Justice Anthony Kennedy

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families PAC wrote the following in his “End of Day” newsletter December 10, 2012:

High Court To Decide Meaning Of Marriage

Late Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in two cases dealing with the meaning of marriage. From the cases selected, it appears as though the justices want to tackle the issue from both the state and federal perspective.

One comes from New York and challenges the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. The second case stems from a challenge to California’s voter-approved initiative Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

It is difficult to predict how the court will rule in either case. Some conservatives are cautiously optimistic about the Proposition 8 case, believing that the justices will find striking down a popularly-enacted law on something as basic as the meaning of marriage to be an affront to the right of self-government and the foundation of our republican form of government.

I’m not holding my breath. The Supreme Court is split with four reliable liberals, four generally conservative justices and one moderate, swing vote — Justice Anthony Kennedy. While Justice Kennedy sided with conservatives in the Obamacare decision, he has a long history of siding with the court’s liberals when it comes to abortion and homosexual rights.

For example, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a popularly-enacted ballot initiative in Colorado preventing special legal protection based solely on homosexual behavior [see text of Colorado Amendment 2 in footnote 2 HERE]. Justice Kennedy also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws against sodomy.

“Kinky” sex includes “master-slave” role-playing in which the dominant person leads his partner-slave around like a dog. This photo (nudity covered) is from San Francisco’s 2008 “Folsom Street Fair.” Click to enlarge. Photo: AFTAH.

In 1650, Harvard’s orginal charter affirmed how the “good hand of God” had led men to make gifts for the creation of Harvard College to educate youth in “knowledge and godliness.”

Three hundred and sixty-two years later, Harvard wants to make sure student perverts (I’m sorry…kink advocates) are officially part of the school’s “diversity” framework. Kink is the hip term for, among other things, sadomasochism — which glorifies consensual sexual violence and degradation. You know, people gettting their body whipped to a bloody pulp for sexual satisfaction, or locked in a cage, or a “mummification” suit, or getting shocked with “electro-torture” devices–as a turn-on.

Or how about this bit of “alternative sexuality”: couples play-acting as dominant “Master” and submissive “slave,” complete with a chain and collar for the latter (see photo). So much for sexual “liberation”…This is truly sick sex.

And to think that many on the Left see this as “progress.” Here’s what a similar “kink” student group officially recognized by the University of Chicago brought to that campus: a “Leather Library” sadomasochism traveling exhibit that exposed youth to the most heinous sexual perversions known to mankind. (Which included, as this writer discovered, homosexual “snuff film” literary porn — eroticizing sexual torture to the point of murder.)

The sixties radicals who started this Sexual Revolution got one thing right when they preached: “Question Authority.” Their revolution has failed abysmally, and now it is they — the academic (and media/Hollywood) overlords of political correctness and sexual anarchy — who must be overthrown if our nation has any chance of recovering its greatness. How about we begin with a Common Sense Revolution that puts an end to madness like this? — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

The following is excerpted from an Associated Press report:

_______________________________________

Harvard recognizes group promoting safe kinky sex

AP /  December 5, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Kinky sex has been admitted to Harvard.

The nation’s oldest university has formally recognized Harvard College Munch, a group promoting discussions and safe practices of kinky and alternative sex. The school has no record of a similar group being recognized in its 376-year history.

The Committee on Student Life recognized Munch on Friday, making it one of 400 independent student organizations on campus. The decision occurred more than a year after members began meeting informally over meals.

The following release was issued by our good friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com:

_____________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com News Release

December 7, 2012 — For Immediate Release

U.S. Supreme Court Taking Prop. 8 Is About Our Republic

Thomasson: “This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic.”

Sacramento, California — A leading man-woman marriage organization in California is very happy that the United States Supreme Court has announced it will review Proposition 8, and is urging the nation’s high court to overturn the unconstitutional, biased opinions of California judicial activists Stephen Reinhardt and Vaughn Walker.

“The announcement from the Supreme Court is good news for everyone who knows, deep in their hearts, that children do best with a married father and mother under the same roof,” said Randy Thomasson, a longtime advocate of natural marriage and president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. “For the stability and health of our society, children need to see real marriages as their role model, not counterfeit ‘marriages,’ but true marriages between a man and a woman.”

“This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic,” Thomasson said. “We’re relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees each state ‘a republican form of government’ — a government under the written law, not government run by the unconstitutional prejudices of some judges. Without question, the Supreme Court should reserve marriage licenses exclusively for one man and one woman, not only for the sake of children and families, but for the sake of our republic.”

“The California Constitution reserving marriage licenses for a man and a woman, as God created it, does not contradict anything in the text or history of the U.S. Constitution,” Thomasson said. He offered four constitutional reasons why the Supreme Court should uphold Proposition 8, approved by California voters in 2008:

1. Marriage licenses are not in the United States Constitution, so this case never should have gotten into federal court in the first place.

2. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to California and every other state “a republican form of government” — meaning 1) no monarchy and 2) no lawless mob rule, but a government of written laws representing the will of the people, who are sovereign. The California Constitution represents the people’s will on marriage and the United States Supreme Court should affirm that. (See footnote recording James Madison’s definition of republican government as “a republican constitution and its existing laws” )

San Francisco’s new public nudity ban will still allow public nudity at annual events like the notorious Folsom Street Fair.

“The ban would prohibit most nudity in public, but it would continue to allow marchers at special events, like the San Francisco Pride Parade, to bare all. Children under 5 can be naked in public and sunbathers can continue to strip down on nude beaches.”–Reuters

Folks, I guess this is progress — but only in San Francisco would a public nudity “ban” still allow lots of public nudity — e.g., at homosexual events like the annual “gay pride” parade and Folsom Street Fair. AFTAH has led the way in exposing the “anything-goes” libertine atmosphere of the world’s most infamous ‘Gay’ Mecca, with our periodic exposés of the deviant and bizarre goings-on at Folsom (including homosexual orgies on the street as cops stood idly nearby).

We think it’s instructive to show where liberal “tolerance” leads, and how homosexual-dominated cities like San Francisco and Chicago end up celebrating perversion in its various manifestations, even to the point of lawlessness. “Gay” power has its degenerative consequences.

In 2008, I ventured out to San Francisco with Linda Harvey of Mission America and Diane Gramley of American Family Association of Pennsylvania to hold a press conference condemning the public nudity at Folsom Street. We immediately were shouted down by homosexual activist Michael Petrelis [see this YouTube video], who applauded public nudity (and public sex) — thus demonstrating the homo-fascist (or homo-communist) mentality to perfection.

Of course, the city’s LGBT-intimidated police allowed Petrelis to invade and disrupt our press conference.

Anyway, it appears that the annoyance, disgust and public spectacle of exhibitionists letting it all hang out (anywhere) were too much even for San Francisco’s jaded residents, heterosexual and homosexual alike. Now if only the city would start reining in the equally serious problem of sex clubs (“gay” orgy centers) that encourage reckless, anonymous promiscuity and facilitate the spread of disease. But that would be way too “intolerant” for a city like San Francisco that’s so far to the Loony Left that it had to grant a special (“gay”) exemption to pass a ban on going nude in public. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

________________________________

The following is excerpted from a Reuters article:

San Francisco tells nudists to get dressed

By Ronnie Cohen, Reuters December 4, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – San Francisco city leaders gave final approval on Tuesday to a ban on public nudity, a measure aimed at curtailing displays of nakedness that some residents and business owners say have gotten out of control in the famously tolerant city.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ action at City Hall prompted about a half dozen angry protesters to strip down to their socks.

The following release was put out by Texas Values. It would be instructive to compare the progress of homosexual activism in Red States like Texas to Blue States like Illinois — including the penetration of schools with LGBT advocacy and programs. Regardless, the homosexuals always advance through incremental victories, such as the Domestic Partnership policy in question here. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

12.5.12 — Texas Values Files Brief on Same-Sex ‘Domestic Partnerships’, Pflugerville ISD Board Meeting Next Week  

Texas Values and Alliance Defending Freedom submitted a brief today to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, requesting that his office find the Pflugerville ISD and other local governmental entities in violation of the Texas Constitution. Texas State Senator Dan Patrick made a request for the opinion on Nov. 2. PISD and other local governments are creating and recognizing a new legal status of “domestic partnerships” as a method to offer marital benefits to unmarried government employees in direct violation of the Texas Marriage Amendment. PISD and other local governmental entities in Texas are blatantly violating the Texas Constitution and the will of the Texas people, which supported the Texas Marriage Amendment by an over 76% vote. The language of the Texas Constitution and its legislative intent are crystal clear on this issue. Read our brief HERE.

Action Alert: Pflugerville ISD is reconsidering its same-sex benefits policy. The issue is finally being put on the agenda for a School Board meeting on Thursday, Dec. 13 at 7 p.m. in the Pflugerville High School cafeteria, 1301 W. Pecan Street. We need you to turn out and let your voice be heard if you are in the area. Contact us if you plan to attend.

Texas Values stands for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at www.txvalues.org.   Texas Values 900 Congress, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 478-2220   Jonathan M. Saenz, Esq. President, Texas Values

Standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas o: 512.478.2220 f: 512.478.2229 jsaenz@txvalues.org txvalues.org facebook.com/texasvalues twitter.com/txvalues *Texas Values is a new state-focused effort of Liberty Institute.

Go HERE to listen to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera’s Tuesday interview with Dallas-based Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd. We discussed the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) announcement that it will remove “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) from the next edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) — known as the the “bible” of psychiatry. LaBarbera discusses how the change was the result of politics — with transgender activists heavily lobbying the APA just as homosexual activists lobbied (and bullied) the APA into removing homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

The following is Mefferd’s listing for the program:

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

The American Psychiatric Association board has hit another historic milestone: People who call themselves “transgender” or “gender non-conforming” will no longer have their identities classified as mental disorders in the APA manual. Janet will talk over the implications with Peter LaBarbera, president and founder of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Also: Is it time for evangelicals to give up the same-sex “marriage” fight? One prominent religion writer thinks so. Janet will discuss it with Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.”

Americans For Truth is featured in this follow-up by Christian News Network to their original piece on Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren’s comments about homosexuality. The following are excerpts from the article:

_________________________________

Rick Warren Expresses Regret Over Making Video Supporting Biblical Marriage; Family Group Concerned

December 4, 2012 | Christian News Network

By Heather Clark

A pro-family group is calling into question recent statements made by Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of Saddleback Church in California, surrounding his regret over creating a video in 2008 that expressed his support for Biblical marriage.

During a recent interview with Marc Lamont Hill of the Huffington Post, Warren sought to clarify matters pertaining to his creation of a video years ago in which he stated that those who follow the Bible should support California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative. He had been accused of lying months after releasing the video for stating during an interview on Larry King Live that “[d]uring the whole Proposition 8 thing, I … never once issued a statement, never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going.”

“People say that I campaigned for Proposition 8. The meaning of the word ‘campaign’ means two different things,” Warren told Hill. “To me, that means that you go out and you speak at rallies, you do advertisements for it and stuff like that.”

“I never made a single statement on Prop. 8 until the week before, and in my own church, some members said, ‘Where do we stand on this?’” he explained. “[So], I released a video to my members. It was posted all over like it was an advertisement.”

…

Following Warren’s explanation, some are expressing concern, including Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. LaBarbera told Christian News Network that Warren’s comments made him appear as if he was ashamed to publicly stand for the Biblical definition of marriage.

“[Warren] regrets that the statement got out wider than his church. To me, that’s incredible because he should be happy that he had influence outside of his church to the whole body of Christ in California — indeed, to people all over the state voting on the issue who look to him for guidance,” he said. “And so, that troubles me that he even says now that he wouldn’t make that video. … That’s saying that he does not want to be a leader on the homosexual ‘marriage’ issue.”

“Homophobia” is routinely used to describe opposition to homosexuality and the “gay” movement.

Needless to say, we at AFTAH are pleased that the Associated Press has dispensed with the use of the pejorative term “homophobia” in its official and influential Style Book. “Homophobia” is usually employed by pro-“gay” advocates to denigrate sincere and well-meaning opponents of homosexuality as irrational bigots.

Predictably, homosexual activists like John Aravosis — the very types who routinely smear pro-family advocates like this writer (and organizations like the Boy Scouts) as “homophobes” — are disappointed with AP’s decision.

We at Americans For Truth, like our peers in the pro-family, conservative movement who stand in principled and faith-based opposition to the LGBT political and cultural agenda, do not “fear” homosexuals. We simply disagree profoundly with the normalization of homosexual behavior and the elevation of homosexuality and “gay” identity to “civil rights” status.

Of course, there are people who do fear homosexuals, but there are also people who fear conservative Christians. So isn’t it odd that “homophobia” (and “Islamophobia”) became mainstreamed in America’s media-driven lexicon, while “Christian-phobia” did not? (And now transgender activists, piggybacking off the semantic success of their homosexual allies, are pushing the equally dubious “transphobia” to advance their agenda.)

You could easily fill ten large books with examples of abuses of the tendentious term “homophobia” and its derivative, “homophobe,” in the same-sex debate. Advocates of homosexuality and foes of biblical sexual morality would never allow themselves to be categorized and caricatured as “phobes” — our friend John Biver posits the Secular Left as “morality-phobia” HERE — yet they pretend that somehow “homophobia” objectively describes opposition to homosexuality. That’s because to far too many homosexual advocates, the end justifies the means, and the “gay” cause advances when its critics are cynically and falsely cast as hateful and fearful creeps.

We will have more on this story. For now, it is gratifying to see AP make a move toward neutrality, objectivity and fairness in its coverage of homosexuality. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Politico reports (emphasis added):

AP Nixes ‘Homophobia,’ ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

By Dylan Byers, 11/26/12

The Associated Press has nixed “homophobia,” “ethnic cleansing,” and a number of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.

The online Style Book now says that “-phobia,” “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness” should not be used “in political or social contexts,” including “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.” It also calls “ethnic cleansing” a “euphemism,” and says the AP “does not use ‘ethnic cleansing’ on its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained.”

“Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don’t feel that’s quite accurate,” AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.

“When you break down ‘ethnic cleansing,’ it’s a cover for terrible violent activities. It’s a term we certainly don’t want to propagate,”Minthorn continued. “Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark. It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.”

“We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing,” he said.

The changes made to the online Style Book will appear in next year’s printed edition.