I confess to being such a square that I had never heard of Tila Tequila until today. But neither had MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson until he did the following 2006 interview with her, now posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL98DlGyThE. On that video — which alone is an education in the awesome power of the web — Tequila (Tila Nguyen) talks only about finding a boyfriend, not a girlfriend. Apparently she’s “evolved” since then, as politically correct liberals love to say (even though promoting homosexual behavior seems to run counter to Darwin’s theory).

Nobody ever charged MTV — which has relentlessly promoted “alternate” sexual lifestyles — with caring about Biblical morality. But how tragic that a top video youth network would stoop to using bisexuality to titillate its audience in the quest for viewers.

Advice to parents:  if you have cable, don’t allow a TV in your kids’ rooms; better yet, find a way to kick MTV out of your house altogether. — Peter LaBarbera

AP reports today from Los Angeles: 

MTV to air bisexual dating show
‘A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila’ airs Oct. 9

A bisexual dating show featuring a woman who gained fame on MySpace is in the works for MTV.

“A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila,” in which 16 men and 16 women will compete for Tequila’s affections, is set to debut Oct. 9 on the cable channel, Television Week reported Thursday.

“Tila Tequila made a name for herself by doing things her way, captivating legions of fans online, both men and women,” said MTV executive Tony DiSanto. “Now she is taking that attitude and sex appeal to her own TV series where she is looking for a mate … by again, captivating a group of both men and women.”

Tequila’s MySpace page includes racy photos, her music and a Time magazine description of the singer-model-actress-blogger (born Tila Nguyen) as an Internet sensation and “the Madonna of MySpace.”

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.

From American Family Association’s OneNewsNow news. Click HERE for a link to OneNewsNow where there is an audio link to this story:

A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination are “pandering to the gay lobby” by agreeing to take part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates … plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network “LOGO.”

According to Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans for Truth Action, Joe Solmonese — president of the Washington, DC-based Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s most powerful homosexual activist groups — will be moderating the debate. HRC is coordinating the debate through a partnership with LOGO.

“The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual — and one wonders what candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe homosexuality is wrong,” exclaims LaBarbera.

The family advocate notes that polls that are “probably politically correct” show that half the country still believes homosexual behavior is wrong. “[The percentage is] probably much higher than that,” LaBarbera says, “but this is just astonishing that this development is happening and it’s being treated as a serious debate.”

The White House hopefuls will be asked questions by a panel that includes Solmonese and lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Questions will reportedly cover topics such as same-sex “marriage,” “hate crimes” legislation, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One news report indicates individuals will also be able to submit questions online.

LaBarbera calls the debate “one of the most extraordinary developments in our country’s history.” He laments the societal mindset from which such an event would even occur.

“A debate framed from a pro-homosexual perspective — when homosexual behavior, for centuries, [for] thousands of years, was regarded as deeply sinful by Christians and people who believe in God,” he says. “It’s just astonishing. I’m waiting for the adultery presidential debate or maybe the pro-drug use presidential debate.

“Who ever heard of framing a presidential debate around a sin?” he asks.

 NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) does a good job of highlighting the disfunctional upbringing and family life of notable “homosexuals,” in this case deceased actor Montgomery Clift. What is evident from this piece is that a mother (or father) can do quite a number on an innocent child and his or her future. The media — fixated as they are on finding the illusive “gay gene” — rarely factor in (even severe) family disfunction as a contributing cause of homosexuality, but there are amply cases, just among “gay” or “lesbian” celebrities, to make the case that nurture plays an important role in a child’s later adulthood embrace of sexual deviance. — Peter LaBarbera

“The Story of Montgomery Clift” 

By Linda Nicolosi, NARTH, reviewing Patricia Bosworth’s Montgomery Clift: A Biography

June 14, 2007

Montgomery (Monty) Clift was a broodingly handsome, classical actor who is considered to be one of the greatest screen stars of the Golden Age of film. He led a tormented life, dying prematurely after many years of self-destruction through drinking, drugs and a long string of affairs with men (as well as a few women).

An enormously attractive screen presence, Monty had large, expressive dark eyes, and portrayed a haunting vulnerability and sensitivity that was as much “who he was” onscreen as offscreen. His life story makes fascinating reading.

In Montgomery Clift: A Biography, author Patricia Bosworth describes Monty’s father Bill as passive, good-natured, and absolutely adoring of his wife, Sunny. A very successful man in the business world, Bill nevertheless deferred in every way to this strong-willed, opinionated woman at home. “My father would do anything in the world to please Mother,” Monty’s sister Ethel said (p. 23). “She made everyone–including her husband–feel that no one with any brains could possibly disagree with her and still be a person of consequence” (p. 31).

Indeed, Sunny was known as a vibrantly attractive and intelligent woman. She was “energetic, sometimes venomous, always triumphant in any situation” (p. 284).

Sunny had been adopted as an infant into a family that apparently abused her, and she was never able to locate her birth parents. She had been told, however, that her bloodlines made her a “thoroughbred.” Soon she became obsessed with tracking down her geneology, and she poured all her energy into it. Her primary goal in life, biographer Boswell says, was to raise her children as “the thoroughbreds they were” so they would never know the uncertain identity and insecurity she had suffered in her life.

To read Linda Nicolosi’s full review, click HERE

By Sonja Dalton

What better gift for our military on Memorial Day Weekend: Disney-ABC has announced an early departure from The View for Rosie O’Donnell. Perhaps now this moronic daytime television program will return to obscurity and irrelevance, where it belongs.

By now, nearly everyone is aware of the blowout on Wednesday’s episode. Joy Behar (former high school teacher and alleged comedienne) opened with a list of complaints against President Bush which, in her view, merit impeachment and a vigorous beating with wet noodles. We’re talking serious offenses like “choking on a pretzel” and being incapable of pronouncing “nuclear.”

That last one has always annoyed me, too, almost as much as when I heard it from Jimmy Carter, who was actually supposed to be a “nucular” engineer (not just a Yale history grad with a Harvard MBA). Back then, my frustration was assuaged by working for Reagan in the 1980 election. Ronnie knew how to pronounce “nuclear” and he knew how to deal with radical Islamic fascists and communists, too. But I digress…

Joy suggested that Al Gore is just the man to lead us out of Iraq, which raised the issue of the Iraq War, which opened the door for Rosie (high school graduate) to confront Elisabeth Hasselbeck (Boston College alumnus). On May 17th, Rosie attacked Elisabeth for using the word “terrorists” and posed a question that offended many Americans (even liberals):

O’DONNELL: … 655,000* Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look…
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?…
O’DONNELL: I believe there is government-sponsored terrorism by every nation in the world, including ours.

* Rosie’s casualty figure is preposterous, much like Joy’s list of President Bush’s capital offenses.

Shockingly, the media interpreted Rosie’s remarks as an indictment of our troops. Rosie still doesn’t know how they got that idea. (Hint: Elisabeth asked her three times “Who are the terrorists?” but Rosie never answered.)

Somehow Rosie was hurt and angry because she expected Elisabeth, as her “friend,” to defend her against “those crappy cable shows — the ones Elisabeth watches.” As her “friend”? Let’s review a sampling of the “friendly” remarks Rosie made to Elisabeth in the last ten months:

Sept , 2007 — “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam…”
Feb 18, 2007 — “”You’re very young, and you’re very wrong.” And later in the conversation: “I know, but it’s the way that I’m able to be on this live broadcast and love and support you in spite of the fact that I disagree so abhorrently with most of the things you believe, so it is what I tell myself in order to not get into the RAGE I feel at at some of the IGNORANT comments, so that’s what I have to do!”
May 21, 2007 — “Are you not able to hold two concepts at once?”
May 23, 2007 — “You’re going to double-speak…” and later “…that was cowardly.”

Is that the way you talk to your friends?

At long last, Elisabeth had enough of the insults and finally stood up for herself: “Defend your own insinuations!…Defend your own thoughts!…”

Why would Rosie want to be defended by someone she characterizes as a nitwit? Why does she think she can verbally abuse a friend over and over, and still have one?

“Like most bullies, Rosie is clueless how to respond when she is challenged.”

After provoking and degrading Elisabeth for months, Rosie did what bullies always do when someone has the courage to fight back: She took her Barbies and went home to pout (while her chief writer, Janette Barber, being equally mature and professional, stayed behind to draw mustaches on all the photos of Elisabeth). And Rosie won’t be back because she doesn’t have a punching bag anymore.

Rosie O’Donnell was once a light-hearted and funny entertainer, but after years of living in sexual depravity (first with a man and now as a lesbian), she is consumed by rage. The emptiness and misery which result from wickedness are evident in her countenance. It is a very sad thing to watch a precious human being self-destruct. (And what is the impact on children of a “mother” so angry, so combative, constantly arguing and striving and attacking?)

The Bible says that those who persist in homosexuality are given over by God to a debased mind. Do you wonder how Rosie can possibly believe that our own president helped destroy the World Trade Center? Are you perplexed at her insistence that her own understanding of physics is superior to those “ignorant” engineers at Popular Mechanics? Answer: Because her mind is not healthy. And it won’t be as long as she lives in defiance of the Almighty.

But where I lose patience with Rosie and others like her, God does not. Peter says that our Father does not want anyone to perish, but for everyone to come to repentance. In her deep unhappiness, Rosie may yet humble herself and acknowledge God’s divine power and authority over her and repent. Rosie has a generous heart that could be used to glorify Christ — so let us pray that an epiphany is at hand.

But don’t stop there… Look around at your church, at your child’s school, in your neighborhood. Where you see a child missing a mom or a dad (whether through illegitimacy, divorce, or death), you have an opportunity — and an obligation — to fulfill James 1:27. Greet them with a smile and a hug and ask them what they’re up to, how school is going. Ask their parent if you could take them shopping for a new outfit or a pair of school shoes or help them with a school project — because that will accomplish two goals: It will help the single parent and it will begin to build a relationship with the child whereby you may become a powerful influence for righteousness.

Imagine how much comfort a compassionate Christian woman might have provided to Rosie O’Donnell during her adolescent and teen years. How sad that she was neglected when she needed love — the love she is still desperate for but will never find in lesbian sex. Every child has sinful inclinations; every child faces challenges as he/she matures. Kids need godly, trustworthy adults to care about them, guide them, and correct them from time to time. If you aren’t there when a vulnerable child is dealing with self-consciousness, confusion, sexuality, and temptation, homosexual activists and their “allies” at school will be glad to fill your shoes and drag an innocent child to hell.

By Peter LaBarbera 

 Publicity shot for Brokeback Mountain: not appropriate for adults, much less for young kids in the classroom

WARNING: offensive descriptions of unnatural acts that should NEVER be promoted to children 

CHICAGO (AP) – A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film “Brokeback Mountain” in class.

 

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year….

Alas, more corruption of youth at the hands of pro-homosexual activists. The movement that once asked just to be left alone is now pushing homosexuality on middle school students. In Chicago, a substitute teacher — no doubt a liberal “change agent” hell-bent on advancing her version of “tolerance and diversity” — showed the homosexual propaganda film “Brokeback Mountain” to her 8th-grade class (see full story below). Now the school is facing a $500,000 lawsuit. Let’s hope and pray that Jessica Turner’s grandparents prevail and that their legal action sends an expensive lesson to liberal educators nationwide — one that future Tolerance Tyrants (like Ms. Buford) seeking to manipulate young minds cannot ignore. 

But that’s just one abuse in a single school. The leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, through its publication “Teaching Tolerance,” is now advocating the formation of student homosexual clubs (innocently called “Gay/Straight Alliances”) in middle schools. Yes, that’s right: we’re talking pre-pubescent and pubescent boys and girls in grades six through nine, depending on the school. We will have more on that outrage later.

I saw Brokeback Mountain in the theater because I had to. It is a highly effective propaganda film well-suited to exploit today’s widespread confusion over “sexual orientation” and “same-sex love.” The film is about two male cowboys who “fall in love,” and features a sudden sodomitic encounter in a tent that is, well, let’s just say, biological and medical fantasy. The film, of course, seeks to advance the fiction that “gay” romantic love is just like the normal variety except with different genders. But that ignores, for one thing, the terrible damage that sodomy (i.e., anal sex) exacts on the body. That’s why many male initiates into homosexual sex get high on drugs or alcohol first — to dull the pain (and the shame) of this unnatural and sinful behavior.

If Brokeback were honest, one of the guys involved in the scene depicting the crime against nature (how sodomy was once regarded back when men were men) would be howling in pain louder than a coyote, rather than just rolling over and going to sleep. But, hey, we wouldn’t want to spoil the cultural elites’ pro-“gay” party by telling Americans about the pain and consequences stemming from homosexual behavior, would we?

 

It’s sort of like how many schools nowadays teach kids about HIV/AIDS without mentioning the “inconvenient truth” that this awful disease in America is strongly linked to “men who have sex with men” (MSM). (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that through 2006, “MSM account for approximately 45% of newly reported HIV/AIDS diagnoses and nearly 54% of cumulative AIDS diagnoses.”)

Predictably, in Brokeback, one of the male lovers is savagely murdered by homosexual-hating hetero cowboys — another lesson I’m sure the militant Chicago teacher wanted to impress on her captive audience: if you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, you are a “hater” and mean-spirited “homophobe.” Never mind that the vast majority of people who oppose homosexual behavior do not hate people but merely agree with God about harmful and changeable behaviors that do not define a person; and decent people are rightfully outraged at the idea of promoting this dangerous homosexual lifestyle to impressionable children.

TAKE ACTION:  If you are an adult, dedicate yourself to educating the young people in your sphere of influence about the truth about homosexuality. Tell them about former homosexuals like Charlene Cothran and Steve Bennett. Visit NARTH’s (National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality) excellent website. Show them Professor Rob Gagnon’s site, which ably refutes the nefarious “gay theology” that seeks to negate the Bible’s clear proscriptions against homosexual acts. 

We have no choice but to be aggressive with the truth, because our foes are so aggressive in promoting their lies — even to innocent kids in the classroom. I’m afraid that in our society, even children brought up well by moral-minded parents will have drunk some of the pro-“gay” Kool-Aid by the time they reach adulthood — so saturated is our culture with politically correct, activist nonsense on this issue.

Here’s the May 13 AP story on Brokeback Mountain being shown to 8th-graders in Chicago:  

Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain in Class

 

CHICAGO (AP) – A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film “Brokeback Mountain” in class.

 

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.

 

The film, which won three Oscars, depicts two cowboys who conceal their homosexual affair.

 

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

 

“It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this,” said Kenneth Richardson, Turner’s guardian. “The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this.”

 

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students’ parents and guardians.

 

The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as “Ms. Buford.”

 

The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: “What happens in Ms. Buford’s class stays in Ms. Buford’s class,” according to the lawsuit.

 

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

 

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

 

“This was the last straw,” he said. “I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith.”

 

Messages left over the weekend with CPS officials were not immediately returned.

Below is the homosexual magazine OUT‘s list of its “Power 50” of influential homosexuals. OUT calls it “our first annual ranking of the homos who really make the world go round. These are queers you don’t want to mess with.the 50 most influential homosexuals in America.” (PC language lesson 101: they can use words like “homos” and “queers”; we can’t.)

We are intrigued by the fact that the same movement that once cried out for “privacy” and “to be left alone” feels free to publicly declare people’s homosexuality for them (Anderson Cooper, No. 2, and Jodie Foster, No. 43). On the other hand, if OUT is right, it might explain Cooper’s bias in his reporting on the homosexual issue: in a recent interview that the CNN host did with pro and con advocates on a “gay parenting” story, he blatantly favored the “gay” side in his questioning.

Regardless of whether Cooper practices homosexuality, as a professional he should be completely even-handed in his treatment of this controversial moral question. So, by the way, should the New York Times — Gay Mafia (No. 7) or no Gay Mafia. — Peter LaBarbera

1. David Geffen
2. Anderson Cooper
3. Ellen DeGeneres
4. Tim Gill
5. Barney Frank
6. Rosie O’Donnell
7. The New York Times Gay Mafia: Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliott, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, and Eric Wilson
8. Marc Jacobs
9. Andrew Tobias
10. Brian Graden
11. Jann Wenner
12. Andrew Sullivan
13. Suze Orman
14. Joe Solmonese
15. Fred Hochberg
16. Christine Quinn
17. Perez Hilton
18. Scott Rudin
19. John Aravosis
20. Sheila Kuehl
21. James B. Stewart
22. Nick Denton
23. Tom Ford
24. Nate Berkus
25. Adam Moss
26. Jim Nelson
27. Lorri L. Jean
28. Adam Rose
29. Annie Leibovitz
30. Simon Halls and Stephen Huvane
31. Bryan Lourd
32. Bryan Singer
33. Jonathan Burnham
34. Brian Swardstrom
35. Robert Greenblatt
36. Chi Chi LaRue
37. Dan Mathews
38. Neil Meron and Craig Zadan
39. Ingrid Sischy
40. Marc Cherry
41. Carolyn Strauss
42. Irshad Manji
43. Jodie Foster
44. Christine Vachon
45. André Leon Talley
46. Hilary Rosen
47. Matthew Marks
48. Benny Medina
49. Mitchell Gold
50. David Kuhn

The following is excerpted from an interview by the homosexual magazine The Advocate (March 27, 2007) with actress Rachel Grifffiths (HBO’s Six Feet Under, ABC’s Brothers & Sisters, The Rookie). Griffiths pushes the tired “gay” activist analogy equating interracial and homosexual relationships:

Advocate question:Have you ever seen any homophobia in action?

Griffiths: This lady told me she loved Brothers & Sisters, then said, “But I hope you pass this on to the producers, that we could really do without all that gay kissing.” I told her a story my grandmother told me: She went to Paris in 1932 and saw a black man holding the hand of a white woman, and she felt so horrified she almost threw up. My grandmother told me she knew that reaction was wrong, but it was the way she had been brought up. So I told this lady, “Maybe when you’re 98 you’ll tell your granddaughter how you saw two men kissing one day, and how you felt, but you know that’s wrong, and that was just how you were brought up.” She was shocked. I said, “So I’m not going to tell the show’s creators that. That’s for you to work out.”

— Interview in The Advocate, March 27, 2007, p. 20., by John Griffiths, who is identified as the TV critic for Us Weekly.

Homosexual activists regularly try to steal the goodwill of the civil rights movement, but in truth, opposing homosexual behavior is common sense and has nothing to do with racism. In fact, black homosexuals complain frequently about white racism within the homosexual subculture.

Opposition to two men kissing and other perversions is a natural, moral revulsion. Only those with a seared conscience are not offended by deviant sexual acts. Insofar as past racism precluded and stigmatized relationships between people of different races, that was wrong. Interracial couples produce wonderful children and families. In contrast, homosexual behavior is a dead end; in fact, it often leads to disease and early death — at least for half the population (men).

Christians once abused the Bible to rationalize racism; secularists and liberal religionists today abuse the Bible to rationalize sinful homosexual conduct. It is wrong to equate skin color to aberrant sexual behavior.

Question for Christians and pro-family advocates: are you confident that you will still defend God’s plan for keeping sex in marriage, including His opposition to homosexual behavior, when you are 98, or will you bend to the culture like Rachel Griffiths? Don’t let liberals put you on the defensive when they have no moral foundation to stand on! — Peter LaBarbera