MTV’s “gay” LOGO network is sponsoring the homosexual presidential debate August 9th.

By Peter LaBarbera 

In trying to put into perspective the stunning yet sad news of the first-ever “gay” activist-sponsored presidential “debate” — to be held in Los Angeles on August 9, and aired over the MTV-owned homosexual network LOGO — we ask: when is the follow-up debate for those advocating sex outside marriage? (After all, people once said to be “living in sin” are now a sizeable minority in America.) How about one tailored specifically to the pro-drug legalization crowd? Is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored debate, complete with Gloria Steinem as lead questioner, around the corner?

Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such.  It is one of several sexual sins opposed by God (can I still say that without being charged with a “hate crime”?).  Because same-sex acts are so unnatural, they can be highly destructive — witness the high percentage of AIDS cases — 71 percent — linked to MSM (“men who have sex with men”).  Homosexuality is also changeable, as testified by the many men and women who once proudly identified as “gay” or “lesbian” but who have walked away from homosexuality and are living happy lives today.

We know that it’s not Politically Correct to say these things.  Fine, but last I heard, God is not rewriting His moral code according to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Or the GOP, or even the smug scribblers on the Washington Post’s editorial pages, for that matter. For the record, He hasn’t declared unborn babies mere blobs of tissue, either — though many politicians and reporters would love to be rid of that moral irritant.

So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up.

The “gay presidential debate” is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts — yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-“gay” advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals.

One of the reported questioners is lesbian rock star Melissa Etheridge.  Another is Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s biggest “gay” lobby organization and a group that regularly disparages people of faith opposed to homosexuality as haters and bigots. Yep, lots of journalistic objectivity here.

Will there be a corresponding, “gay”-positive GOP presidential debate — hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans?  Where does the pandering end?  Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religious and First Amendment freedoms if HRC’s radical agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of journalistic objectivity.)

Even if one could conceive of a reason to have a “homosexual presidential debate,” why would the questioners all be of the liberal-left persuasion? (I confess I don’t know much about Etheridge’s political leanings, but how about at least including a “gay” libertarian like Rick Sincere to mix things up?) Is there any doubt that HRC is sponsoring this debate to push the candidates further toward embracing its radical statist agenda, including “gay marriage,” “hate crimes” and “transgender rights”?

“We’re honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience,” says Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President of LOGO. “This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process.”

Three clues as to which oversized “niche audience” is getting the shaft this presidential campaign season. (Here’s one clue: LOGO’s and HRC’s websites will be taking questions from the public for the debate, but somehow I don’t think a social conservative’s question will make it on air.)

The MTV-LOGO debate is a sham, but the sad thing is: if “mainstream” journalists were substituted for the homosexual activist questioners, the tenor of the evening likely would remain the same. Because these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the “gay”-cheerleading media and “gay” activists themselves.

We hope that openly lesbian Detroit News Columnist Deb Price is correct and that her homosexual activist comrades have much to fear in the direction of the Supreme Court. However, it is frightenng to think that so much is riding on decisions of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — who in his opinions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) has often seemed more interested in pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times than being faithful to the Constitution.– Peter LaBarbera

From Price’s column July 16:

Court threatens to burn fragile protections

In 1992, vacationing on the big island of Hawaii, I walked toward a river of blood red lava shooting over a cliff and into the sea. I recall looking for a sign, rope or “Hawaii Five-O’s” Steve McGarrett to warn me to stop.

But a giant caution sign wasn’t necessary. The instant I knew not to step a hair’s breadth farther was when I felt the soles of my tennis shoes starting to soften.

A similarly red hot warning — “Tread closer at your own peril” — poured out from the U.S. Supreme Court this term to gay Americans.

The Roberts court — whose votes in nongay cases strongly signaled that Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito can be expected to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in opposing almost any imaginable gay-rights plea — is moving frighteningly close to having the five votes it would need to weaken the groundbreaking rulings of 1996 and 2003 acknowledging that gay Americans are protected by the Constitution….

“This term confirmed a lot of our fears,” says Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

What alarmed gay rights litigators? A string of 5-4 decisions against the powerless or minorities: Rulings blocking workers from suing over sex discrimination if it’s not discovered immediately; ignoring public school students’ free-speech rights, and hampering efforts to create racially diverse schools.

To read Price’s full column, click HERE

Reprinted with permission from the website of Concerned Women for America; published July 5, 2007

__________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexual “Marriages” in Massachusetts  

2004                        2005                      2006                     2007 (through April)  

6,121                      2,060                     1,427                              87 

__________________________________________________________________________________

By J. Matt Barber 

Getting married isn’t even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals. 

The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as “marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.

By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media, government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable, sexual lifestyle.

They yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image wherein all are compelled to not only accept, but to celebrate high-risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as both normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their ideal is a society in which inherent gender distinctions are eliminated and God’s express design for human sexuality is replaced by morally relative and surreal notions of sexual androgyny.

Nowhere are the dumbing-down of sexual morality and the blurring of gender lines more evident than in the left’s effort to radically redefine marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that currently allows “same-sex marriage.” Nine other states permit some form of “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” which, in truth, are simply “gay marriages” by another name. (Those states are Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.)

But despite the feigned and fevered cries of liberals for “marriage equality,” it’s becoming abundantly clear that the arguments conservatives have been making against “gay marriage” are spot-on. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t desire “marriage;” rather, militant homosexual activists desire to use “same-sex marriage” as both a tool to normalize homosexual behaviors and as a weapon to tear down the institution of legitimate marriage.

‘I’d had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men’

 The following story appeared in WorldNetDaily.com July 1, 2007:

A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married “happy heterosexual” who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in feminist causes “changed” her into a lesbian.

Sue Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband had been a good one.

But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young professor became involved with the British Psychological Society.
 
“I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts,” said Wilkinson.

“Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women’s organizations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity.”

Click HERE to read the rest of the WorldNetDaily.com story

 Whoever heard of a sex club float at a parade? Proud homosexuals, that’s who. Above, a bus float for “Steamworks,” a 24/7 bathhouse in Chicago’s (“gay”) Boystown neighborhood — where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men — rides in the Chicago homosexual “pride” parade June 24. Many young children watched or participated in the Chicago parade. 

The lawless hate God. The name of Jesus is an affront to sinners. The [Columbus “gay pride” parade] crowd cheered the apostate churches as they displayed their man-made signs declaring their man-man opinion of Jesus’ acceptance of sin. They cursed and spat upon those who held a sign that displayed the Word of God, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”

 

Christian men are afraid to stand up for Jesus. They act just like women, striving to be “nice” to everyone. They won’t fight for their communities, won’t protect their children from indoctrination, and won’t storm the gates of hell.
— Coach Dave Daubenmire, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?” 

TAKE ACTION: Send Americans For Truth a $10 donation (postpaid) or make a $10 gift online and we will send you a “Truth Packet” that reveals some cold, hard realities about the homosexual agenda — including our booklet, “The Homosexual Agenda Targeting Children.” The Truth Packet will guide you on simple steps you can take to start standing up for truth against the pro-homosexual issue in your community. You’ll be shocked to see how the “GLBT” lobby is converting the next generation to their ungodly cause. Send $10 (postpaid) to AFTAH, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, or go online to give HERE. 

___________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

I’d like to call your attention to a wonderful call-to-arms from Coach Dave Daubenmire, who is a great American and a spiritual treasure for this deeply troubled nation. As one who has observed a bunch of “Gay Pride” parades over the years — they now call them just “pride” parades to mask their real purpose: celebrating homosexuality (perversion) — I echo Coach Dave’s call for Christian men to get off their comfortable keisters and observe firsthand the moral disintegration of this country.

Coach Dave is a man’s man, and his frank observations are, well, too gut-real for some even in the “pro-family” movement. American Christianity has been feminized, or perhaps emasculated — or even “psychologized” — to such a degree that we shy away from bold truth-telling. We rationalize our withdrawals from the culture wars, sometimes using theology to justify our cowardice. In his article, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?”, the Coach shows us the end-game of “tolerance” and “diversity”: the glorification of sin, churches parading in support of behavior that God condemns, and the promotion of ungodly lifestyles to innocent kids. 

Do we hate sin?

It’s funny. Guilt-ridden Christians talk a lot about how they don’t hate “gays.” That should be a given: we are commanded to love sinners supernaturally — even to suffer for the sake of the Gospel, as my friend Dan Musick and Joe Christopherson did at Chicago “Pride” last Sunday.  But I’m wondering: do we hate homosexual behavior like God does? (Can I say that? — alert the Thought Police immediately.)

No, we don’t. The result is that men who should be out contending with the evils of the day — and surely this is one — are instead fretting over not appearing “intolerant,” overly “judgmental,” or too radical. Or they withdraw into the business world and reading their stock reports, to prepare for a retirement in which they can retreat even further from the culture wars that we are already losing, badly.

Why is it that the wicked (in this case, homosexual activists) can give 150 percent to their their cause, but we who claim the “Truth” adopt a defensive posture and are saddled with doubt and apathy in the fight for godly values?

Guys, Jesus was radical. He was a man’s man. If you can’t bring yourself to join Americans For Truth in confronting the homosexual lobby in the culture and public policy, then get out on the streets and witness the Gospel to people headed for hell in the name of “pride” (oops, I said the H-word: another speech code violation…).

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.