Christ Helps ‘Homosexuals’ Change: Stephen Black, who once lived as a “gay” man before accepting Christ and leaving the homosexual lifestyle, is among the speakers at the God’s Voice conference Feb. 22-23 in Oklahoma City. Black leads First Stone Ministries, which helps others overcome sexual brokenness. God’s Voice will be responding to “Revoice,” a July conference and movement that seeks to recognize (chaste) homosexuals as a “sexual minority” in the Christian Church. AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera, a speaker at God’s Voice, was disinvited and banned from attending Revoice by its organizer, Nate Collins. Black was also banned by Revoice.

Folks, I am very excited to be a part of the upcoming “God’s Voice” conference, with national Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd, Rev. Tom Littleton, Stephen Black, Robert Oscar Lopez, U.K. Christian advocate Andrea Williams and Rev. Al Baker. God’s Voice is responding to the nascent “Revoice” movement, which promotes the acceptance of a chaste LGBTQ “sexual minority” in the evangelical Church.

I will be speaking on how trendy “LGBTQ-inclusive Christianity”–even if well-intended–merely puts a Christian facade on the revolutionary “gay” idea of an aggrieved homosexual “minority” deserving affirmation in their aberrant self-identity. That notion, first championed in the U.S. by one-time Communist Harry Hay, is built on the idea that there is a separate group of humanity (the “gay” minority) who live by different sexual rules than the rest of us, as opposed to all people living under the same God-given, universal moral code.

We now see clearly the expanding chaos that this subversive “gay” ideology has engendered: if “identity” and “minority” status are derived essentially from one’s subjective feelings, and then awarded full “civil rights” status under the law, how can we as a society say no to new identities and minorities, such as “pansexuals,” “asexuals,” “non-binaries” and “genderqueers”? And mustn’t we affirm “gay” and LGBTQueer youth in their “identities”? If “truth” is subjective and judging is wrong (except judging “bigoted” Christians, of course), then how can we affirm one sexual/gender “minority” and not the other(s)?

Now this chaos threatens the Church itself. I wonder: why is there no discussion of recognizing and affirming other sin-based  “minorities” in the evangelical Church–say, lustful men (which I suspect is a rather common “orientation”)?

Christians are called to deny themselves, and especially their flesh (sins), for Jesus’ sake and to please God. Our identity is in Christ. But the “LGBTQ+ Christian” movement demands that the Church sympathetically recognize their non-biblical “identities,” even though they are rooted in sinful desires and self-deception (Romans 1/Jeremiah 17:9)). Invariably, the next step will be to demand, with ever greater zeal and vociferousness, that all “compassionate” Christians do the same, while shaming those who refuse to indulge homo-trans ideology.

It goes without saying that we should preach the Gospel and reach out with truth in the love of Jesus to all sexual strugglers. But LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) ideology–though seductive in our victim-mongering culture like the Sirens of Greek mythology–is an ungodly, incrementalist agenda that Christians must reject in toto.

Please consider making plans to come to the “God’s Voice” conference in Oklahoma City February 22-23, to gird yourself in biblical truth so that you can better withstand the serious and growing threat of “LGBTQ Christianity.” More coming on this. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

P.S. Unlike the “LGBTQ Christian” Revoice conference, God’s Voice will not be preemptively banishing potential critics from attending. (I was disinvited by Revoice’s organizer, Nate Collins, after paying and signing up to attend; see AFTAH story HERE.)

God’s Voice Media Release

God’s Voice Conference to Equip Christians to Stand Against ‘LGBTQ+ Christianity’ Inside the Church

Culture War No More? Arizona Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Kyrsten Sinema probably regrets protesting the U.S. military in this pink tutu, but she has nothing to fear from Republicans (and media conservatives) over her self-declaration that she is “bisexual.” That’s because GOP candidates and much of “conservative” media have abandoned telling the truth about the homosexual agenda. (Remember that “culture war” issue?) Meanwhile, the leading LGBTQ lobby group, Human Rights Campaign, spent $26 million targeting six key battleground states in the mid-term election. Hear AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera discuss the LGBTQ electoral agenda on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” HERE, and on AFR’s “Janet Mefferd Live” HERE.

“If Christians and conservatives are afraid to even discuss the homosexual agenda, how can we ever hope to defeat it?”

Why is it that one side in the Culture War over the normalization of sex-and-gender perversion (the LGBTQ agenda) is spending many millions of dollars on the election while the other side is afraid even to discuss it?  I have been asking this question in Christian media (AFA’s “One News Now,” AFR’s “Janet Mefferd Live,” VCY America’s “Crosstalk” [go directly to MP3 audio HERE] and AFA of Pennsylvania’s radio talk show) leading up to today’s election, and we sent out this press release today. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

AFTAH is under siege from pro-LGBTQ censors; help us overcome the ‘Gay Thought Police’; donate safely online HERE, or mail your donation to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

____________________

Americans for Truth

Election Day, Nov. 6, 2018

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: americansfortruth@gmail.com; 312-324-3787

Nancy Pelosi Promises Radical LGBTQ “Equality Act” if Democrats Win House, while GOP Candidates Self-Censor on Homosexual Agenda

The most dangerous legislation ever to come out of the revolutionary “gay” activist movement – the federal “Equality Act,” which proposes adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in the Civil Rights code – hangs in the balance as Americans go to the polls today.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promised that if the Democrat Party wins back the House and she becomes Speaker Pelosi, a top priority will be passing the Equality Act, which now has 198 co-sponsors in the House, all but two of them Democrats.

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org) president Peter LaBarbera has renamed the Equality Act the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” and called it a “gay and transgender lawyers’ dream bill.” It would effectively criminalize traditional morality and undermine religious liberty by punishing Americans for living out their conscience on issues like unnatural homosexual “marriage” ceremonies and taxpayer funding of grotesque transsexual “sex-reassignment surgeries” (masquerading as “health care”).

In an excellent article summarizing the Equality Act, Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan Anderson writes, “By making ‘gender identity’ a protected class, the government would force Americans to embrace transgender ideology in a variety of settings…elevating “gender identity” to a protected class across our federal antidiscrimination laws could impose a nationwide transgender bathroom policy, a nationwide pronoun policy, a nationwide sex-reassignment health care mandate….”

Scholars note suppression and censorship of academic criticism, harassment, plots to dismiss critics

Trans Power: The above graphic appeared on the Transgender Law Center’s website the day after Donald Trump’s presidential victory in 2016. The colors mimic those of the “Transgender Pride flag,” the equivalent of the “rainbow flag” long used by “gay” activists. Click to enlarge.

By Gina Miller, 10-23-18

More than fifty scholars who work at universities in the U.K., U.S., Australia and elsewhere, and are part of a group of over a hundred, have signed a letter that was published last week in the U.K. Guardian. They expressed their concern about the detrimental effects of political correctness and the “trans” lobby on their ability to research and report their findings regarding so-called “transgenderism.”

The scholars are from a myriad of fields, as they note:

Our subject areas include: sociology, philosophy, law, criminology, evidence-informed policy, medicine, psychology, education, history, English, social work, computer science, cognitive science, anthropology, political science, economics, and history of art.

In part, they express their worries:

We are also concerned about the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects. Members of our group have experienced campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censor academic research and publications. Such attacks are out of line with the ordinary reception of critical ideas in the academy, where it is normally accepted that disagreement is reasonable and even productive.

How unsurprising. The aggressive pushers of “tolerance” are bullies. And just like in the United States under Barack Obama (or whatever his name is), these militant homofascists have imposed their propaganda will on schools and universities in the UK:

Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work.

Nothing about “transgenderism” would withstand any kind of rational analysis or scrutiny, because its very basis—the notion that a man could possibly be a woman, and vice versa—is not simply wrong, it’s crazy-wrong, a million pseudo-scientific claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

News Release, Sept. 19, 2018

Contact: C. J. Doyle; (617) 524-6309; catholicactionleague@gmail.com

Catholic Action League Criticizes Boston City Council Vote on Question 3

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts is criticizing the Boston City Council for its resolution, passed earlier today, urging a yes vote on Question 3, which would uphold a 2016 act making so-called gender identity a protected category in Massachusetts civil rights law pertaining to public accommodations.

In July, 2016, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law Senate Bill 2407, An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination. The law authorizes the Commonwealth to prosecute, fine and imprison businessmen and professionals who refuse to recognize men who claim to be women as women and women who claim to be men as men. According to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Attorney General Maura Healey, the law could, in some circumstances, apply to churches. Under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 98, which prohibits “incitement” to discrimination, freedom of expression could also be restricted.

Question 3 is a referendum on the repeal of the measure.

The Catholic Action League called the City Council resolution “a triumph of progressivist ideology over common sense, moral sanity, and biological reality.”

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following comment: “SB 2407 is a coercive and punitive measure which imposes sanctions on citizens who refuse to participate in the lie that persons can, through some subjective process, change their gender. Contrary to the assertions of Councilor Ayanna Pressley, adhering to the perennial wisdom of Western Civilization—reflected in science, legal tradition, and moral understanding—that gender is immutable, does not constitute hatred, and should not be penalized as discrimination. By today’s vote, the Boston City Council has demonstrated, once again, that it prefers pandering to policy making.”

Facebook puts Bible-and-homosexuality scholar in “jail” after post critical of conference recognizing homosexuals as “sexual minority”

Robert Gagnon

Folks, my friend Robert Gagnon, the world’s foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, last week penned this critique of the Revoice conference going on right now in St. Louis. Revoice aims to recognize and celebrate LGBTQ-identified celibate Christians as a “sexual minority” in the Church. It has been widely challenged by orthodox Christians for undermining Scriptural truth; see this article on Revoice’s speakers.

After publishing his piece on Facebook, Gagnon was was put in “Facebook jail” for 24 hours–the second time this has happened to him in recent weeks. That’s very troubling, as is the fact I and several other Christians were BANNED from attending Revoice after we were “checked out” by organizers.

Gagnon wrote in an email:

“I have been blocked again for 24 hours from Facebook, with a warning that the next time I am blocked it will be for 3 days. They blocked me for a mild post expressing concern about the upcoming Revoice Conference (pasted below). Could the Revoice people have complained about me?…”

We will be following this story very closely, as I share the belief of others that Revoice is the LGBTQ activist camel’s nose under the tent of the evangelical Christian church. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

______________________________

Concerns with the upcoming Revoice Conference and Spiritual Friendship Folk

By Robert A. J. Gagnon

While I am glad for the fact that persons at the upcoming Revoice Conference (July 26-28, St. Louis, in a PCA venue) and those who align with the “Spiritual Friendship” program want to refrain from engaging in same-sex intercourse and thereby uphold this part of the orthodox witness, I have seven consequential concerns about their views.

1. Inadequate engagement with the need for “renewal of the mind” as regards homosexual desires. Is there any asking of: “What is the false narrative that gives these impulses particular strength? Why am I viewing a person of the same sex as a sexual complement or counterpart to my own sex? Why am I aroused by the distinctive sexual features of my own sex, by what I already have? Am I thinking of myself as only half of my own sex? What kind of strategies for renewing my mind can I use to counter this false narrative beyond ‘washed and waiting’?” Instead, the benefits of a generalized “gay” perspective (minus the sex) are celebrated or lifted up. Even if one’s attractions may not change with such an evaluation, they can be disempowered by exposing the lie that lies behind attempts to gratify same-sex desire or (for “transgenders,” so-called) to deny one’s biological sex altogether. There is more to be addressed here than refraining from homosexual sex.

Schools Are LGBTQ Propaganda Zones: Here is part of a supposed history lesson by the homosexual activist group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network). It is false and misleading: homosexual “marriages” were not common nor legal in Roman society, and same-sex unions were often ridiculed, according  to (pro-“gay marriage”) classicist Michael Fontaine, who writes: “This confusion brings us back to Roman law. Marriage in ancient Rome was forever aimed at producing legitimate children for the state. Other sexual relationships were surely common, but a gay partnership was not one of those the state dignified with legal recognition.” Source of graphic: GLSEN online report, “LGBTQ History.” Click to enlarge.

Folks, this is from pro-family education advocate Donna Garner, a Texas-based conservative hero. She writes about a new Republican National Committee (RNC) resolution supporting parental rights in sexuality education (sex-ed). Of course, as with all political party resolutions, they’re not worth too much if the politicians ignore them (as GOP pols are wont to do, for example, their failure to steadfastly resist the advances of Big LGBTQ). Congrats to RNC Committeewoman Cynthia Dunbar and all those who helped to push this common-sense resolution through. —Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Donna Garner writes:

_______________________

Landmark Resolution to Protect Children from Unsuitable Content — Passed by Republican National Committee

July 22, 2018 by Donna Garner Education Policy Commentator

From Cynthia Dunbar, Republican National Committeewoman

7.20.18

A landmark Resolution supporting parental rights was unanimously adopted this week by the Republican National Committee. Cynthia Dunbar, National Committeewoman for Virginia and sponsor of the Resolution stated, “I’m thrilled we were able to get this Resolution adopted. This should not be a partisan issue. Parents everywhere deserve the right to know what their children are being taught and have an opportunity to consent to it. Passage of this Resolution is a huge victory and will hopefully serve as the impetus for state legislation across the nation.”

=====================

7.20.18 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Austin, Texas

RESOLUTION TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM EXPOSURE TO POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE CONTENT BY SUPPORTING A PARENT’S RIGHT TO GRANT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FOR SEX EDUCATION

WHEREAS, parents are a child’s first and foremost educators, and have primary responsibility for the education of their children. Parents have a right to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing; (1)

WHEREAS, education is much more than schooling. Education is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a cultural identity; (2)

WHEREAS, American education has, for the last several decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces from outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America. This has done immense damage; (3)

WHEREAS, school administrators routinely ask parents for their prior written permission for students to participate in various school-related instruction and activities, including, but not limited to: field trips, sports, and distribution of medicine;

WHEREAS, parents and their students should be afforded the same respect with regard to the increasingly sensitive and controversial nature of human sexuality instruction;

WHEREAS, much of the content in human sexuality instruction centers on contentious and sensitive issues, including but not limited to: abortion, birth control, sexual activity, sexual orientation, transgenderism, and/or gender identity;

WHEREAS, the content often includes a personal analysis or survey that reflects or influences the student’s opinions on sensitive topics such as religious beliefs and practices, sexual orientation, and/or sexual activity;

WHEREAS, most states grant an obscenity exemption that allows content that would otherwise be deemed harmful to minors to be disseminated for educational purposes, creating the potential for inappropriate content to be included within human sexuality instruction;

WHEREAS, such information, content, or ideology is most appropriately placed within the discretion of the parents or guardians;

WHEREAS, the current opt-out paradigm assumes parental consent to student participation, allowing schools to automatically enroll students in potentially explicit, sensitive, and/or controversial human sexuality instruction without prior written permission;

WHEREAS, human sexuality instruction frequently places the wishes and concerns of the parents and/or guardians at odds with those of the school district; and

WHEREAS, the wishes and concerns of the parents and/or guardians are preeminent to those of the School District and should be acknowledged by simply affording parents and/or guardians the right to grant permission for such instruction; therefore

RESOLVED, that public schools must disclose the content contained within human sexuality instruction to the parents and/or guardians of all unemancipated students and shall only enroll those students whose parents and/or guardians provide prior written permission to opt their student into human sexuality instruction;

RESOLVED, that the default shall be that no human sexuality instruction shall be provided to any student not yet emancipated without prior written consent from their parent and/or guardian, making an opt-out default an insufficient protection for either the safety of the student or the rights of the parent;

RESOLVED, that all state legislatures are encouraged to enact legislation that implements these notices and safeguards to protect students from exposure to potentially inappropriate and salacious content and to acknowledge the right of the parents and/or guardians to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing, including their right to protect them from exposure to content they find unsuitable.

_____________________________________

1 Platform of the Republican Party, Issued by the Republican National Committee, page 33 (2016, Cleveland, Ohio).

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

Adopted by the Republican National Committee, July 20, 2018

Family Man, Foe of Judicial Activism: SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh stands with wife Ashley and their two daughters, Margaret (left) and Elizabeth (Liza) (right), before being introduced to the nation by President Trump Monday night at the White House. In a 2017 speech Kavanaugh praised the restrained judicial approach of former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and called him his “first judicial hero.” Photo taken from White House video.

Folks, here is Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver’s take on Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The monumental question before us is this: how would a future “Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh” decide on past cases like Roe v. Wade (coupled with Doe v. Bolton: Court-imposed nationalization of abortion-on-demand) and Obergefell v. Hodges (Court-imposed nationalization of homosexuality-based “marriage”), both of which relied heavily on an activist-minded judicial approach that displaced the legislative process?

Also, please note in the media discussions about Kavanaugh that commentary on the potential repeal of Obergefell is muted, despite it being only three years (as opposed to 45 for Roe) since the Court invented a new “constitutional right” by radically redefining marriage–effectively blocking the American people’s voice and votes in dozens of states from preserving real and natural marriage. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Press release by Liberty Counsel, July 10, 2018:

Kavanaugh’s Judicial Philosophy

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump nominated D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Judge Kavanaugh, who has written over 300 judicial opinions, said in his nomination speech last night that his judicial philosophy has been “straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make it.” Kavanaugh also stressed he believes in interpreting statutes and the Constitution as they are written, “informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

In his speech, “From the Bench: The Constitutional Statesmanship of Chief Justice William Rehnquist“ that Kavanaugh presented for the 2017 Walter Berns Constitution Day Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute about Chief Justice Rehnquist, he said Rehnquist was “his first judicial hero.” Kavanaugh’s lecture focused on the impact that Rehnquist had on the Supreme Court, noting that the “Court unquestionably changed and became more an institution of law, where its power is to interpret and to apply the law as writing, informed by historical practice, not be its own person and policy predilections.”

Regarding the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions, he pointed out that Rehnquist dissented from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In Casey, Rehnquist was originally writing the majority opinion to overrule Roe, but 30 days into the writing phase, Justice Kennedy changed his vote from striking down Roe to upholding Roe. The opinion was now removed from Rehnquist who then found himself in the dissent.

Rehnquist believed a judge must apply the law, not create it. He believed that fundamental rights must either be enumerated in the Constitution (like free speech) or deeply rooted in history and tradition. Abortion was neither an enumerated right nor deeply rooted in history and tradition. While Rehnquist’s views on abortion never became the majority opinion, he did write the majority opinion in the 1997 so-called “right to die” case known as Washington v. Glucksberg. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Rehnquist said that the “right to die” was neither an enumerated right nor deeply rooted in history and tradition. Here, Rehnquist’s originalist views did prevail.

“I never wanted to be heterosexual,” says former “transgender” who once “married” a woman.

Grace Harley of One Solitary Voice Ministries was delivered out of sexual perversion 26 years ago.

Folks, here is Rev. Grace Harley’s speech at AFTAH’s June 26 “Repeal Obergefell” press event in front of the Supreme Court, to mark the three-year anniversary of the judicial travesty of the Obergefell “gay marriage” decision. Every day I am confronted by LGBTQ activists who insist that “sexual orientation” cannot be changed. And yet my friend Grace testifies to the opposite–saying [go to 4:25] that she hasn’t had a lustful sexual thought about women since her Christian conversion 26 years ago. Grace, like all of us, cannot change her skin color but she praises the Lord that through His grace and power she radically changed her sexual thoughts and disordered “transgender” lifestyle. (Her reference to the “MCC” is for the Metropolitan Community Church, a “gay activist” church catering to unrepentant homosexuals.)

This video was shot by Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival; note that I’m a contributor to the new AS book advertised in the video, “Permanent Revolution: The Secret Life and Legacy of Barack Hussein Obama”; my chapter is on the bizarre childhood and potential homosexual background of Obama, and his deceptive flip-flop to help usher in “gay marriage” in the United States. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera