Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.

For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See AFTAH news release: “If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know.”]

_________________________________________

Kagan a Lesbian? Why It Matters

Posted: May 20, 2010 by WorldNetDaily

By J. Matt Barber

I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Homosexual takes credit for switching Rep. David Dreier’s vote on ENDA

Homosexual "outing" activist Mike Rogers takes credit for Rep. David Dreier's and Rep. Jim McCrery's pro-homosexual voting switch on ENDA in 2007.

“Gay” “outing” activist Mike Rogers (right) attempts to expose the secret homosexuality of politicians who vote against the homosexual activist agenda. Below he responds to my call for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to answer the question of whether they practice (or have practiced) homosexual behavior.

Rogers’ questions, though perverse, are fair, I suppose, since AFTAH is demanding transparency and honesty from others in the public arena who will influence public policy on the homosexual issue. But once again I disappoint our many homosexual critics because I do not have — and never had — a homosexual problem.

Shocking claim: As you can read HERE on my political site, Rogers takes credit for Rep. Dreier  (and Rep. Jim  McCrery, R-La.) switching in 2007 to support ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would federalize employment “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. If his report is even close to the truth, then it constitutes further evidence of the dangers of hidden homosexuality in the Republican Party.

We’ll see if the GOP leadership — which still can’t say no to homosexual activist “Republicans” — has learned anything from the Mark Foley scandal. (Dreier’s staff hung up on two calls by this writer inquiring about the Congressman’s sexual preference.)

My response follows Rogers’ very “queer” query after the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Americans For Truth News Release, May 10, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

____________________________________

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”

“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.

Read the rest of this article »

Elena Kagan

Folks, in an era of ubiquitous pro-“gay” messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it is ridiculous that citizens and constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special interest in homosexuality. Speculation is rife over whether potential Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a practicing lesbian. Kagan has a radical pro-homosexual record, including, during her tenure as Harvard law school dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off campus because the military bans open homosexuals.

Given the important issues dealing with homosexuality and opposition to it that could come before the court, Kagan should answer the question of whether she has a special, personal interest in lesbianism. In the same way, any politician — especially those representing more conservative areas — should come clean on the homosexuality question, especially if it is an “open secret” or becomes the subject of wide discussion. Just as a “conservative” politician’s constituents have a right to know whether he is secretly a skirt-chaser, they have a right to know if he is practicing immoral homosexual behavior.

Our appeal to Ms. Kagan and all hiding-in-the-closet pols: answer the question — “Are you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)? — and move on. Homosexuals’ privacy interests do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

————————————————

What the people don’t know could hurt them

By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/28/2010

The president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) addresses whether a candidate for public office, including the Supreme Court, should declare their sexual preference or leanings.

LaBarbera has raised the question because of hints in the press that some of the possible picks for a Supreme Court vacancy are either homosexual or heavily favor special rights for homosexuals.

NOTE: below I write that “Homosexuality is not special and it should be treated like any other sexual sin.” I should add that most sexual sinners — indeed, most sinners in general — do not define themselves by their besetting sin nor seek special legal protections based on their embrace of it. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

See related AFTAH article: “Focus on the Family Clarifies Position, Opposes Homosexual Judicial Nominees”

___________________________________

News Release – Americans For Truth

April 15, 2010; Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; AmericansForTruth@comcast.net

LaBarbera Commends Focus for Clarifying Its Principled Opposition to Homosexual Judges

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement in response to Focus on the Family’s clarification that it would not support a homosexual nominee to the Supreme Court:

Focus on the Family has wisely corrected statements by two of its staffers who stated last year that the “sexual orientation” of judicial nominees – i.e., their homosexuality – would not disqualify them to sit on the nation’s highest court. Focus had been privately correcting those comments after Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan criticized Focus’ “moral retreat” on homosexuality. Focus’ new position – first reported by AFTAH – is biblically sound because it focuses on behavior as helping to define a judge’s character. Said Focus’ Tom Minnery:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ‘sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

Americans For Truth, like other pro-family groups that honor the authority of Scripture, believes that homosexuality is best understood not as an “identity” but as a behavior – one that is wrong, destructive, and unnatural. Thankfully, homosexual conduct also is changeable (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), as evinced by the countless former homosexual men and ex-lesbians living happy lives.

Supposed “gay” identity is a modern construct that undermines moral truth and people’s responsibility for their own conduct. Men and women (proudly) practicing homosexuality often are driven to justify their errant lifestyle. Even those practicing homosexuality in secret often work to promote its acceptance.

“Homosexual behavior .. lies at the heart of personal morality,” says Focus’ Minnery

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family

With the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, the question of homosexual judges is back in the news. Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he could accept a nominee who is openly homosexual to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. On March 24, well before the announcement of Stevens’ retirement, AFTAH received this statement from Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy at Focus on the Family. Minnery emphasized that the Focus clarification has been available to anyone who inquired about the controversial statements made last year by a Focus analyst to The Plum Line.

“This is not a new statement,” Minnery told AFTAH. “And we were quick to correct this mistake.”

The following is the clarification by Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ‘sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

_______________________

Read the rest of this article »

“Rather than taking the biblical ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.”–Matt Barber on Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” notoriety

"Rev." Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church clan are taking their twisted "God Hates Fags" to soldiers' funerals.

Folks, long before Fred Phelps started picketing soldiers’ funerals and “thanking God for IEDs” [improvised explosive devices], his ugly “God Hates Fags” message was proving to be a boon to the Homosexual Lobby and to liberal reporters working to make Christians look like kooks.

Do Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church have a “right” to stage their demented protests at servicemen’s funerals? The Supreme Court will decide. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, I thought Ann Coulter was very persuasive when she noted that courts have blocked “free speech” rights for pro-life counselors in “bubble zones” surrounding abortion clinics — so why not protect grieving families of soldiers who died for our country?!

Personally, although I accept that there are good people and First Amendment-lovers on the other side of this issue, I would put this in a similar class with rejecting the supposed “free speech right” to burn the American flag. Having sad that, it would be foolhardy to ignore that there are plenty of homosexual activists and leftists who seriously would love to see the government censor all speech opposing homosexuality.

Let me echo Matt Barber’s observation about the Hard Left: with all their name-calling and nasty smears of religious opponents, pro-homosexual militants like Joe Jervis (of the blog “Joe.My.God.“); Pam Spaulding, the “Jeebus”-[Jesus]-hating lesbian and creator of the “Pam’s House Blend” blog; Rachel Maddow with her crude and cruel “Teabagger” rants, and Wayne (“Anything But Straight”) Besen, proud creator of the “Porno Pete” slur directed at yours truly, have more in common with Fred than they’d ever admit. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

ACTION STEP: To make a donation to the father of slain Lt. Cpl. Michael Snyder, Al Snyder, who is battling the Westboro Baptist Church clan in court after his son’s funeral was protested by Phelps, go HERE.

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member, writes after the jump (some links were added that were not in the original piece):

Says in “almost all situations”  burden placed on religious people to grant “gay equality” will be justified

New EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldlum

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, March 30, 2010

Click HERE to watch some video clips of Chai Feldblum at a 2008 panel discussion at the Family Research Council.

______________________________

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex.

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.