Excerpted from UCLA Gets $1 Million to Study Legal Topics Involving Gay Couples, published Feb 26, 2007, by Associated Press:

A gay couple who hope to marry one day has donated more than $1 million to the University of California, Los Angeles, to fund research on legal topics involving same-sex relationships.

The gift announced Friday from John McDonald and Rob Wright will support what is described as the nation’s first endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law.

The two say they want to promote objective [?] research, but they also hope to aid the campaign for gay marriage and other gay rights issues…

Continue reading at Associated Press…

Note just how “objective” they are:

• This is not McDonald and Wright’s first gift to UCLA designed to promote homosexuality in American culture.

• McDonald and Wright are also benefactors of the public television newsmagazine In the Life which publicizes various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.

Excerpted from A Gay Conservative?, by Cliff Kincaid, published Nov 16, 2006, by Accuracy in Media:

…I think it’s also important, with the election campaign behind us, to define what is meant by “conservative.” Whatever it means, it can’t possibly include Andrew Sullivan, who has written a book titled The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How To Get It Back.

People can claim to be anything they want to be, but it defies reality to claim that Sullivan (pictured right), an HIV-positive homosexual who embraces and celebrates the homosexual lifestyle, is a conservative. Sullivan told Howard Kurtz on the October 15 edition of his Reliable Sources show that he is engaged to be married to another man.

Kurtz told Sullivan: “You are a lifelong conservative who supported George Bush in 2000, and now you’re a fierce critic of the administration and you supported John Kerry in 2004.”

How can a self-described conservative have voted for Kerry in 2004? The answer lies in the fact that Sullivan is consumed by the issue of his own homosexuality. But because Bush opposes homosexual marriage, Sullivan has turned on him. Sullivan has also flip-flopped on the Iraq War, going from a supporter to an opponent.

So on what issue is a Sullivan a conservative? He claims to be opposed to extravagant federal spending. He refers to the “astonishing leap in federal spending under the Bush Republicans.” But I searched through his book and found no complaints about the disproportionate amount of federal money being spent on AIDS. So far, about $200 billion has been spent on HIV/AIDS. The FAIR Foundation exists to highlight the federal favoritism given to AIDS over other more deadly diseases that affect far more people.

In his book, Sullivan makes statements that would strike most conservatives as invalid or looney. He complains, for example, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth engaged in “character assassination” of Kerry when the organization simply documented his war-time service and statements that assisted the enemy.

A self-proclaimed Christian, he spends some of his book bashing Christian “fundamentalists” who want to protect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Once again, this is where Sullivan’s homosexuality consumes him.

Continue reading at AIM…

From Gay Culture and the Riddle of Andrew Sullivan, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 27, 2006:

Andrew Sullivan is a man of ideas. In recent years, Sullivan has emerged as one of the most influential intellectuals in American public life. Furthermore, he has been identified with some of the most controversial issues of our times–a fact that is hardly surprising given his libertarian view of morality, conservative views of politics, Roman Catholic views of Christianity, and the fact that he is a prominent homosexual advocate…

In the October 24, 2005 issue of The New Republic, Sullivan writes about “The End of Gay Culture.” Of course, Sullivan’s perspective on homosexuality and gay culture is deeply rooted in his own homosexuality and his ardent embrace of his own homosexual lifestyle. He is anything but a dispassionate observer…

As he reviews the impact of the HIV crisis, Sullivan points to some patterns that emerged in its aftermath–patterns that would likely be missed by those outside the gay subculture. The emergence of lesbians as leaders of the major gay rights organizations was, Sullivan suggests, largely due to the fact that the gay male leaders were largely dead…

“Gay marriage is not a radical step,” Sullivan insisted…

But, even as Sullivan argued for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, more radical homosexual theorists were dismissing marriage altogether. As Sullivan explained,

“Marriage of all institutions is to liberationists a form of imprisonment; it reeks of a discourse that has bought and sold property, that has denigrated and subjected women, that has constructed human relationships into a crude and suffocating form. Why on earth should it be supported for homosexuals?”

Sullivan’s 1995 book, and his most recent article, must be read in light of his 1998 testimonial, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. This book was written after Sullivan had been diagnosed as HIV-positive. As he recalled:

“I contracted the disease in full knowledge of how it is transmitted, and without any illusions about how debilitating and terrifying a diagnosis it could be. I have witnessed first-hand a man dying of AIDS; I have seen the ravages of its impact and the harrowing humiliation it meant. I had written about it, volunteered to combat it, and tried to understand it. But I still risked getting it, and the memories of that risk and the ramifications of it for myself, my family, and my friends still forced me into questions I would rather not confront, and have expended a great deal of effort avoiding.”

When a high school friend asked Sullivan how he had contracted the virus, Sullivan informed him that he had no idea which sex partner had been the source of the viral transmission. “How many people did you sleep with, for God’s sake?,” his friend asked. Note Sullivan’s answer carefully:

“Too many, God knows. Too many for meaning and dignity to be given to every one; too many for love to be present at each; too many for sex to be very often more than a temporary but powerful release from debilitating fear and loneliness.”

In other words, the public Andrew Sullivan emerged as a major proponent of responsibility, stability, and self-control, while the private Andrew Sullivan was deeply involved in homosexual promiscuity.

All this broke into public view in 2001, when a homosexual columnist discovered that Sullivan had been posting advertisements for unprotected homosexual sex at internet web sites. The ensuing controversy within the gay community was vitriolic, even as it was revealing.

“The End of Gay Culture” is an eye-opening essay. As an exercise in cultural analysis, it demonstrates genuine insight and an insider’s perspective. More than anything else, Sullivan’s article should awaken thinking Christians to the fact that homosexuality is being normalized in the larger culture. This surely represents a matter of urgent missiological concern, for the normalization of sin represents a progressive hardening of the nation’s heart against the Gospel.

At a more personal level, this article reminds me to pray for Andrew Sullivan. I say this even as I realize that he may be more offended by my prayer than by anything else. In most of his writings, Mr. Sullivan demonstrates a consistent and ardent determination to celebrate homosexuality as central to his own self-discovery and personhood. Yet, he also reveals significant doubts. When he explains that he “never publicly defended promiscuity” nor publicly attacked it because “I felt, and often still feel, unable to live up to the ideals I really hold,” I detect a glimmer of doubt. I have faced Mr. Sullivan in public debate on issues related to homosexuality. I consider him to be among the most gifted, thoughtful, and unpredictable intellectuals on the current scene. More than anything else, I want Mr. Sullivan to find his self-identity and deepest passions in the transforming power of Christ–the power to see all things made new. Without apology, I pray that one day he will see all that he has written in defense of homosexuality, and all that he has known in terms of his homosexual identity, as loss, and to find in Christ the only resolution of our sexuality and the only solution to the problem we all share–the problem of sin.

Andrew Sullivan has been a focus of my prayer since I first learned of his HIV-positive status. I do pray that God will give him strengthened health and the gift of time. After all, our Christian concern should be focused not only on the challenge of homosexuality in the culture, but the challenge of reaching homosexuals with the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel.

Continue reading at Albert Mohler…

By Peter LaBarbera

(Published Oct 9, 2006, in Post Chronicle)

Note the excerpt below from homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan, from his October 2nd blog post entitled The Vatican and the RNC.

If the Foley incident is not about pedophilia, it is also not, it seems to me, about homosexuality. It’s fundamentally about the closet. The closet is so psychologically destructive it often produces pathological behavior. When you compartmentalize your life, you sometimes act out in one compartment in ways that you would never condone in another one. Think Clinton-Lewinsky, in a heterosexual context. But closeted gay men are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Your psyche is so split by decades of lies and deceptions and euphemisms that integrity and mental health suffer. No one should excuse Foley’s creepy interactions; they are inexcusable, as is the alleged cover-up (although we shouldn’t jump to conclusions yet about who knew what when). But there’s a reason gay men in homophobic institutions behave in self-destructive ways.

Or think of it another way: what do the Vatican and the RNC have in common? Here’s one potential list: entrenched homophobia, psychologically damaged closet cases, inappropriate behavior toward teens and minors … and cover-ups designed entirely to retain power. The parallels are looking a little creepy. And the source is the same.

After decades of cultivating a victim mentality ad nauseam, homosexual advocates are reduced to this argument: Foley’s predatory behavior was, ultimately, OUR fault. Society (read: Bible-believing Christians and churches) is to blame. Once again the circular logic of what I call “gay fundamentalism” is exposed: whatever deviance, whatever threats to health, children and morality–all is laid at the door of “homophobic” society because of the “shame” we cause “gays” by not celebrating or at least not accepting their lifestyle choice. How convenient for them.

The truth is Mark Foley, like the rest of us, is a sinner in need of a Savior. As fallen human beings, our hearts are bent toward sin. God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9, KJV) It’s tough to own up to that truth: each of our hearts is so bent toward “wickedness” (now there’s a word you don’t hear very often) that we can’t even know our own potential for self-deception!

If Foley was molested as a youth as his lawyer states, then he joins the legion of sexually victimized men and women who have gone on to perpetuate their abuse, as adults, on others. But Foley, like all people caught up in the modern cult of homosexuality, IS responsible for his behavior before God. (Besides, why would it follow that his natural “orientation” is “gay” if a major contributing cause to his current state of sexual confusion is that he was abused as a teenager?)

Repressed homosexuality (the “closet”) did not put those male congressional pages at risk; active, practicing (albeit furtive) homosexuality did. Pederasty – sexual “relationships” between adult men and adolescent boys – is as old as the ancient Greeks, and to this day homosexual men pursue sex with teenage boys. In the early days of “gay liberation,” they callously called these boys “chicken.” Yet somehow the media and professional talkers are behaving as if this current scandal has nothing to do with homosexuality.

As my good friend Bob Knight of CWA’s Culture and Family Institute noted, the sad story of homosexual adulterer and former New Jersey governor James McGreevey appears to be one of “selfishness on steroids.” It will be fascinating to watch liberals and homosexual activists try to make a hero of this very troubled (and still confused) man. – Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from McGreevey Gay Details Leaked, published Sept 13, 2006, by Associated Press:

Former New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey revealed during an exclusive interview with Oprah Winfrey that he first bedded the man who would become a central figure in his downfall while his own wife was hospitalized for the birth of their child…

McGreevey said the encounter was one of countless lies and betrayals he felt compelled to perpetuate…

From ‘Fair and balanced’ network gives $10K to ‘gays’, published September 9, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

Fox News Channel, which owes its No. 1 cable news rating to its immense popularity with conservatives, is donating $10,000 to an organization of homosexual journalists.

Fox News tells viewers “We Report. You Decide.” But it has made the donation to “connect with” the estimated 650 journalists who are attending a National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association event at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel this weekend.

The company has joined with the Miami Herald, McClatchy Co., CBS, CNN, Hearst Corp., US Newswire, ESPN, Bloomberg, ABC News, The Los Angeles Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Washington Post and Tribune Co. in sponsoring the event for the organization that claims 1,300 members nationwide.

“By sponsoring the ‘Out in the Sunshine,’ you gain a direct link to top media professionals from across the country and around the globe. The various levels of sponsorship allow you increased visibility, and access to influential members of the mainstream and LGBT media,” said the convention website.

A message left with Fox News seeking comment was not returned immediately, but an activist group had a contribution ready for the debate.

Americans for Truth essentially asked Fox News to live up to its own words, or eat them.

Peter LaBarbera

In a letter e-mailed yesterday from AFT chief Peter LaBarbera to Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes, LaBarbera said the network’s “fair and balanced” reputation is on the line.