If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Will Obama, like U.K.’s Tony Blair, usher in ‘gay’ tyranny in the United States?
Former British P.M. Tony Blair used state power to promote the acceptance of homosexuality in the U.K. He is now working to make Christianity "gay"-affirming.
By Peter LaBarbera
I was sent this must-watch CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) video by my friend Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn is backing a civil rights lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center against Attorney Gen. Eric Holder over the new homosexuality/transsexuality–inclusive “hate crimes” law. This video deserves wide circulation as a warning to America.
The Homosexual Activist Movement, aided and abetted by liberal straights, currently is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the United States. This is because homosexual radicals like lesbian Chai Feldblum (appointed by President Obama as a Commissioner on the E.E.O.C.) believe “gay rights” supersede Americans’ freedom to oppose homosexuality and gender confusion. To quote Feldblum, “Gays win, Christians lose” when the “zero-sum” game of “gay rights” versus religious freedom hits the courts.
More commentary follows the video below:
Already, we in the USA are seeing the same sort of persecution for opposing homosexuality as is occurring in Great Britain, only on a lesser scale. (See University of Illinois story over dismissed Catholic professor Kenneth HowellHERE.) It will only get worse if homosexuality- and transsexuality-based special “rights” are federalized under the proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”
New University of Illinois President Michael Hogan
We have heard from several readers who received the form letter below from University of Illinois President Michael Hogan after writing or calling the University concerning Catholic professor Dr. Kenneth Howell being terminated after explicating Natural Moral Law opposed to homosexuality. Call him at (217)333-6400; or go HERE for more U-I contact info and action steps. Thanks to all of you who took action against this injustice — which we hope will be corrected soon. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: President Hogan <uipres@uillinois.edu>
To: [———]
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:45:16 PM
Subject: RE: Sham “Inclusivity” Policy
Dear [——–],
Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.
I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.
Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.
By Peter LaBarbera
The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)
TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to “treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]
The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.
Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”
Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?
As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do — teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”
If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:
In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”
In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”
Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
______________________________________________
Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:
The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:
From: Kenneth J. Howell
Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)
Dear Students:
Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.
It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?
Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.
So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.
I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).
One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.
If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.
But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.
One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.
Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.
If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.
Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.
I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.
Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.
Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought
Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
_________________________________________________
U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:
The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:
Prof. McKim,
This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.
I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.
I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.
I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.
I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,
(name redacted)
___________________________________________
Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois
Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org
In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.
In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).
Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).
Aide to veteran Republican says he has not issued statement on issue
UPDATE/Note to Readers: I have just called Sen. Lugar’s D.C. office (July 7, 2010) and an aide said that he has NOT issued a statement on the congressional effort to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military — despite the Washington Blade report cited below. Now is the time for all conservatives — but especially those in Indiana — to contact Lugar and urge him to stay true to conservative principles on this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
___________________________________
TAKE ACTION: Contact Sen. Dick Lugar [202-224-4814; e-mail him HERE] and urge him to oppose the homosexualization of the U.S. military, in a time of war — and to STOP pandering to the Homosexual Lobby. Lugar’s statewide office contact information is at the bottom of this email. Urge Sen. Lugar to support a filibuster of the Defense spending bill, with its provision to repeal the Armed Forces’ sensible homosexuality ban. Please pass this alert on to your friends and family living in Indiana.
A repeal measure passed by the House and contained in the Senate Defense spending bill would inject open homosexuality into the military without even waiting to hear from a (biased) review of the policy by Defense Sec. Robert Gates, which is slated for completion in December. Respectfully urge Sen. Lugar to respect the military by resisting the reckless experimentation with the Armed Forces. For the best information on this issue, go to the Center for Military Readiness website.
Well, it appears veteran Sen. Dick Lugar [(202) 224-4814; e-mail him HERE; see statewide office contact info at bottom] is another Republican who has “grown” on homosexual issues — leaving wholesome, conservative Indiana values far behind. If the Washington Blade is to be believed, Lugar is not even willing to wait for Defense Sec. Robert Gates’ biased review on how (not whether) to implement President Obama’s homosexuals-in-the-military plan.
The Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, reports that Lugar will not support a motion to strike language repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military (“Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”). Here is an excerpt from the Blade (emphasis added), followed by statewide contact info for Sen. Lugar:
U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told the Blade last week that he isn’t concerned about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and wouldn’t support an effort to rid the legislation of the provision.
Asked whether he would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike, Lugar replied, “No. I would just leave it as it is.”
Amy Contrada of MassResistance has exposed the radical pro-homosexual agenda of Elena Kagan (shown above) as Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan is President Obama's second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is AFTAH’s July 3, 2010 interview with Amy Contrada, Research Director for MassResistance and main author of the MR report, “How Elena Kagan Helped ‘Queer’ Harvard Law School.” Contrada — who has degrees from Tufts and Brown Universities and who once worked as an administrator at Harvard — writes for the MassResistance blog. Working with MR founder Brian Camenker (see AFTAH Camenker interviews Part One HERE and Part Two HERE), Contrada has written extensively on the “gay” activist movement in Boston and has authored an extensive report on radical transsexual rights bill under consideration in Massachusetts. Both Amy and Brian have joined the faculty of the ongoing Americans For Truth Academy.
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
Conflict continues between First Amendment and nondiscrimination policies
The following is reprinted from the website of Alliance Defense Fund. Go HERE to read a Christian Legal Society information page on the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (UC Hastings) case.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 Monday to uphold an unusual university policy that forces student groups to allow outsiders who disagree with their beliefs to become leaders and voting members. The court confined its opinion to the unique policy and did not address whether nondiscrimination policies in general, which are typical on public university campuses, may require this. The court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.
Attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund represented a student chapter of CLS at California’s Hastings College of the Law in the lawsuit, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The suit was filed in 2004 after the law school refused to recognize the chapter because the group requires all of its officers and voting members to agree with its basic Christian beliefs.
Homosexual male "couples" are notorious for tolerating outside sex in their disordered relationships. Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who adopted a baby boy (hence his book "The Kid"), recommends "nonmonogamy" as an alternative to marital fidelity. He writes that he and his "husband" twice engaged in sexual "three-ways" even after adopting the boy.
CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.
Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.
“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”
Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.
“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”
Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.
“Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”— Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
In the book And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic, homosexual journalist Randy Shilts documents how homosexual activists originally fought the effort to ban "gay" male blood donations, saying it was discriminatory. This caused a delay in starting the ban, which led to the needless deaths of many innocent people. Shilts himself died of AIDS.
Folks, thankfully, sanity has prevailed and the political attempt to weaken the FDA ban on blood donations from “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) failed in a 6-9 vote Friday by the FDA committee mentioned in Cliff Kincaid’s article below. (Note the American Red Cross’ condemnation of the vote, along with “gay” activist organizations; contact the Red Cross HERE.) I only wish the homosexual activists and their liberal allies (most importantly the CDC) would redirect their energies toward shutting down homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs — i.e., the venues that encourage the anonymous hyper-promiscuity that facilitates the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. (See our story: “CDC: Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”) But this would run contrary to the history of homosexual activism, which elevates deviant sex and “rights” based on same above the public health and other interests of the public. TAKE ACTION: Contact the Food and Drug Administration HERE; Contact the Red Cross HERE; and you can reach Congress at 202-224-3121.— Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org,
____________________________________
The Battle Over Blood
By Cliff Kincaid, Reprinted with permission of Accuracy in Media, www.aim.org | June 9, 2010
With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.
In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.
Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?
What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.
