“Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.” 

 By Harry Jackson Jr., appearing in Townhall.com, June 18, 2007 

I was excited last Friday when I got the word that I was featured in an extensive article in USA Today. The voice on the other end of the phone also informed me that a sizable picture of me would also appear. Needless to say it only took but a few minutes for me to get a copy of the paper in my hand. As I read the article, I was further flattered by the fact that the writer included the story of my father being threatened by a Florida State Trooper in a 1950s hate crime.

The joy that my message is getting huge traction in the mainstream media faded as I read the second paragraph. “Jackson’s argument is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel.” This riveting line stopped me in my tracks. Spoken by a major gay advocacy group’s leader, these words were meant to vilify me and the thousands of Christian ministers around the country that believe exactly like I do. I was saddened but not surprised. I could not help asking myself the question, “Have we reverted to senseless name calling, instead of debating the facts?”

Growing up in the ghetto, I am familiar with the politics of intimidation. I learned early in my youth that it was when I was most afraid that I could sometimes bluff toughness and “sell a few wolf tickets.” My loud voice and an intimidating looks got me out of more than one close call. On one occasion, a friend of mine yelled at a guy who had pinned him to the ground and was beating him unmercifully, “I dare you to let me up!” Much to his surprise he was turned loose from a choke hold by his larger, ferocious foe. My friend wisely ran for cover upon his release.

Like my childhood friend, gay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.

To read the rest of Jackson’s column in Townhall.com, click HERE 

Concerned Women for America (www.cwfa.org)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 15, 2007; FOR MORE INFORMATION: JENNIFER FEDOR(202) 488-7000 ext. 126

Washington, D.C. — Despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, Massachusetts lawmakers thumbed their noses at constituents on Thursday and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) to prevent the citizens of Massachusetts from voting on a constitutional amendment in 2008 which, if passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man and one woman.

Addressing the vote, Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “In its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed ‘same-sex marriage’ on the people of Massachusetts through a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the radical homosexual lobby and have betrayed their own constituents and the democratic process by precluding them from weighing in on this crucial issue.

“What are they afraid of? Well, we know the answer to that question. They mustn’t allow the voters to decide on marriage because ‘gay marriage’ proponents almost universally lose when the voters have their say.

“Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole’ fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and a female and that it is a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.

“After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — miraculously divined that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this insanity. Although this ballot initiative wasn’t perfect in that it would have grandfathered existing ‘same-sex marriages’ in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home. This just underscores the need for a federal constitutional amendment which would protect the true definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman,” concluded Barber.

Note: we apologize to Amy Contrada for wrongly attributing her critique of Massachusetts Family Institute’s pro-marriage-amendment strategy in the Bay State to Brian Camenker. Here is an updated version of her compelling piece on the MassResistance blog:

VoteOnMarriage Failed the People, June 14, 2007

By Amy Contrada, MassResistance.org 

http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/06/voteonmarriage-failure-predicted-here.html

The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.

VoteOnMarriage’s campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to “letting the people vote” and ensuring “children have both a mother and a father.” But it left out the important truth about homosexual “marriage”: It’s based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.

But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn’t they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for “marriage”? And after compromising with [the then Massachusetts Republican governor], they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.

VoteOnMarriage depleted our side’s energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We’ve warned about their failing strategy (“Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!”) and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: “Don’t feed the bears! They’ll just come back for more and more. They’ll smell your weakness. And they’ll eat you alive.”

But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something “inappropriate” or with a little too much emotion.

Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.

We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don’t understand the foe we’re facing.

When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don’t ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.

Listen to this podcast interview between Christian Civic League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath and MassResistance founder Brian Camenker (scroll and click on “Homosexual Totalitarians”). Camenker explains how the pro-family movement’s compromising, defensive approach contributed to the defeat Thursday of the marriage amendment in the Massachusetts Statehouse.

Camenker describes how pro-family efforts to be “reasonable” by watering down the amendment (e.g., it would NOT overturn existing “same-sex marriages”) actually boomeranged on the pro-marriage forces. Rather than let down their opposition, aggressive and savvy “gay” activists continued to insist that the amendment was a full-blown assault on their “marriage” rights.

Meanwhile, Camenker says, Massachusetts pro-family forces evaded any discussion of homosexuality for fear of being perceived as “anti-gay.” They floated a “Benefits Fairness Act” which awarded marriage-like benefits to “two dependent adults who are ineligible for marriage,” hoping that would placate the homosexual activists. (It didn’t.)

The question remains — not just for Massachusetts but the whole nation: can we defend marriage (and that includes blocking “civil unions” laws) without critically discussing and exposing homosexual behavior, and explaining the pitfalls of normalizing such behavior through public policy?

Listen to Heath’s interview with Camenker by clicking HERE; for now it plays automatically, but later you may need to scroll down to “Homosexual Totalitarians” and click it to play. 

“Polite just doesn’t cut it,” says Maine Christian Advocate 

Mike Heath — and Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance — are right on here: appeasement of a sort did not work in Massachusetts. Compromises within the pro-family camp are paving the way for the continued success of the homosexual activist movement. The “gay” lobby, sensing weakness — with even some Christian evangelicals now accepting “civil unions” as a viable compromise — is emboldened to push even harder for its goal of full “same-sex marriage” and an array of “sexual orientation” laws that will effectively criminalize opposition to their lifestyle. — Peter LaBarbera

http://business.mainetoday.com/newsdirect/release.html?id=4503

The Massachusetts Legislature deep-sixed a pro-marriage referendum proposal today.  Notwithstanding the fact that pro-family forces compromised hoping to ease the concerns of social moderates in the Bay State, the government of pro-homosexual Governor Deval Patrick (D) unbelievably decided to deny the people an opportunity to vote.   In Maine, the Legislature cannot stop a referendum of the people.   If the people want a vote in Maine , they get one. Not so in Massachusetts .

Reflecting on the development in Massachusetts, Christian Civic League of Maine executive director Mike Heath said it is only a matter of time before Maine politicians eliminate the institution of marriage.  Heath said he doesn’t believe Maine can stop them unless the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland decides to strongly oppose it.   

“I don’t want to be overly pessimistic here,” said the 45-year old Executive Director.  “But, I’ve been fighting these guys for almost twenty years.   Polite just doesn’t cut it.”

 Steve and Irene Bennett

By Stephen Bennett of www.sbministries.org

_________________________

…so they say.

I want to wish my beautiful wife, Irene, a happy 14th Anniversary today, June 13th.

The last 14 years of my life have been the most precious and meaningful ones to me.

We are your average, traditional American family next door: a husband, a wife, two kids (a boy and a girl) and, well, a rabbit.

Life has never been better.

My 11 years involved in the homosexual lifestyle are a horrible nightmare. The immoral sex with numerous people, the bars, the drugs, the alcohol, the failed relationships, the pornography, playing “house” with my “gay” partners, friends and lovers dying from AIDS – a nightmare.

Today, I have peace. I have stability and responsibility. I’m a husband and a father, the provider, the one who pays the mortgage, the tuition, the bills and puts food on the table.

To read the whole article by Stephen Bennett, click HERE.

Holsinger and Ex-Gay Community Attacked by Gay Groups 

News Advisory:  June 11, 2007
Contact:  Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX);  703-360-2225  PFOX@pfox.org   http://www.pfox.org/

Washington DC -– Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) today condemned the bigoted remarks by gay activists being made about the new Surgeon General nominee. Gay rights groups are attacking Dr. James Hoslinger’s nomination because his church is inclusive of ex-gays and he supports the right to self-determination regarding one’s sexual attraction.

Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves.  “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.  “This demonstrates how far the gay rights movement has moved from self-described victims to proactive perpetrators.”

“Ex-gays should not have to be closeted for fear of others’ negative reactions or disapproval,” Griggs said.  “They do not think something is wrong with them because they chose to fulfill their heterosexual potential.  We need to ensure the safety, inclusion, and respect of former homosexuals in all realms of society, but especially by the medical and mental health communities starting at the highest levels.”

“As a medical doctor, it seems Dr. Holsinger is aware that contrary to distortions by gay activists, no professional medical or mental health associations deny the right of any individual to seek support in resolving unwanted same-sex attractions.” Griggs said.  “Indeed, these associations adhere to a code of ethics which call for their members to support the client’s right of self-determination.” 

“Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters.  Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs.  “Tolerance is not a one-way street.  All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.” 

###

To view a sample of hate against former homosexuals, see http://www.pfox.org/downloads/HRC%20hates.pdf

A copy of this press release is online at http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=191#191

PFOX  leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community.  They can be reached via their website at http://www.pfox.org/

 TAKE ACTION:  Help counter the pro-homosexual lobby’s smear campaign attempting to “Bork” Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General. Here’s how: 

1. Call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or write them (http://www.congress.org/) and politely urge them to support Dr. James Holsinger, Jr. as Surgeon General; the members of the Senate Health Committee, which will first consider Holsinger, can be found HERE (e-mail the committee at: help_comments@help.senate.gov) — but Holsinger’s nomination will likely be voted on by the whole Senate, so tell your Senators to use their influence to insure that he is treated fairly;
2. Thank the White House (202-456-1111 or -1414; e-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov; www.whitehouse.gov/contact) and urge the President to stand by Dr. Holsinger and not to be swayed by the pro-homosexual lobby’s distortions and anti-Christian bigotry;
3. Tell your friends to support Dr. Holsinger with a quick e-mail or call.

Click HERE TO READ DR. HOLSINGER’S 1991 PAPER, “PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY,” which liberal, pro-homosexual groups are distorting to discredit him.

 __________________________

Dear Americans For Truth Reader, 

By Peter LaBarbera 

Folks, anti-Christian homosexual activists and their liberal allies are out again in force to take down another good man — Dr. James Holsinger, Jr., President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General — who happens to agree with the ancient Judeo-Christian moral understanding of homosexual practice as unnatural, unhealthy and wrong.

The ABC report below is Orwellian in its framing of the campaign against Dr. Holsinger — a Christian medical doctor (cardiologist) who also holds a doctorate in anatomy and physiology. Holsinger is being vilified because he wrote in 1991 that male homosexual sex practices are unhealthy, and because he believes that men and women can abandon homosexuality.

The ABC report below — which includes a politically correct quote by the spokesman for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — implies that Holsinger’s writings, such as his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” are obsolete and way outside of the scientific mainstream. Hello… Has there been some change in human anatomy (perhaps some hyperactive “evolutionary” mutation in the last 16 years) that suddenly makes rectal sex between men natural and good for the human body?

Please take a few minutes to read Dr. Holsinger’s 1991 paper, reprinted on our website. It was written for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality. See for yourself if the paper has the ring of extremism. Here’s an excerpt:

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).