Tax-funded transgenderism: This is Celeste Flemming, and “she” is a man. At an “LGBTQ” conference in Norman, OK, Flemming compared “transitioning,” “male-to-female” transsexuals who are prevented from using women’s restrooms (e.g., at work) to racist Jim Crow laws that banned Black Americans from using the same public restrooms as whites. The Oklahoma conference was sponsored by the State of Oklahoma with federal grant dollars. Flemming is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee who evidently now is used by the agency to help accommodate other gender-“transitioning” FAA employees.

OKLAHOMA CITY — I’m writing you from Oklahoma, having just attended a pro-homosexual conference funded with YOUR tax dollars and sponsored by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), a branch of HHS.  We will have a full report on this one-day conference, which not only was devoid of pro-family advocates but featured speakers who were explicitly anti-biblical in their ideology, e.g., claiming that Romans 1 does NOT proscribe homosexual acts as sinful.

Here’s an excerpt from a conference flier titled, “What does the bible say about homosexuality?” passed out by presenter Kathy McCallie, in a session called “Spiritual Wellness in BGLT (sic) Communities, a Primer”:

“[The Apostle] Paul had no inkling that for some persons, a same-sex orientation might be natural, that is, part of who they are created to be. If he had known this, he would have had to argue that, for such persons, heterosexual acts would be unnatural.”

Whatever happened to liberal demands for “Separation of Church and State” (which is actually a twisting of the First Amendment)?! Here we have Americans’ tax dollars being used to assault historic biblical teaching against homosexuality as sinful.

As you can see from the photo above, the Oklahoma conference, although supposedly focusing on substance abuse, devoted much energy to promoting gender confusion and homosexuality. Can you imagine comparing gender-confused men who believe they are “women” but are denied use of the ladies’ restroom to Blacks suffering under official Jim Crow racism — as male-to-female trans “woman” Celeste Flemming did?

The very first speaker at the conference, Randy Roberts Potts — the openly homosexual grandson of the late Oral Roberts — maligned my friend and Oklahoma St. Rep. Sally Kern, accusing her of being “hateful” toward homosexuals and going on a “witch-hunt” against them.  Stay tuned to this story, which also sheds like on the Obama administration’s radical use of the federal bureaucracy to promote the homosexualist agenda across America.  — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families PAC wrote the following in his “End of Day” newsletter December 10, 2012:

High Court To Decide Meaning Of Marriage

Late Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in two cases dealing with the meaning of marriage. From the cases selected, it appears as though the justices want to tackle the issue from both the state and federal perspective.

One comes from New York and challenges the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. The second case stems from a challenge to California’s voter-approved initiative Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

It is difficult to predict how the court will rule in either case. Some conservatives are cautiously optimistic about the Proposition 8 case, believing that the justices will find striking down a popularly-enacted law on something as basic as the meaning of marriage to be an affront to the right of self-government and the foundation of our republican form of government.

I’m not holding my breath. The Supreme Court is split with four reliable liberals, four generally conservative justices and one moderate, swing vote — Justice Anthony Kennedy. While Justice Kennedy sided with conservatives in the Obamacare decision, he has a long history of siding with the court’s liberals when it comes to abortion and homosexual rights.

For example, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a popularly-enacted ballot initiative in Colorado preventing special legal protection based solely on homosexual behavior [see text of Colorado Amendment 2 in footnote 2 HERE]. Justice Kennedy also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws against sodomy.

The following release was issued by our good friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com:

_____________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com News Release

December 7, 2012 — For Immediate Release

U.S. Supreme Court Taking Prop. 8 Is About Our Republic

Thomasson: “This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic.”

Sacramento, California — A leading man-woman marriage organization in California is very happy that the United States Supreme Court has announced it will review Proposition 8, and is urging the nation’s high court to overturn the unconstitutional, biased opinions of California judicial activists Stephen Reinhardt and Vaughn Walker.

“The announcement from the Supreme Court is good news for everyone who knows, deep in their hearts, that children do best with a married father and mother under the same roof,” said Randy Thomasson, a longtime advocate of natural marriage and president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. “For the stability and health of our society, children need to see real marriages as their role model, not counterfeit ‘marriages,’ but true marriages between a man and a woman.”

“This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic,” Thomasson said. “We’re relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees each state ‘a republican form of government’ — a government under the written law, not government run by the unconstitutional prejudices of some judges. Without question, the Supreme Court should reserve marriage licenses exclusively for one man and one woman, not only for the sake of children and families, but for the sake of our republic.”

“The California Constitution reserving marriage licenses for a man and a woman, as God created it, does not contradict anything in the text or history of the U.S. Constitution,” Thomasson said. He offered four constitutional reasons why the Supreme Court should uphold Proposition 8, approved by California voters in 2008:

1. Marriage licenses are not in the United States Constitution, so this case never should have gotten into federal court in the first place.

2. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to California and every other state “a republican form of government” — meaning 1) no monarchy and 2) no lawless mob rule, but a government of written laws representing the will of the people, who are sovereign. The California Constitution represents the people’s will on marriage and the United States Supreme Court should affirm that. (See footnote recording James Madison’s definition of republican government as “a republican constitution and its existing laws” )

San Francisco’s new public nudity ban will still allow public nudity at annual events like the notorious Folsom Street Fair.

“The ban would prohibit most nudity in public, but it would continue to allow marchers at special events, like the San Francisco Pride Parade, to bare all. Children under 5 can be naked in public and sunbathers can continue to strip down on nude beaches.”–Reuters

Folks, I guess this is progress — but only in San Francisco would a public nudity “ban” still allow lots of public nudity — e.g., at homosexual events like the annual “gay pride” parade and Folsom Street Fair. AFTAH has led the way in exposing the “anything-goes” libertine atmosphere of the world’s most infamous ‘Gay’ Mecca, with our periodic exposés of the deviant and bizarre goings-on at Folsom (including homosexual orgies on the street as cops stood idly nearby).

We think it’s instructive to show where liberal “tolerance” leads, and how homosexual-dominated cities like San Francisco and Chicago end up celebrating perversion in its various manifestations, even to the point of lawlessness. “Gay” power has its degenerative consequences.

In 2008, I ventured out to San Francisco with Linda Harvey of Mission America and Diane Gramley of American Family Association of Pennsylvania to hold a press conference condemning the public nudity at Folsom Street. We immediately were shouted down by homosexual activist Michael Petrelis [see this YouTube video], who applauded public nudity (and public sex) — thus demonstrating the homo-fascist (or homo-communist) mentality to perfection.

Of course, the city’s LGBT-intimidated police allowed Petrelis to invade and disrupt our press conference.

Anyway, it appears that the annoyance, disgust and public spectacle of exhibitionists letting it all hang out (anywhere) were too much even for San Francisco’s jaded residents, heterosexual and homosexual alike. Now if only the city would start reining in the equally serious problem of sex clubs (“gay” orgy centers) that encourage reckless, anonymous promiscuity and facilitate the spread of disease. But that would be way too “intolerant” for a city like San Francisco that’s so far to the Loony Left that it had to grant a special (“gay”) exemption to pass a ban on going nude in public. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

________________________________

The following is excerpted from a Reuters article:

San Francisco tells nudists to get dressed

By Ronnie Cohen, Reuters December 4, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – San Francisco city leaders gave final approval on Tuesday to a ban on public nudity, a measure aimed at curtailing displays of nakedness that some residents and business owners say have gotten out of control in the famously tolerant city.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ action at City Hall prompted about a half dozen angry protesters to strip down to their socks.

The following release was put out by Texas Values. It would be instructive to compare the progress of homosexual activism in Red States like Texas to Blue States like Illinois — including the penetration of schools with LGBT advocacy and programs. Regardless, the homosexuals always advance through incremental victories, such as the Domestic Partnership policy in question here. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

12.5.12 — Texas Values Files Brief on Same-Sex ‘Domestic Partnerships’, Pflugerville ISD Board Meeting Next Week  

Texas Values and Alliance Defending Freedom submitted a brief today to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, requesting that his office find the Pflugerville ISD and other local governmental entities in violation of the Texas Constitution. Texas State Senator Dan Patrick made a request for the opinion on Nov. 2. PISD and other local governments are creating and recognizing a new legal status of “domestic partnerships” as a method to offer marital benefits to unmarried government employees in direct violation of the Texas Marriage Amendment. PISD and other local governmental entities in Texas are blatantly violating the Texas Constitution and the will of the Texas people, which supported the Texas Marriage Amendment by an over 76% vote. The language of the Texas Constitution and its legislative intent are crystal clear on this issue. Read our brief HERE.

Action Alert: Pflugerville ISD is reconsidering its same-sex benefits policy. The issue is finally being put on the agenda for a School Board meeting on Thursday, Dec. 13 at 7 p.m. in the Pflugerville High School cafeteria, 1301 W. Pecan Street. We need you to turn out and let your voice be heard if you are in the area. Contact us if you plan to attend.

Texas Values stands for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at www.txvalues.org.   Texas Values 900 Congress, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 478-2220   Jonathan M. Saenz, Esq. President, Texas Values

Standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas o: 512.478.2220 f: 512.478.2229 jsaenz@txvalues.org txvalues.org facebook.com/texasvalues twitter.com/txvalues *Texas Values is a new state-focused effort of Liberty Institute.

Go HERE to listen to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera’s Tuesday interview with Dallas-based Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd. We discussed the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) announcement that it will remove “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) from the next edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) — known as the the “bible” of psychiatry. LaBarbera discusses how the change was the result of politics — with transgender activists heavily lobbying the APA just as homosexual activists lobbied (and bullied) the APA into removing homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

The following is Mefferd’s listing for the program:

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

The American Psychiatric Association board has hit another historic milestone: People who call themselves “transgender” or “gender non-conforming” will no longer have their identities classified as mental disorders in the APA manual. Janet will talk over the implications with Peter LaBarbera, president and founder of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Also: Is it time for evangelicals to give up the same-sex “marriage” fight? One prominent religion writer thinks so. Janet will discuss it with Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.”

The following interview with FOX News contributor and American Family Association (AFA) talk show host Sandy Rios was recorded November 15, 2012. We apologize for the delay in posting it. Rios is the former president of Concerned Women for America (where she was my former boss) and hosts of “Sandy Rios in the Morning,” which airs 7:00-8:00 AM Central Time daily on AFR Talk. Sandy is also vice-president of Family-Pac Federal. In the interview, Rios reacts to the bigoted rant by Atlanta talk show host Neal Boortz — who absurdly blames the Republicans’ election loss on social conservatives. She also addresses the recent “gay” activist electoral sweep on homosexual “marriage,” the coming battle in the GOP over social issues, and the struggle even within pro-family circles to defend principle on the homosexual issue.  — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once 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.

11-15-12, Sandy Rios

Is UPS encouraging local Scout troops to undermine national policy against homosexuality?

We at AFTAH found this this report by Mission America’s Linda Harvey about her conversation with UPS (United Parcel Service) very eye-opening. After our initial report on UPS “dropping” the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) through its new, more stringent pro-homosexual charitable giving policy, several of our readers wrote to inform us that UPS is telling people that it is NOT dropping the Scouts. I called UPS today and a staffer reiterated some of the same points as Ruiz’s below. And we are seeking clarifications from the BSA on UPS’ claims, which we will pass on to you. You can call the UPS Foundation at 404-828-6374 and the Scouts at 972-580-2000. For additional contact info for UPS and the Scouts, go HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

________________________________________

Here is Harvey’s recollection of the conversation:

I called UPS today ( November 15, 2012) and was immediately told that they had not cut funding to the Boy Scouts, but they would connect me to someone who would explain further. I then talked with Joe Ruiz, a manager in the UPS Foundation.

Ruiz said no, they had not cut funding to the Boy Scouts, that the media reports were inaccurate. What they’ve done is changed their discrimination policy and if prospective grantees don’t “check the box” stating that they have a policy prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity, they would not be eligible.

So I responded that, essentially, UPS has indeed cut funding to the Boy Scouts. Not if they would “check the box,” he said. (It was like talking to a wall). Then, he told me his understanding is that some of the individual Boy Scout groups around the country had indicated they would “check the box,” and so would be eligible. I said, do you mean they are going against the national organization? Well, that would be up to each of them, he said.

Read the rest of this article »