By Peter LaBarbera

When it comes to chutzpah, homosexual activists have it in spades. They work their lavender tushes off revolutionizing the age-old Judeo-Christian definitions of marriage and family; fight for “gay/straight” clubs in middle- and high schools, and homosexuality-affirming lessons for all students–even toddlers; lobby for open homosexuality in the armed forces; oppose marriage-preference adoption laws based on the absurd proposition that a child having two “gay daddies” is no worse off than one having a mother and a father; make outrageous claims that esteemed historical figures like Abe Lincoln were “gay”; and radically reinterpret the Bible to change homosexuality from an abomination to a “gift from God.”

Then they turn around and ridicule the idea that there is a “gay agenda.”

Here’s an entry from lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding:

“The Homosexual Agenda is an elusive document. We’ve been looking around for a copy for quite some time; the distribution plan is so secret that it’s almost like we need a queer Indiana Jones to hunt the master copy down. The various anti-gay forces are certain that we all have a copy and are coordinating a attack to achieve world domination.” –Pam Spaulding

Memo to Pam: you don’t have to risk being chased by a giant boulder in the Amazon to find a copy of that elusive agenda; just click this link for the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Note the last two demands under “States” in the 1972 document: “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent” and “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

Or try this link for the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington.” No agenda here, other than the calls for:

• “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin”;
• “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools”;
• “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.”
• “A massive [federal] AIDS education and prevention program that is explicit, culturally sensitive, lesbian and gay affirming and sex positive”;
• “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples”;
• All people must have access to free abortions and contraceptives on demand regardless of age.” (Strangely, abortion advocacy has long been part of the homosexual activist agenda.)

Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God’s plan for sexuality…

Excerpted from Why Homosexuals Despise Marriage, by Kevin McCullough, published Oct, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…With utter contempt for God and for the voters of their state, the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise that what the Bible terms perversion the voters should call healthy.

But why? What’s the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?

The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from “Bible thumpers.” And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.

There are attributes of marriage that same-sex couples will never achieve.

Can someone explain why a man with two sets of broken marriage vows and who admitted to covert homosexuality and adultery should have a public voice in this debate? What does James McGreevey, a man who is not even divorced yet but is living with his homosexual lover, know about real love (seeking the other person’s highest good) or commitment (unselfish devotion)? – Sonja Dalton

Excerpted from McGreevey Prods NJ Lawmakers To Pass Gay Marriage Bill, published Oct 30, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey called on state lawmakers Monday to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I hope the Legislature and the government does what’s right and embraces the idea of marriage for two loving and committed individuals,” McGreevey told WNBC television.

McGreevey became the nation’s first gay governor when he announced on Aug. 12, 2004 that he was “a gay American”. The married governor, standing beside his wife then said that he had been involved in an affair with a man and would resign.

The McGreeveys separated shortly after and the governor currently lives with his same-sex domestic partner.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

From Cathi Herrod of Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition:

Today, we acknowledge that proposition 107 failed to pass on November 7.

The struggle to protect marriage between one man and one woman is far from over. Proposition 107’s defeat is but one skirmish in the battle to preserve and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It’s a token win for the opposition.

Make no mistake: the defeat of proposition 107 had nothing to do with whether Arizonans believe same sex marriage should be legalized or not.

Arizona voters were bombarded with misinformation about Prop 107 by our opposition. We were outspent about 4 to 1.

Our opponents were able to focus the debate on what Proposition 107 was not about: benefits for unmarried individuals. Our opponents were able to scare seniors into believing they would lose their social security benefits if prop 107 passed. Our coalition simply did not have the funds to respond to opponents’ attacks and distortions about the true intent of Prop 107.

Excerpted from March Divides Followers of Martin Luther King, published Dec 11, 2004, by Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

…Saturday’s march [led by New Birth Missionary Church] advocated “a constitutional amendment to fully protect marriage between one man and one woman.”

…Bernice King, the Kings’ youngest daughter, expressed how she felt her father would have responded while speaking at a church in Auckland, New Zealand, in October:

“I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.”

Excerpted from Marriage Protection Ballot Measure Passes Easily in Cartwright Township, Would Pass Statewide in Illinois if Given the Chance Says IFI, a press release from Illinois Family Institute, published Nov 9, 2006:

…Peter LaBarbera, Protect Marriage Illinois board member and president of the Naperville-based Americans for Truth, said Wisconsin voters’ 59 to 41 passage of a Marriage Protection Amendment — which also clearly precludes “civil unions” — has lessons for Illinois.

“Pro-marriage forces were outspent 10 to one in blue state Wisconsin, yet the Marriage Protection Amendment there passed in a landslide,” LaBarbera said. “Here in Illinois, gay activist Rick Garcia has paid for some biased polls to cast doubt on the prospects of a Marriage Protection initiative here. But Illinois citizens should not believe those polls. With hard work and a strong grassroots push, Illinois will join the list of states providing the maximum protection to marriage. We must do so to prevent judges from usurping the power by radically redefining marriage, as occurred in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont.”

Continue reading at US Newswire… 

Well, here you have it: some Wisconsin homosexual activists testify below to the lies and unethical campaign tactics used by the “gay” activist group “Fair Wisconsin” in trying to derail the state’s Marriage Protection Amendment.  This corroborates reports that we heard from Wisconsin of citizens outraged that the homosexual group was intentionally misleading voters into thinking that a NO vote was PRO-marriage (in truth, a YES vote was FOR the Marriage Amendment.)

Despite their dirty tricks and deceptions–and the fact that pro-homosexual lobby in Wisconsin outspent pro-family forces 10-1 in this campaign–the amendment passed easily, by 59-41 percent.  This in the very first state to enact a “sexual orientation” law (back in 1982).  Who says the homosexual movement’s triumph is inevitable?– Peter LaBarbera

Comments posted Nov 7, 2006, on the Fair Wisconsin blog (emphasis added):

At 6:59 AM, Skippy said…

I am not going to take the time to read all of this but… YOU LIED… to so many people… YOU LIED to people who where going to vote no and TRICKED them into voting yes… YOU CALLED PEOPLE AND TOLD THEM TO VOTE NO IF THEY WANTED TO KEEP MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN… FAIR WISCONSIN DESTROYED GAY COUPLES FUTURES BECAUSE THEY LIED… YOU LIED… YOU FLAT OUT LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE… Why lie… all we want is the truth… Fair WISCONSIN made us out to be fakes… phoneys… and fair WISCONSIN hurt the gay community SEVERELY… NEVER TO BE FORGIVEN… I would like to see Fair Wisconsin Retired… and will not rest until that happens… NO BODY that sticks up for me is going to go around and LIE…

At 2:05 PM, Miss Judy said……I think that Skippy’s comments are histrionic; however, I think Matt’s comment should not be ignored. The campaign was a mainstream – Democrat-style political campaign. As such, I think compromises were made in the name of perceived political expediency. Although we did indeed talk of gay and lesbian couples and their families, much of the campaign downplayed ‘queerness’ and focused on the effects the amendment would have on “all non-married couples”, i.e., straight folks. It’s a dicey path to walk – on the one hand we were asking people to expand their hearts and consciousness and really question why they are so afraid of queer folks; on the other hand we were in effect saying “Don’t think about homosexuals if they creep you out; think about how this would affect ‘normal’ people,” thus tacitly accepting homophobia.
Could we have waged a successful campaign without making these compromises? Probably not. However, we still need to look at these issues head-on, engage in constructive self-criticism and consider their effects, not just dismiss them as givens or necessary evils.

At 4:03 PM, psion9999 said…
I won’t hide my anger at my life being politicized and I won’t hide my hatred of all those who have done so. I’m not strong enough to keep myself from it. But, this is only directed at those who knew what they were doing, and hid behind the face of their religion and used phrases like “protecting marriage from being redifined” to mask their bigotry and ignorance. I pity all the others who voted “yes” out of confusion and because they were directed to do so by their churches. With education, those people can be reached in the future. It is the truly hateful people that will lose out in the end, because I believe that they are vocal and powerful now, but small in number. The youth of today truly will bring a bright future. They are more enlightened in what is truly good and right in society, and they will overcome the bigots and religious zealots in time.

AN AMERICANS FOR TRUTH PRESS RELEASE

NAPERVILLE, IL—Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera today called on the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) to rescind its “sexual orientation” policy as inconsistent with the GOP’s professed pro-family values, and said pro-“gay” Political Correctness contributed to Sen. George Allen’s narrow loss for re-election in Virginia.

LaBarbera also called on all homosexual staff in both major parties to be open about their lifestyle in the interest of full disclosure to the public and each Member’s constituents.

Allen’s defeat—after failing to strongly embrace Virginia’s successful marriage amendment—led to the GOP’s loss of the Senate. Allen is widely reported to have homosexual staff. Jay Timmons, a senior Allen aide and former director of the NRSC, is among those being targeted for “outing” by homosexual bloggers, as is Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

“In recent weeks, homosexual activists have sought to ‘out’ various high-level GOP staffers and leaders as homosexuals, to highlight their hypocrisy in working for a socially conservative party,” LaBarbera said. “Now we in the pro-family movement are calling for full disclosure for a different reason: because homosexual GOP staff and pro-‘gay’ policies in the party are undermining the wholesome values Republicans say they support.”

Noting that the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reported in 2004 that the NRSC has a nondiscrimination policy based on “sexual orientation,” LaBarbera said:

“Who knew that the Republican Party committee responsible for electing senators across the country has embraced the exact same pro-homosexual ‘orientation’ policy that social conservatives have been fighting for decades?” Due to the Mark Foley scandal, social conservatives are learning about the existence of a network of homosexual GOP staffers on Capitol Hill who promote policies antithetical to the party’s stated “family values.”

In 2004, the pro-family group PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) was outraged when Sen. Allen refused to sign their pledge supporting tolerance for former homosexuals, then went ahead and broke a promise to another pro-family group by backing a pro-“gay” federal “Hate Crimes” bill. Allen also signed a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” pledge for his Senate office.

“George Allen’s lukewarm support for Virginia’s marriage amendment cost him his Senate seat,” LaBarbera said. “Now we are left to wonder: did the stealth influence of gay Republican staffers move him toward this course that would ultimately turn the Senate over to the Democrats?”

TAKE ACTION – Call or write the National Republican Senatorial Committee and ask them to rescind their “sexual orientation” policy. Politely tell Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Chairwoman of the NRSC, that such policies advance the agenda of homosexual activists, and that any political party that promotes homosexuality cannot be called “pro-family.” Remind her that pro-“gay” Political Correctness HURT the GOP on Nov. 7th: