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.
The following statement was released by the Sutherland Institute, a conservative, pro-family public-policy organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah:
Sutherland Statement on Salt Lake City Nondiscrimination Ordinances and LDS [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] Support
In response to the November 10, 2009 decision of the Salt Lake City Council to adopt changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances, and to comments presented that evening by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Sutherland Institute issued the following statement:
We may be witnessing the “official” split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps: the principled groups and churches that oppose all efforts to recognize and approve homosexuality as normal (AFTAH is in this camp); and “soft” family organizations and churches that oppose homosexual “marriage” (and sometimes “civil unions”) but which support other parts of the homosexualist agenda. Below is a version of an e-mail I sent yesterday to pro-family leaders across the United States upon learning of this misguided decision by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to support special legal “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion.
The pro-“gay” decision by the LDS Church to back a local “sexual orientation” law — widely reported by the media — is very bad news for our side. The proliferation of newfangled laws granting special protections based on objectively disordered sexual/gender behaviors created the basis for punishing dissenters and people of faith long before the “gay marriage” debate became the dominant issue that it is in the “culture wars.” I think I speak for us all in saying that we are very grateful to the Mormon Church for all it has done to defend against same-sex “marriage” (I personally am astonished by the LDS’ huge contribution to the cause). But “protecting marriage” while legitimizing government-backed preferred status based on changeable, wrong, and very unhealthy (even deadly) behaviors is a Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one.
Moreover, allowing homosexual special rights will only be used by liberal judges to rationalize their imposition of “gay marriage,” anyway (as has already happened), so what’s to be gained by such concessions? [See Gary Glenn’s article on this point HERE]
Below is an informative piece by my friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan about the awful decision by the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to support legislation granting legal protections based on homosexuality. Gary of AFA-Michigan writes:
Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.” That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.
A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:
Pro-family forces prevailed on Nov. 3 in the state of Maine to preserve traditional marriage –– for now –– and praise God for that. Yet the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign ceded some precious ground in the process and threw long-time family activists under the bus instead of working with them as they could have.
Christian policy professionals all across the country were aghast after watching the last-minute TV ad by SMM, which said this:
Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.
This is a huge concession to the hopes and aspirations of “gay” activists. Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position. This paves the way for the pseudo-marriage of “domestic partnerships.” The big question is: Why did “conservatives” do this?
MassResistance reports: A Massachusetts man was fired from a national retail corporation because of his traditional beliefs on same-sex marriage. Peter Vadala was formally dismissed from his job as second deputy manager of the Brookstone store at Boston’s Logan Airport on August 12, 2009, after a supervisor reported him to Human Resources regarding an incident two days earlier. Story continues under video, which was shot by our friends at MassResistance:
As Peter described the incident (see video above), he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to “he” but to another woman.
Folks, here is a statement by Mike Heath (left), my good friend and former executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, on the passage Tuesday of Question 1, which repudiated Maine’s homosexual “marriage” law. It’s no mystery why the Stand For Marriage Maine folks worked to distance themselves from Mike. (That’s another sad story.) He’s a bit too, well … biblically principled for their compromising approach. We’ll have much more on Heath, Maine politics and the homosexual agenda on these pages. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
______________________
Heath, who is also Board Chairman of AFTAH, writes on his blog:
Righteousness prevails
There’s lots of disappointed people today. Not just in Maine, but all across America. Maine was supposed to become the first state to endorse homosexual marriage on a statewide ballot. It didn’t happen, thank God.
It was close, but they’ve always been close. Ever since I helped start the debate about using referendums to stop the queer political movement in 1991 its been close. We realized then that the politicians would be incapable of halting the slide toward the full legal endorsement of sex outside of marriage. We believed that the people would do the right thing.
Christians PROMOTING homosexual relationships and “gay civil rights”? Above is a frame from the Stand for Marriage Maine TV ad “It’s Possible,” effectively endorsing the state’s “domestic partnership” law and “civil rights” based on homosexuality. See controversial text of ad below, and view the full ad HERE.
I agree with my good friend Matt Barber, who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth in addition to his important work at Liberty Counsel. It is not ethical nor good strategy for the “pro-family” movement to promote one evil and public-policy disaster (changeable and sinful behavior as a government-backed “civil right”) to fight another (homosexual “marriage”). Yet that is precisely what the Yes on 1 campaign’s pro-domestic partnership ad called “It’s Possible” did. [Click HERE for AFTAH’s election story.] Here again is the text of that misguided Yes on 1 ad used in Maine:
‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’
We who claim to follow God are lacking in integrity if we promote the normalization of homosexuality as part of some (perhaps well-intentioned) utilitarian plan to ostensibly “save” traditional marriage. Indeed, the irony of the ad text above is that progressive concessions on “domestic partnership” and “civil unions” legislation will, in fact, dismantletraditional marriage. Yes on 1 PR consultant Frank Schubert’s compromising spin will pave the way for disaster in the pro-family movement, as it undermines our greatest strength: our commitment to the truth. It’s time to reject Political Correctness and get back to basics in the pro-family movement. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org
This outstanding piece by my good friend Linda Harvey of 
Folks, here is a statement by Mike Heath (left), my good friend and former executive director of the 
