News Release

Americans For Truth about Homosexuality
www.americansfortruth.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

Gay activists have adopted a ‘CSI’ tactic of ‘Censoring, Smearing and Intimidating’ moral critics like Gen. Peter Pace and Dr. James Dobson. By trying to silence critics and equating moral beliefs with hate, bigotry and “homophobia,” the homosexual movement is fueling a dangerous cultural clash between religious freedom and “gay rights.”

TAKE ACTION — Please call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and express your support for General Pace, and call your Congressman and Senators at (202)224-3121 to oppose: 1) ending the military’s homosexuality ban; 2) pro-homosexual, pro-transgender “Hate Crimes” legislation; and 3) the “ENDA Our Freedom” bill: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make businesses more susceptible to harassing lawsuits by “gay” and “transgender” activists.  

Naperville, IL –– Americans For Truth president Peter LaBarbera called on the media to be neutral in the culture war over homosexuality and to cover the “gay” movement’s disturbing “CSI” strategy of Censoring, Smearing, and Intimidating critics who publicly disagree with homosexual behavior.

“Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, gave voice to historic Judeo-Christian truth when he said homosexual acts and adultery are immoral, yet instantly he was accused of ‘blind prejudice’ and called a ‘homophobe,’” LaBarbera said.

“The same gay activists who denounce name-calling against homosexuals were quick to demonize Pace –– equating his sincere religious beliefs with hate, prejudice and fear,” he said. “Worse, the homosexual lobby is honing its strategy of trying to silence conservatives like Ann Coulter and Dr. Dobson by lobbying the media to drop them as contributors.”

The media — who despise censorship — should hold gay leaders accountable for trying to silence critics, and more seriously cover the growing clash between religious freedom and gay rights, LaBarbera said.

The following are recent conservative victims of homosexual intolerance:

Gen. Pace: Diversity magazine blasted Pace as a “homophobe.” The homosexual group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) assailed his “blind prejudice.” Does criticizing historically sinful behavior mean that you “fear” homosexuals or make you a bigot?

Ann Coulter: After poking fun at political correctness (AFTAH criticized Coulter for her F-word comment about a Democratic presidential candidate), GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and HRC sought to deny Coulter’s commentator role on CNBC. GLAAD intoned: “[N]o credible news organization should be associating itself with Coulter.” Should GLAAD, which regularly smears Christian groups like Americans For Truth as “hate” organizations, be denied media time?

Dr. James Dobson: After Dobson criticized homosexual parenting in a Time magazine guest column (“Two Mommies Is One Too Many”), GLAAD and HRC urged homosexuals to write and ask Time to deny Dobson a future platform to spread “misinformation.” Usually groups criticize their foes’ arguments; GLAAD seeks to silence them altogether.

Matt Barber: Now with CWA, in 2005 Barber was fired from his management position at Allstate Corporation after writing an online article against “gay marriage” –– on his own time.

Why would homosexual activist Kathy Sarris suggest that Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy (pictured below) should not speak in favor of Biblical marriage or speak at a conservative group’s fundraiser? (Did she object when [a democratic presidential candidate] spoke at HRC? Nope.) Is she unaware that under the First Amendment even her opponents enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association? Her objections expose her ultimate goal: to subjugate our constitutional freedom of religion and freedom of speech to a new “right” — the “right” of homosexuals to receive approval from all Americans at all times.

Excerpted from Dungy Under Fire for Planned Appearance, published Mar 10, 2007, by Associated Press:

Indiana Family Institute Vocally Opposes Gay Marriage

…Some local and national gay rights groups have questioned [Indianapolis Colts coach Tony] Dungy’s decision to appear at a fundraising banquet this month for the institute, which has been a leading supporter of a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman…

Kathy Sarris, president of the Indiana Equality Education Fund, a gay rights advocacy group, told The Indianapolis Star:

“I am a little disappointed in that I would think he would want to stay out of the political arena, and the Family Institute is a political organization.” …

“Coach Dungy’s feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known,” the team statement said. “He, of course, is free to speak to any group he wishes. The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved. The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to.”

Continue reading at AOL Sports…

From Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars, by Kevin McCullough, published Mar 11, 2007, by Townhall:

Diabolical liberals are once again showing their disdain for homosexuals, and their lack of love for those who struggle with sexual sin. They are adverse to truth about sexual behavior. And when a sexual sinner is brave enough to say so, liberals become the most homophobic mouth foamers the universe has ever seen.

Take the case of Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez. (Also affectionately known as ‘the other CPAC scandal’.)

Following his acceptance of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom award he was “outed” by homosexual bloggers (bloggers who write about and engage in homosexual behavior) as being a “Gay Porn Star.”

The reason so many of these homosexual bloggers knew this is simple. They are rabid consumers of homosexual pornography and have spent days, months, possibly years in front of their television screens acting out on the urges within them. They have been enslaved by the unforgiving voices that have told them since birth to act upon every sexual urge they have. The thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to these bloggers. Thus they have near cataclysmic system failure when someone they believed was homosexual turns a corner in his life and leaves that filth behind.

Writing for Salon.com this week Sanchez spoke about his past and what being employed in the homosexual porn business did to his heart, mind, and life.

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

It needs to be immediately understood that Sanchez committed two cardinal sins here.

The first is – he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to “choose” one’s actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole “made that way” argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.

The second is — he began to pursue truth. The maniacal hold on belief that liberals force upon their followers is not based on belief system of absolutes. So little can be trusted, verified, and believed. Sanchez saw it for the first time when he as a Marine reservist was smeared “baby-killer” on his college campus. After his successful and brave fight for free speech at Columbia University, and thus the recognition at CPAC, those who felt threatened by the change his life represents felt it necessary to drag up his pornographic past. He referenced as much in his op-ed.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let’s face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They’d be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with [a top presidential Democratic contender]. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.

The discussion from cable airwaves on Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC, to prominent left wing blogs like AMERICAblog operated by John Aravosis, sought to injure Sanchez for deeds committed over a dozen years ago but also to bludgeon conservatives — many of whom are faith-based, Bible-believing Christians for “allowing someone like that” to be honored for true bravery.

The truth is that such criticism shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the Christian message of redemption is.

Many if not most of these same liberals grew red faced and blasted spittle at those who criticized then President William Jefferson Clinton for engaging in adultery with a much younger intern in the People’s house. The argument, “everybody does it” seemed logical given that his defenders all grew up in the era when the predominant way of thinking was “do what feels good.” But it did not make it right.

Repentance is not merely saying one is sorry. It is a more all encompassing idea of turning away from that which you are sorry for – and going steadfastly in the other direction. Clinton by any generous assessment would not measure up to that.

Sanchez does. His example condemns not only the left’s hypocrisy but its deliberate sinfulness. That is why they must have his head.

Sanchez admitted that he wondered how his outing would affect his future.

By the way, as a political minority on the Columbia campus, people are always asking me, “How can you be a conservative? They’re so hateful.” That wasn’t the feeling I got when I accepted my award. And it’s not what I’ve been hearing from the conservative community since my “outing.”

I am embarrassed to admit that was I worried that my fellow conservatives would distance themselves from me when the news about my film career broke. The opposite has happened.

That’s the way it should be. As my new good friend Bryan Preston reminded us this week, we’ve all got things in our past that we are not proud of. As I detail very clearly in my new book, liberals would prefer us to stay stuck in those terrible behaviors to boost their own egos. God-fearing, Bible-thumping conservatives want us to repent (turn and walk away from). Knowing that one path leads to death and destruction, the other to ultimate knowledge, wisdom, and peace — which side would you say truly cares about the well being of the individual.

So should we be surprised that Christians and conservatives have embraced a man who starred in ‘gay’ porn? Of course not — Jesus would have!

And then he would say to us today, what he said two thousand years ago, “go and sin no more!”

Something’s awry: On one hand, the APA asks homosexuals to appoint members of a task force to evaluate reparative (ex-“gay”) therapy, thereby ensuring that only those hostile to the concept will be on the committee. Meanwhile, a parent who expressed disapproval of a pro-“gay” video for her third-grader is barred from serving on a committee to evaluate the curriculum.

——————————-

Excerpted from Gay Parents Video To Be Reviewed in Evesham, by Matt Katz, published Mar 12, 2007, by Courier-Post:

The district is set to announce today that it has formed a committee that will make a recommendation about a controversial video featuring gay parents, but committee members’ names will remain secret to protect them from harassment.

Nine PTA parents will serve on the committee, district spokeswoman Jeanne Smith said, along with a group of teachers.

The controversy, which has garnered national media attention, began in January when a father complained anonymously to a local TV station about That’s a Family! after it was shown at Van Zant School.

The film, part of a third-grade health curriculum about different family structures, depicts parents who are divorced, those who are raising children as grandparents and those who are in same-sex relationships…

Susan Trimble, a parent, said she was initially told that since she spoke out against the video, she would be barred from serving on the special review committee…

Continue reading in Courier-Post…

A press release dated Mar 7, 2007, from The Lawyers Christians Fellowship (UK):

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

Excerpted from Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?, by David Frum, published Mar 9, 2007, by National Review:

…The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow…

Update: Andrew Stuttaford raises an excellent point on the Corner.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start.

Continue reading at National Review…

By Peter LaBarbera

Ann Coulter has been roundly denounced for using the “F-word” (six letters) — see this article by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America and this article by Albert Mohler). I’m a Coulter fan, but she crossed the line on this one.

There are larger issues at stake here for American freedom: today it’s the F-word, which has been banished as the sexual equivalent of the N-word. Tomorrow it could be certain applications of the G-word: G-A-Y. Many students use “That’s so gay” to connote something that they think is stupid or weird: should they be forced to undergo sensitivity re-education — or perhaps attend a “Gay Pride” parade?

Where will the PC “hate speech” enforcement stop? AP recently reported:

“When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.”

       “Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal’s office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?”

The AP story points to the threat that official speech codes pose to Americans’ most fundamental freedoms. Homosexual activists routinely and outrageously blame Christian pro-family groups for violence against homosexuals, and there are many on the Left who will go to extraordinary lengths to turn any derogatory use of ‘gay” into an opportunity to spread their pro-homosexual ideology. 

Coulter was joking. These activists are dead serious. Students and parents, take note.

As a rule we do not, like Fred Phelps, use the term “fag.” Coulter’s stunt was childish and, despite her protestations, she was clearly calling family man John Edwards a “faggot” — even as she also poked fun at the Left’s quirky “hate” formula by which they vilify their foes, then jump up and down when their own PC speech taboos are violated. (Example: saying George Bush is like Hitler — NOT HATE; saying we should love people practicing homosexual behavior but hate their sexual sin — HATE.)  Coulter’s reference point was Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington, who, after publicity grew about his calling a homosexual co-star a “faggot,” apologized and checked himself into rehab for a “psychological assessment.”

People involved in homosexuality should not be the object of taunts or hatred, and Christians, especially, are called to apply the Biblical command to speak the truth in love. We are called even to love our enemies so name-calling simply is not an option. (I confess that I once called homosexual blogger Joe Brummer, who is obsessed with AFTAH, a “twit,” but you might too if you read the tripe that he puts out on an almost daily basis. (A recent Brummer blog entry accuses Sonja Dalton and me of being “extremely responsible [sic] for the climate of violence that plagues gays and lesbians.”)

“That’s So Gay” 

The reality we face is that many on the pro-homosexual side, even as they recklessly smear committed Christians as bigots and haters (and murderers for what we believe!), want to define any negative use of the word “gay” as evidence of “hate speech” requiring punitive and corrective action. The AP story continues:

Testifying last week about the 2002 incident, Rice, now 18, said that when she uttered those words, she was not referring to anyone’s sexual orientation. She said the phrase meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”

 

But school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before.

 

“The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment,” the district’s lawyers argued in a legal brief. “In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase ‘That’s so gay’ … was a reasonable regulation.”

Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.