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.
No categories
“Sexual Orientation”/”Gender Identity” and the Law
The Deviant Roots of a Sin Movement: Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s Table 34 showing timed “orgasms” for babies and young children–apparently supplied to him by a child molester. This table appears in Kinsey’s celebrated 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior and the Human Male,” which also greatly exaggerated the number of people practicing homosexual behavior in American society. Homosexual activists seized on Kinsey’s book to argue that homosexuality was widespread and normal. See AFTAH Point 12 below. Click on graphic to enlarge.
There will be revisions and additions to this list, but here is AFTAH’s first draft of core principles and beliefs.–Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
______________________________
1) Homosexual behavior and trans-gender rebellion are morally wrong as they defy Nature and Nature’s God.
2) Homosexuality is not the basis for a healthy self-identity; embracing homosexual or transgender lifestyles/behaviors is a very bad and destructive choice.
3) Homosexuality is about What You Do, not Who You Are. Everyone is responsible before God for his or her sexual conduct. “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity”–the notion of an innate or inherent nature centered around proclivity toward sex- and gender-confusion–are the misguided foundations of self-serving “gay” ideology. These concepts seek to justify immorality by essentially removing one’s moral responsibility for his or her actions.
4) Homosexualism and gender confusion are not the basis for civil rights. Equating the campaign for homosexual “rights”and same-sex “marriage” to the Black civil rights movement insults Black Americans and their noble struggle against slavery and institutional racism (e.g., Jim Crow). Christians in past days were wrong to misuse the Bible to ban interracial unions. Interracial marriages produce beautiful children and families; homosexuality cannot produce life. Creating “rights” based on moral wrongs and sexual/gender perversions naturally undermines other people’s rights, especially the freedoms of religion and conscience enshrined in the United States Constitution. As John Adams, the second president of the United States and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: “[W]e have not government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and spiritual people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
5) All people as human beings created in the image of God deserve respect; all behaviors and ideologies do not.
6) Unlike race and ethnicity, homosexuality is not immutable: people can pursue virtuous change and leave aberrant sex- and transgender lifestyles behind. Oddly, the same LGBTQ activists who champion men and women who abandon their marital spouse and children to live a homosexual life–or the DNA-defying notion that people can change sexes–often excoriate and dehumanize EX-“gays.” Nevertheless, thousands of people have successfully left homosexuality behind, and their wholesome transformation should be celebrated. Legal and legislative efforts to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors are cruel, antithetical to liberty and parental rights, and demonstrate the totalitarian mindset of homosexual advocates and their allies. [AFTAH highly recommends Restored Hope Network, an umbrella group of Christian ex-“gay” ministries.]
Folks, I will say this about the latest Ryan Sorba video: you don’t need to go undercover to reveal the Democrats’ penchant for embracing any sexual lifestyle that is outside the bounds of one-man/one-woman marriage. More and more social liberals–who always follow the “progressives'” lead–are jumping on the “polyamory” (multiple-partner) bandwagon. Sorba’s description of the video follows the jump and the video. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
_____________________________________
Ryan Sorba writes:
Published on Jun 22, 2015
Recently, I went undercover posing as a same-sex marriage activist and asked prominent gay activists and Democrats the following question:
“If the purpose of marriage is to confer dignity upon individuals who love each other, then what about polygamous couples who love each other? They should be able to marry too, don’t you think?”
Shockingly, the gay activists and Democrats all answered, “Yes!”
Abusing Authority? Current U.S. Supreme Court: Standing in back (left to right): Justices: Sonia Sotomayor; Stephen Breyer; Samuel Alito; and Elena Kagan. Front row, sitting (left to right): Justices: Clarence Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Chief Justice John Roberts; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Click to enlarge.
“The High Court often acts as if it has been entrusted with the raw power to decide for us the most important public policy issues facing the nation.” — William Olson & Herb Titus
The article below is the first in a series on the courts and homosexual “marriage”; the destructive effect of judicially-imposed counterfeit “marriage” on the nation; and how we as citizens can fight back against this immoral legal/cultural juggernaut. We have taken the liberty of putting quotation marks around the word same-sex “marriage” even when the authors do not–as part of our ongoing struggle to preserve the real meaning of words against “progressive” semantic distortions. Yes, it’s a pain in the rear but it’s the right thing to do.
Kudos to attorneys and pro-family advocates Bill Olson and Herb Titus for conceiving of this project and giving so much of their time and energy toward these in-depth articles together. Thanks also to the U.S. Justice Foundation for financing this project. Should you want to help support this important work, contributions may be made to the U.S. Justice Foundation. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
__________________________
Reconsidering the U.S. Supreme Court’s Authority to Mandate Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
(Part one of a series)
By William J. Olson and Herbert W. Titus
On April 28, 2015, nine unelected lawyers drawn from three elite law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Columbia) listened to 90-minutes of oral argument about same-sex marriage and then retreated behind a wall of red velvet drapes to confer secretly about whether the U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. Supreme Court impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation.
Consider for a moment the process by which that decision will be reached. When the Court decided to hear the Obergefell consolidated cases from the Sixth Circuit, that decision was reached in secret. The Justices consult only with their colleagues and their law clerks, also drawn from elite law schools. When a decision in the case is issued, presumably before the end of the current term toward the end of June, the Court will address only those issues argued by parties and the amici curiae that it cares to address. Its opinion will contain only those reasons for its decision that the Court chooses to reveal. The majority decision may be agreed to by as few as five of these nine justices unaccountable to no one but themselves. And then, the Court will expect the American people to set aside their individual and collective judgment and passively abide by whatever decision is reached — based on a doctrine no where found in the U.S. Constitution–“judicial supremacy.”
Although the Supreme Court’s only constitutional responsibility is to resolve “cases” and “controversies” brought before it, the High Court often acts as if it has been entrusted with the raw power to decide for us the most important public policy issues facing the nation. While the Court would have us believe that those decisions are mandated by faithful adherence to the constitutional text, the truth lies elsewhere. In his autobiography, Justice William O. Douglas provided a glimpse behind the curtain as to how the Supreme Court really works. In his autobiography, he explained that Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes had once explained to him: “[a]t the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”
Christopher Doyle, founder and president of Voice of the Voiceless, came out of the homosexual lifestyle and is now happily married with children. Doyle is a professional counselor who helps others find freedom from homosexuality. Read his testimony, and a Mercator interview with Doyle. To support the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is defending JONAH against the well-funded SPLC, go HERE.
This article first appeared in the Christian Post, June 17, 2015
This Monday marked the second full week of testimony in the “Trial of the Century”, pitting Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), a small, New Jersey-based Jewish non-profit organization, against the $340 million dollar Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
At issue are SPLC’s claims that JONAH committed consumer fraud by supposedly guaranteeing four former clients that they could go from “gay” to “straight” in 2-4 years. SPLC recruited these clients to sue JONAH in what has become another installment in the nationwide effort to prevent individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions from accessing counseling.
But SPLC’s case is unraveling at the seams, and the lies that mark this trial should be a lesson for the nation.
First, last Wednesday, under cross-examination by attorney for the defense Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, Dr. Carol Bernstein, an expert witness for the plaintiffs and a well-known psychiatrist and Vice Chair of the New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, conceded that sexual orientation is fluid and can change. She went on to state that she has not conducted any research on the effectiveness of sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy or familiarized herself with any studies looking at harm from such efforts.
Additionally, when asked about the particular type of counseling, psychodrama, that JONAH uses in its practice, Dr. Bernstein replied that it was not a well-respected counseling modality, despite that fact that Columbia University, where she attended, offers a course for undergraduate students on the method, a fact of which she was unaware.
Feelings vs. Reality: ‘Trans-racialist’ Rachel Dolezal, a woman born white who wants to live as a black person. Click to enlarge.
Folks, I’m tempted to say that only by falsely labeling Michael Brown as a ‘Transracial-phobe’ could one reject his sound arguments below. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
I do not for a moment want to minimize the very real struggles of those who identify as transgender nor do I want to ignore those individuals who have genuine biological or genetic abnormalities.
I simply want to state once again—really, I want to shout it from the rooftops—that perception does not change reality, and so Bruce Jenner is no more a woman than Rachel Dolezal is black.
In the last week, a steady stream of articles has drawn comparisons, both positive and negative, between Jenner and Dolezal, with not a few stating that Dolezal’s actions are harmful to the transgender cause. (The opening lines of Ben Shapiro’s fairly comprehensive article, detailing many other claims made by Dolezal and dripping with sarcasm, are classic.)
Obviously, I have no idea whether Dolezal genuinely believes she is black or simply chooses to identify as black, but what’s clear, if all the reports are true, is that she is not black.
How can I be so dogmatic?
It’s because skin color is verifiable.
It is not based on perception.
It is not based on feelings.
It is based on provable data.
The same is true when it comes to gender (again, putting aside the question of how to best help those with biological or genetic abnormalities that are not so easily categorized as male or female).
Some people are genetically and biologically male while others are genetically and biologically female, and to alter their physical appearance through cosmetic surgery no more changes their real identity than wearing leopard skins transforms a human being into a big cat.
Living Out a Lie: Former Olympic star Bruce Jenner (posing for Vanity Fair as “Caitlyn” above) is a biological male who wants to live as a woman–and claims that fictitious identity despite his male DNA. Click to enlarge.
The same is true when it comes to hormonal treatments: You can pump up Bruce Jenner with all the female hormones in the world but that does not make him into a woman. (To date, we have not been presented with any evidence that he is a genetic female in any form.)
In the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the nation’s most respected psychiatrists yet a man despised by many in the transgender community as out of date and out of touch:
“Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.'”
Not only so, but in many ways, the transgender movement is based on fundamental contradictions.
Order “Light Wins” today: by sending $22 postpaid to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. In addition to the full-length film, you will receive a 30-minute abridged version and 90 minutes of special features.
Folks, it was my privilege to be a part of this excellent documentary film, “Light Wins,” produced by my friend and pro-family Force of Nature, Janet Porter. Janet did an outstanding job boiling down dozens of hours of interviews with pro-family leaders to make this movie. Now we are asking YOU to show it to your network of friends, including your church family. This is a superb teaching tool and when you order it, you will be helping to sustain both AFTAH and Janet’s ministry, Faith2Action. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
ORDER THE VIDEO: for just $22 postpaid you will get a DVD containing the following:
The full-length feature film “Light Wins” (100 minutes)
A 30-minute abridged version for easier showing at house- or church showing parties
90 minutes of extra interviews on special topics like homosexuals in the military
ORDER TODAY: Send $22 postpaid to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; bulk discounts available: write Brad Wallis at connops@yahoo.com for more information. All proceeds from sales will be split between AFTAH and Faith2Action.
SCOTUS decision could negate a vote of 76% of Texas voters; Dr. Hotze: Gov. Abbott has been “AWOL” on defending Texas Marriage Amendment
Will Gov. Abbott act to defend marriage in Texas? Dr. Steve Hotze of Conservative Republicans of Texas presents letter signed by Texas pro-life and pro-family leaders to an aide to Gov. Greg. Abbott. The letter calls on the governor to call a special legislative session to defend Texas’ popular marriage-protection amendment–which could be negated by a Supreme Court ruling “nationalizing” homosexuality-based “marriage.”
The following is taken from an e-mail sent out June 4 by Dr. Steve Hotze, president of Conservative Republicans of Texas calling for a special legislative session to defend real (traditional) marriage in Texas from being redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The actual pro-family coalition letter is at the bottom of this post:
Urge Governor Abbott to Call a Special Legislative Session to
Defend State Sovereignty and the Texas Marriage Amendment
Sign Petition Below
June 4, 2015
Governor Greg Abbott must call a Special Legislative Session to defend the Texas Marriage Amendment and assert our state sovereignty!
During the recent Legislative Session, Republicans in the Texas House and Senate were blocked by the pro-homosexual Democrats from voting on legislation that would have defended the Texas Marriage Amendment. That proposed legislation, HB 4105, The Preservation of State Sovereignty and Marriage Act, had overwhelming support of Texas Republican State Legislators. In fact, 92 of 150 state representatives coauthored HB 4105. The Democrats were able to filibuster and throw up roadblocks to prevent this bill from being voted upon.
AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera with Dr. Steve Hotze, President of Conservative Republicans of Texas, in front of the Texas State Capitol building in Austin. Click to enlarge.
Republicans in the Texas House had to settle for a Legal Memorandum supporting traditional marriage and the Republicans in the Senate were only able to pass a resolution supporting traditional marriage, SR 1028. Unfortunately, neither of these has the force of law.
Your voice needs to be heard! You can still help make sure that this legislation is passed. You need to act today! You are a part of the 76% that voted for the Texas Marriage Amendment.
Governor Abbott needs to hear from you now because he has been AWOL as Governor on defending the Texas Marriage Amendment. He refused to sponsor or speak at either one of the Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rallies. In fact Daniel Hodge, Governor Abbott’s Chief of Staff, tried to intimidate me into cancelling the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally at the state convention. The first rally was held at the Republican State Convention on June 5, 2014 and the second one was held at the Texas State Capitol on March 23, 2015 which featured Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama. In contrast to Abbott, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz spoke at the state convention rally. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke at both rallies.
Encourage Governor Abbott to call a Special Legislative Session to defend the Texas Marriage Amendment and to advance state rights and state sovereignty which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I hope Bryan Fischer is wrong and that Justice Ginsburg was instead defiantly affirming the fiction of a “Constitutional right” to homosexual “marriage” at the immoral ceremony over which she presided. We’ll know soon. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
________________________________
Ginsburg Tips Her Hand – The Fix Is in on Sodomy-Based “Marriage”
It’s time for social conservatives to prepare for a post-apocalyptic world. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in late June imposing sodomy-based “marriage” on the entire country. It’s a done deal. The fix is in. You can take it to the bank.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 28, and then, according to custom, immediately adjourned to vote. So the results were known to the other members of the Court by close of business that day. The only remaining matter was for Chief Justice Roberts to assign the writing of the majority opinion.
Under normal circumstances, the results of these immediate Supreme Court votes are a jealously guarded secret. No one is supposed to breathe a word. No one is supposed to know the outcome until the ruling is actually released, which will almost certainly be at the very end of the session in late June.
But we now know the result of the vote beyond any shadow of doubt. How do we know? Ruth Bader Ginsburg told us over the weekend.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was a guest last Sunday at a homosexual “wedding” ceremony presided over by Justice Ginsburg herself.
The wedding took place in a glitzy setting, the Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, which houses a club for descendants of soldiers, both French and American, who fought in the Revolutionary War.
Here are the telling paragraphs from Dowd’s column (emphasis mine):
“But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.
“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.
“But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted…”
Well, the guests may have pretended to be unsure of the significance of Ginsburg’s words, but we don’t have to be. When she emphasized the word “Constitution” and did so with a “sly look,” Ginsburg was most emphatically not “giving a hint” about the outcome of the Supreme Court’s vote, she was telling us as plainly as possible.
Ginsburg was informing us that the Supreme Court has already decided that marriage based on what Massachusetts’ state law still calls the “abominable and detestable crime against nature” is now a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
