a society to such an extent that the “right of children to have and enjoy sex” carries more weight than the rights of their parents, charged with their physical and spiritual welfare, to bring them up according to the law of God, in particular, His natural law written on the hearts of men? We will have if we acquiesce to the demands of radical homosexuality as evidenced by the aforementioned articles in the Journal of Homosexuality.
The good news is that the Journal of Homosexuality has performed a service by letting us know just who the real extremists are. Remember that the next time the word “homophobe” rears its ugly head in conversation or policy.
Lest we forget, what we’re witnessing is a backdoor attempt to subvert the very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual agitprop. How can parents, who out of course of fulfilling their responsibilities to their children by justly discriminating between right and wrong behavior, feel comfortable with a policy that would allow publicly avowed homosexual advocates and/or homosexuals into scouting on the premise that they would not condone and/or perform homosexual acts?
The very real agenda of such advocates was shown on Fox’s O’Reilly news show of 8/1/01, when a representative from the Massachusetts gay and lesbian caucus argued that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” also meant that the Scouts can’t talk about heterosexual relationships leading to marriage, and their leaders couldn’t wear wedding rings, implying that somehow, such talk would offend the homosexual membership. In short, what he was advocating was that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” not only applied to the unnatural acts of homosexuals that have been historically condemned by the vast majority of faith traditions, but also to natural marriage acts that aren’t “equally” condemned.
Scout Handbook re-write coming?
Real marriage offends homosexuals because “marriage” is not reserved for them, no matter that the concept of “homosexual marriage” is oxymoronic since there is this slight problem with propagation of the species. This kind of an attitude means that the portion of the Scout Handbook on Sexual Responsibility (Chapter 14, pp. 376-378) with the accent on “responsibility” will have to be rewritten.
The aforementioned homosexual advocate had no problems referring to homosexuals as parents when asked by O’Reilly why he couldn’t understand the concerns of parents in regard to the safety of their children. This is completely counter to what is in the Scout Handbook, which rightfully recognizes the natural context, the ONLY context of marriage, between a man and a woman.
What about the Handbook section that deals with responsibility to your beliefs where the Scouts are told that “sex should take place only between people who are married to each other” with abstinence until marriage being the priority concern in order to “give a child a close, loving family in which to grow”–with the clear inference that procreation is a function of “natural” monogamous marriage with a person of the opposite sex?
What about the section that deals with a Scout’s responsibility to himself where he’s told that “An understanding of ‘wholesome’ sexual behavior can bring lifelong happiness with irresponsibility or ignorance causing a lifetime of regret?” What could be more irresponsible than the de facto promotion of homosexuality by such misguided policies such as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” given the evidence coming from many professional sources to include the Center for Disease Control that homosexual behavior is the most risky because of the unnatural acts involved and its widely documented aspect of promiscuity where monogamous relationships are not the norm?
These are questions from responsible parents, recognizing that Scouts put a premium on telling the truth, that Boy Scout councils contemplating only “technical” adherence to their rules are required to answer. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” travels only one road, that of de facto homosexual advocacy.
What is required for the welfare of all concerned, not the least of which is a group of people being told the heinous lie that their aberrant unnatural behavior is physically and psychologically OK in total ignorance of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, is a “Please ask, please tell” policy with regard to homosexuality. The most serious spiritual consequences will result if the BSA continues to undermine its own Scout Oath emphasizing “doing my best to do my duty to God,” first and foremost. You don’t “help other people” by lying to them, another part of the Scout Oath.
AFTAH Calls on the Boy Scouts of America to Release ALL its Homosexual Molestation Files: [click HERE]
Sexual Assault Case Again Proves FORMER Boy Scout Policy was Right (2009):
Holder: If Gay Adults Are Fit for Military Service, They Are Fit to Lead Boy Scouts (CNS News): [Click HERE]
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.
|Copyright © 2006-2011 Americans for Truth. All Rights Reserved.|