“WITHOUT GSA [‘Gay Straight Alliance’ school clubs] ACCESS, STUDENTS ARE FORCED TO SIMPLY KILL CLASSMATES WHO TAUNT & BULLY — SHOOTING, STABBING AND POISONING ARE THE COMMON FORMS OF RETRIBUTION. FAR TOO MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS LIKE BULLYING CHILDREN TO THE POINT WHERE RETRIBUTION AGAINST CLASSMATES AND FACULTY IS ONLY OPTION TO REDRESS RELENTLESS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN MANY REGIONS.”

The above is copied verbatim off the homosexual website www.gaystraightalliance.org, July 27, 2007. This post is at the bottom of the website, which is one of several produced by www.gaylibrary.com.

  Mayor Naugle is pictured above to the direct left of President Bush (he is facing the camera). At left, homosexual activists’ “Flush Naugle” website mocks his stand against homosexual public bathroom sex.

TAKE ACTION:  Watch yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel video of Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle’s press conference in which he apologizes for not doing more to stop homosexual “sex” in the city’s public and beach restrooms. Naugle also opposes housing a homosexual library collection containing hard-core pornographic items in a public library.  E-mail Mayor Naugle at mayorjames@aol.com, and thank him for refusing to be intimidated by a vocal fringe and the liberal media. And contact the Ft. Lauderdale city commissioners and urge them to support the Mayor’s push to protect children and uphold decency.

A note on the Naugle story: will the day ever come when LEADERS of the proud “gay” lobby apologize for their community’s own excesses — e.g., tolerating or encouraging men to commit anonymous sodomies with other men in public restrooms, parks, and bathhouses (sex clubs)?

Kudos to Mayor Naugle. I almost fell off my seat watching this video. Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media. Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places — and the pro-“gay” lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city! — Peter LaBarbera  

_________________________

From today’s Florida Sun-Sentinel Newspaper:

Fort Lauderdale mayor issues apology, but not to gay community 

FORT LAUDERDALE — Mayor Jim Naugle issued a public apology on the steps of City Hall Tuesday afternoon, but it wasn’t the apology the gay community was looking for.

Naugle apologized for underestimating the problem of men having sex with each other in public restrooms, and urged people to call police to complain when they come upon it. He also said Broward County leads the nation in the incidence of new AIDS cases involving men having sex with men, and questioned whether the county tourism office should be welcoming them here.

Naugle alerted the media that he was holding a news conference that would include “an apology.”

Gay activists and others have been calling for a public apology form the mayor, and for his resignation, since the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published Naugle’s comments earlier this month about gays. In article about a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach, Naugle said an added benefit would be that it would deter men from using it for “homosexual activity,” which he said was a problem in public restrooms.

Click HERE to read the rest of the Sun-Sentinel story (and watch Mayor Naugle’s press conference)

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.

 Will the Church of England be forced to hire John Reaney, a homosexual man, as a youth worker despite its beliefs about sex and marriage?

We’ll have much more on this case and other cases evincing the growing threat of homosexual legal activism to basic religious freedoms:

Bishop Loses Gay Employment Case

BBC, July 18, 2007 

A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford diocesan board of finance.

Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was “delighted” at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006

It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard.

Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting and said he felt like “a total waste of space”.

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing.

“The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation,” said the judgement.

To read the full BBC story and watch related BBC videos on the case, click HERE

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.

 Russell Groff, 1978-2004

Russell died at age 26 of HIV/AIDS after living in a homosexual relationship. How many future men will die young if the politically correct silence on homosexual health risks is not broken? Groff’s mother wants to use his life to warn other parents and children about the perils of embracing a “gay” lifestyle.

By Peter LaBarbera

We live in a cowardly and confused age, so perhaps it was too much to expect that Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, would defend his own writings outlining the immense health risks of (male) homosexual behavior.

Unfortunately, on Thursday at his Senate confirmation hearing, Dr. Holsinger succumbed to the Bush Administration’s spin-doctors, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s bluster — and, evidently, his own lack of conviction — and said not one word in defense of his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” which was written to shore up the faithful against forces in the Methodist Church seeking to undermine the church’s historic Biblical teachings on sexual sin.

Here is an account of the telling exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Dr. Holsinger, from the homosexual Washington Blade newspaper (emphasis added):

Holsinger’s critics have questioned the credibility of the studies he cites in his paper, saying most experts in public health agree that gays and straights are equally susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Critics have said the determining factors for transmission of sexually transmitted diseases are unprotected sex and the frequency of unprotected sexual encounters, regardless of whether such encounters are between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Kennedy said he received a letter from nine doctors with knowledge in human sexuality who denounced Holsinger’s paper as “wholly unscientific, biased and incredibly poor scholarship.”

“Dr. Holsinger’s paper cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural,” Kennedy said at the hearing…

…Holsinger said his paper was an unpublished review of the medical literature on health-related issues pertaining to male homosexuality nearly 20 years ago.

“I did not attempt to write a definitive scientific paper,” he said.

He said he now believes the paper is outdated.

“First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today,” he said. “It does not represent who I am today.”

So what are Dr. Holsinger’s views on whether homosexual acts are unnatural and unhealthy? We don’t know.

It seems that between 1991 and 2007, Dr. Holsinger went from defending truth to evading it, with some help in recent weeks from Bush Administration bureaucrats. (From the moment his nomination became national news, Holsinger’s White House handlers were pushing the idea that he’d moved on from his 1991 views: in the words of Health & Human Services spokeswoman Holly Babin, “Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved.”)

Meanwhile, homosexual activists threw everything but the kitchen sink at the doctor’s 1991 paper, but the nub of their opposition came down not to medical points — after all, the “gay” movement has made HIV/AIDS the most politically protected disease in American history — but to variations on this argument from homosexual activist Jim Burroway, critiquing the 1991 paper:

…Holsinger made the fatal error of ignoring the bonds of affection and devotion that arise in gay and lesbian couples. He reduced the rich complexity of their relationships to pipe fittings and how they interlock with each other.

In other words, Dr. Holsinger’s “fatal error” 16 years ago was that he agreed with God, not “gays,” about homosexual behavior. (Memo to God: consult with Jim Burroway ASAP re: your condemnation of same-sex practice; study up on the “rich complexity” of modern homosexuality and re-write your moral law and the Bible accordingly.)

Homosexual activists love bashing the “religious right,” but they are hyper-fundamentalists when it comes to defending their core ideological myth: that homosexuality and “same-sex relationships” are a “normal variation of human sexuality” — i.e., that they are NOT morally wrong (changeable sin) in the historic Judeo-Christian tradition.

So desperate are pro-“gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)

By Peter LaBarbera 

The following are two e-mail reports and analyses from Matt Barber of CWA, who attended yesterday’s Senate hearings on the confirmation of Dr. James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General. We agree with Matt’s assessment: while we are disappointed that Dr. Holsinger did not forthrightly defend his 1991 paper laying out how homosexual behaviors are unnatural and unhealthy — he did not fully recant his previous views as the media (including FOX News’ Brit Hume) are inferring and reporting in their coverage. (Here is Lifesite.net’s story on the hearing.)

Dodging questions and providing artful non-answers is an old Washington pastime. Also, it should be noted that since Dr. Holsinger’s nomination became news, his Bush administration handlers have sought to distance themselves from his 1991 paper (see our story on an ABC report about his nomination). Just as the Bush administration failed to strongly defend Gen. Peter Pace when he said homosexual acts are immoral, they now are running from Holsinger’s opposition to homosexual behavior.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the nominee for the nation’s top doctor actually looked Sen. Kennedy in the face and laid out the truth about the health hazards of homosexual behavior?  He could start with the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) June report that finds, “MSM [men who have sex with men] accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005.”  Sadly, that won’t happen in this administration.

__________________________

Matt Barber e-mail July 13 to pro-family leaders: 

I want to clarify my previous assessment of the hearing so there’s no confusion.  Holsinger was definitely slipping and sliding all over the place.  He came across as a regular Washington insider.  In his 1991 paper he stood firm in his position.  In the hearing he completely abandoned that firm stance by giving a bunch of non-answers and playing dodge ball… (Not at all impressive).  I hope I didn’t give the impression I was defending his performance or his current position on homosexuality (which now nobody except for Dr. Holsinger apparently knows), because I definitely wasn’t.  I was very much hoping he would display courage and stand firm on his prior position (which happens to be the correct position).  He didn’t.  And yes, his non-answers could be construed as “disavowing” his previous stance.  But I think the MSM [mainstream media], including Fox, have grossly exaggerated his statement.  They’re reporting what they wanted to hear, not what he actually said.