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.
“Gay” activists have been promoting the acceptance of homosexual relationships — even to young children — for decades. (This is a page from the 1991 “children’s” book, “Daddy’s Roommate.”) For conservatives to now claim that the debate over “same-sex marriage” is NOT about homosexuality is disingenuous and actually helps normalize the sin of homosexual behavior. Sentence at bottom of page reads, “Being gay is just one more kind of love.” (Click to enlarge.)
“Moral judgment undergirds the entire structure of laws and is necessary for the rational structure of any significant statute. The idea that our laws can stand independent of moral foundation is senseless. We do not think that driving under the influence of alcohol is simply risky, in terms of statistics. We believe that it is wrong, in terms of explicit moral judgment.” –Al Mohler
This is an important piece by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and we applaud him for writing it. To say that the struggle to preserve marriage from being homosexualized requires “no judgment about the morality of homosexuality” is pure folly and a recipe for defeat. It is a negation of common sense, like telling pro-lifers not to make the case for the humanity of the unborn in arguing against pro-abortion laws.
By pretending that the homosexual “marriage” debate is not really about homosexuality, well-intended people are actually advancing the godless crusade to normalize immoral same-sex behavior and relationships in society. (A neutral response to sin — or a reluctance to confront it — by religious people who know better actually propels sin forward.) We need to rebuild the moral consensus against homosexual behavior, but you cannot do that by running away from the issue.
Substitute another (less politically correct) sexual misbehavior and this formula make no sense: Imagine if conservatives were to carefully avoid discussing, say, the morality of adultery (or worse, talk about respecting the “needs” of adulterous “couples”); would that not be cheered by sexual anarchists and the “open marriage” crowd?
In other words, to fight one evil (homosexual “marriage”), some of our Best and Brightest are effectively lending aid to another, by undermining the moral/spiritual/practical case against homosexuality — a perversion that just a few decades ago was so widely deplored that it was barely mentioned in polite society. We conservatives and people of faith need to talk more about the immorality and tragic realities of homosexuality, not less. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
By Albert Mohler
Monday, April 1, 2013
“Somewhere along the way, standing up for gay marriage went from nervy to trendy.” This was the assessment offered by Frank Bruni, an influential openly-gay columnist for The New York Times. Bruni’s column, published just as the Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments in the two same-sex marriage cases now before it, is a celebration of the fact that, as he sees it, same-sex marriage is soon to be the law of the land, whatever the Court may decide. “The trajectory is undeniable. The trend line is clear. And the choice before the justices is whether to be handmaidens of history, or whether to sit it out.”
Bruni may well be right, given the trajectory and the trend-line he has described. Of course, Bruni, along with his fellow columnists, editors, and reporters for The New York Times will, along with their friends in the larger world of elite media, bear much of the responsibility for this. They are certain that their work is the mission of human liberation from irrational prejudice.
In the most important section of Bruni’s column, he writes: “In an astonishingly brief period of time, this country has experienced a seismic shift in opinion — a profound social and political revolution — when it comes to gay and lesbian people.”
That is a powerful summary of what has happened. Bruni is undoubtedly right, and he has helped to make it so. But there is something missing from Bruni’s analysis, and this is something that he has helped to cause as well. The “seismic shift” on the issue of homosexuality is a profound moral revolution as well.
And yet, what makes this moral revolution so vast in consequences and importance is this: the moral dimension has virtually disappeared from the cultural conversation. This is true, we must note, even among the defenders of heterosexual marriage.
This column was first published Dec. 28. 2012 in WND.com. Matt Barber is vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, a former professional boxer, and a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). He was also fired by Allstate Insurance Co. in 2005 after writing an online column on his own time critical of the homosexual activist agenda.
____________________________
“It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world …” ~ The Kinks
Through the secular-”progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites.
Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady’s knickers and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls.
Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia, Washington’s Evergreen State College.
But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
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.
UPDATE: Since AFTAH re-aired her Columbus Truth Academy speech, Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen has published a book, “Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom: The Lisa Miller Story.” It is available through Amazon HERE; go here for Rena’s blog, “Only One Mommy.” Go HERE for Rena’s Facebook page.
The following presentation [click HERE to listen] is excerpted from a speech by Liberty University School of Law Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen was made at the Truth Academy in Columbus, Ohio, April 1-2, 2011 — sponsored jointly by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and Mission America. We aired Prof. Lindevaldsen’s talk (edited down slightly from the original, without the ‘Q&A’ session) on the “Americans For Truth Hour” radio program May 21, 2011. Lindevaldsen discusses the escalating “gay” activist campaign to establish homosexuality — and same-sex “marriage” — as a “civil right.” She discusses the growing threat to religious and First Amendment freedoms arising from pro-homosexual court rulings and policies. Lindevaldsen explains how President Obama is undermining the Defense of Marriage Act, and warns that religious liberty will suffer a crushing blow if homosexuals receive favored “suspect class” status in the law. NOTE: All of Prof. Lindevaldsen’t excellent presentations at AFTAH’s Truth Academies are available below:
Order Truth Academy Sets: DVDs of Chicago 2010 or CDs of Columbus 2011— Rena Lindevaldsen has spoken at both of AFTAH’s Truth Academies. Columbus 2011: A 13-CD AUDIO set of this year’s two-day Truth Academy in Columbus, OH — co-sponsored by Mission America — is available for just $49 postpaid. This 13-CD set includes the full talk above by Prof. Lindevaldsen, as well as presentations by Greg Quinlan, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey, Gary Glenn, Prof. Rob Gagnon, Peter LaBarbera and WorldNetDaily’s David Kupelian. Chicago 2010: A DVD-video set of the entire three-day Truth Academy — featuring two talks by Rena Lindevaldsen — is available for $89 (including postage). Other Chicago speakers include: Robert Knight, Barber, Quinlan, Ryan Sorba, Laurie Higgins, Gagnon, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Double order discount: Order BOTH Truth Academy sets (the Chicago DVD-VIDEO and the Columbus CD-AUDIO) for a discount price of $129 (postage included). Send your check and specify your order to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; or give online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (please use PayPal if possible). Send queries to americans
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes. Do not use Real Player. It is not supported and there may be difficulty listening 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 or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
The judicial confirmation process has become a spectacle almost as comical as one of Al Franken’s (D-MN) jokes. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was not grilled on whether she believes Americans have a First Amendment right to oppose homosexuality — i.e., whether their religious and moral liberties are overridden by “sexual orientation” laws.
“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s [‘sexual orientation’ nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” —CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing
By Peter LaBarbera
Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)
Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.
Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.
Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution — all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)
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.
Courtesy of Accuracy in Media’s blog and Eyeblast TV: CBS News’ Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford questions why the White House is trying to hide Elena Kagan’s liberalism. So much for Obama’s “transparency” …
Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.
For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.
Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”
Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.
