C-SPAN helped homosexual Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Vicky Gene Robinson — he was named such because his parents wanted a girl — plead his heretical case to America by airing his speech twice on Christmas Eve night. In the speech, Robinson discussed his plan to enter into a “civil union” with his homosexual lover, saying he always wanted to be a “June bride.” The bishop claimed (against all evidence in Scripture) that the Holy Spirit is involved in the crusade for more open homosexuals like him in the clergy. Write C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb (viewer@c-span.org) or call him (202-737-3220) to protest this holiday programming choice that was deeply offensive to Bible-believing Christians. Urge C-SPAN to balance Robinson’s lecture by covering a presentation by evangelical Dr. Michael Brown in Charlotte, North Carolina next month titled, “Can you be gay and Christian?”  Photo by C-SPAN.

By Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION: Write (viewer@c-span.org) or call C-SPAN (202-737-3220) CEO Brian Lamb today or tomorrow to object to their airing of a speech by a controversial homosexual-clergy activist and Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Vicky Gene Robinson, twice on Christmas Eve.  Politely urge C-SPAN to compensate for this offensive, pro-homosexual coverage by sending their cameras to cover evangelical apologist Dr. Michael Brown and his upcoming conference, “Can you be gay and Christian?” to be held Feb. 11-15 in Charlotte, N.C. 

________________________

I’m wondering why C-SPAN chose to re-air a long speech by homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson on Christmas Eve, one of the most sacred days on the Christian calendar. In his speech Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, “How Morality Plays a Role in Legal Rights, Especially for the Gay Community,” which had already been aired on Dec. 8, Robinson claimed that the Holy Spirit was involved in the crusade for homosexual “inclusion” in the clergy.

First things first: did you know that the infamously “gay” bishop’s first name is “Vicky” (as you can see above, C-SPAN only put “Gene Robinson” on the screen). Apparently his parents really wanted a girl and — when they doubted their sickly newborn would even live — they named him accordingly: Vicky Imogene (middle name after the mother) Robinson. In 2003, the Concord Monitor reported matter-of-factly (as only the agnostic media can) on the birth of the baby who would become Episcopal “Rev. V. Gene Robinson” as follows:

Robinson was born in Lexington, Ky., in 1947, in a delivery that went so wrong the doctor told his father he needed a name for the baby’s birth and death certificates. Charles and Imogene Robinson had counted on a girl, so Robinson’s father named the baby Vicky Imogene Robinson.

Now, common sense dictates that if you do not want your boy to struggle with masculinity or gender issues, perhaps it is not a good idea to name him “Vicky,” or Susan, or Linda. In this BBC video interview, Robinson calls his father’s decision to give him a girl’s name “a terrible thing to do to a boy child.” 

Indeed, but it gets worse.

 Homosexual “conservative” pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote sympathetically aboug “gay” male couples’ ‘understanding of the need for extramarital [sexual] outlets” and suggested such “honesty” and “flexibility” could “undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”

____________________________

Emphasis in bold is added to all quotations below: 

‘Extramarital Outlets’ and Homosexual ‘Monogamy’

“The mutual nurturing and sexual expressiveness of many lesbian relationships, the solidity and space of many adult gay male relationships, are qualities sometimes lacking in more rote, heterosexual couplings.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality, p. 202, (1995)

“Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-03.

Radically Alter an ‘Archaic Institution’

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

Ending Marriage’s ‘Sexist Trappings’

“[E]nlarging the [marital] concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new….Extending the right to marry to gay people — that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage — can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.”
–the late homosexual activist Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco’s Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

Transform the Definition of Family 

“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

‘Being Queer Means Transforming the Very Fabric of Society’ 

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
–Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

New Gay Model: Monogamy Not Essential for Marriage

“Gay life, like black culture, might even provide models and materials for rethinking family life and improving family law. I will now chart some ways in which this might be so — in particular drawing on the distinctive experience and ideals of gay male couples.

“Take sex. Traditionally, a commitment to monogamy — to the extent that it was not simply an adjunct of property law, a vehicle for guaranteeing property rights and succession — was the chief mode of sacrifice imposed upon or adopted by married couples as a means of showing their sacred valuing of their relation. But gay men have realized that while couples may choose to restrict sexual activity in order to show their love for each other, it is not necessary for this purpose; there are many other ways to manifest and ritualize commitment. And so monogamy (it appears) is not an essential component of love and marriage. The authors of “The Male Couple” found that:

[T]he majority of [gay male] couples, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners [but also believe] that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.

Both because marital sacrifices must be voluntary to be meaningful and because sexual exclusivity is not essential to marital commitment, the law should not impose monogamy on married couples. And indeed, half the states have decriminalized adultery.
–Homosexual academic Richard D. Mohr, The Case for Gay Marriage, 9 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POLICY 215, 233 (1995)

Churches: Homophobic, Antiquated Backwaters

“We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings in psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set up the mightier draw of science and public opinion…. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” homosexual magazine The Guide, November 1987.

Make Anti-Gays Look Nasty

“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” The Guide (homosexual) magazine, November 1987.

I was greatly encouraged by the many letters AFTAH received responding to 14-year-old “Joe,” who wrote via our website explaining that he is a gay atheist who hates Americans For Truth. I will be passing on all the notes to Joe, and publishing a few, including this from suburban Chicago writer Laurie Higgins (emphasis added)–Peter L.:
_________________________________________________________________________
 
Dear Joe,
 
What you have said, what you feel, and what you think break my heart. All reveal the deception that our culture has taught our children. Mr. LaBarbera doesn’t hate you or homosexuals. And even though I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not moral, I do not hate you either.
 
I no more hate you than I hate those who engage in other behaviors that I consider immoral, and those would include me, my husband, and my children. Every single human who has ever lived, save one, engages in immoral behavior. Our task is figuring out what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. You have appropriated one philosophical perspective on what determines right and wrong: you believe that if a behavior doesn’t directly harm another person physically, then it’s moral. But some of the greatest thinkers who have ever lived define morality differently. Defining morality as you have would permit adult consensual incest, lying, selfishness, polyamory, and apotemnophilia.
 
Neither Mr. LaBarbera nor I believe that homosexuals choose the feelings they have anymore than those who are attracted to adolescents or children or their siblings choose their powerful attractions, or those married men who are attracted to other women choose those attractions, or those who are powerfully drawn toward gambling or alcohol or drugs choose those attractions. We do believe, however, that those who experience same-sex attraction choose how they will respond to their desires, just as I choose how to respond to my selfish, or greedy, or angry, or lustful desires. Some in society tell you that acting on same-sex impulses is legitimate and good. They have lied to you, and it is a cruel lie.
 
You ask why someone would care about the sexual practices of others. I care that others are teaching children lies. I care that others are teaching kids that homosexual conduct is morally equivalent to heterosexual conduct when it’s not. I care because that lie carries devastating emotional, psychological, physical, and spiritual consequences. I care because I care about truth and its impact on the lives of individuals and on society.
 
Joe, homosexuals do have the full complement of civil rights.  They even have marital rights. Every homosexual can get married; they simply can’t redefine marriage. They can’t eliminate the criterion of complementarity, just as those who “love” children cannot eliminate the minimum age criterion, and those who love relatives cannot eliminate the consanguinity requirement, and those who love multiple partners cannot eliminate the binary requirement. The fact that homosexuals cannot redefine the institution does not mean the institution is unavailable to them.
 
As to your comment that homosexuals can think logically: You’re absolutely right, Joe; you were created in the image and likeness of God, and, therefore, you possess the gift of reason. It is not just religious traditions that inform us that homosexual conduct is wrong. Natural law tells us that. You are heterosexual, Joe. All humans are. Species cannot procreate homosexually. Our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex. They are exquisitely designed for heterosex. Desires do not define identity. And the male sex drive is so powerful, it can be misdirected to a whole host of inappropriate objects and activities. Don’t allow the unbidden presence of desires, impulses, or attractions define who you are. None of us should.
 
Please, do not dismiss arguments that emerge from religious tradition. Speaking as one who deeply values logic, evidence, and intellectual argument, I can attest that Christianity holds up intellectually. And remember, atheism too is based on faith. You are no more able to prove the non-existence of God than I am able to prove unequivocally God’s existence. But search out some “apologetics.” I would recommend the website of Ravi Zacharias. And read about the conversions of atheists like Mortimer Adler who was a famous University of Chicago philosopher, or British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, or more recently the physicist Anthony Flew. And it’s not just the Christian Bible that teaches that homosexuality is wrong; the Old Testament does also, as does the Koran.
 
By the way, there are no scientific studies that prove that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, most scientists, even those who identify as gay and whose studies are most often cited, believe that at most, biology may play a part in desire, but that environmental influences are significant. In addition, the presence of biological influences tells us precisely nothing about morality.
 
Joe, there is freedom, truth, beauty, joy, and peace available to you. Seek them relentlessly, and know this, except for a very few fringe wackos, those who hold traditional beliefs do not hate you. On the contrary, they grieve for the lies you’ve been taught and desire nothing but that which is truly good for you.
 
If you would like to talk more, and your parents are agreeable to us talking, I would love nothing more. You can contact me through AFTAH. 
 
Laurie

NOTE: we have already received many responses to this item that was e-mailed out by AFTAH on New Year’s Eve. We will be posting some of these responses: 

Please read the letter below, which we received Saturday from a 14-year-old atheist boy who hates Americans For Truth.  Nothing makes my heart grieve more than a confused young person rejecting God and embracing an unnatural sexual identity (“gayness”) built around ungodly behavior that up until a few decades ago was viewed as so immoral that it wasn’t even discussed in public.  I don’t know Joe, but I can safely say that his tragic life choice was made easier by the organized homosexual movement.  This is the saddest end result of “gay pride” — corrupting the hearts and minds of young people and helping to put them in grave physical, emotional and spiritual danger:

________________________

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Website:
From: Joe [name withheld]  
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:52 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Homosexuality.
________________________

To put it bluntly, I probably hate you more than anything else in the world. Like many others, I believe you have the moral equivalent of a modern-day KKK: hating people for being different and having opposing beliefs. I am a liberal, gay, atheistic 14 year old boy, and I believe I have more morals than you. You are a disgrace to humanity. I\’m sorry that I am being so childish in my \”argument\” which is turning out like hate mail, but I just cannot put in words how much I disagree with you. Homosexuals should have rights because they are humans, capable of thinking logically and making decisions, just like you and me. And why does what other people do sexually concern you at all? I want you to tell me, from a non-religious standpoint, exactly how homosexuals are hurting you? Because if they are not negatively affecting you in any way (which is what a suspect) then you should have no problem with them. Most of America knows the truth about homosexuality, which is that it is a preference, not a choice, just like a favorite food to put it in simple terms. You like it, because it pleases you, not because you choose to like a certain food. I\’m sorry that this message has stretched so long, and I would like a reply and a rebuttal to my claims. USING LOGIC, not religion. -Joe [————-]
________________________

I have yet to respond to young Joe, but let us all pray for him.  If you would like to send a message to Joe, send it to AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net, and I will pass it on to him.  But I won’t be relaying any notes from our homosexual activist detractors, for it looks like Joe is getting enough bad advice already from the “gay” side. 

I hope and pray that the God whom Joe rejects will intervene in his life to take him off this course that can only lead to destruction: “There is a way that seems right to a man [or in this case, a boy], but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 16:25)  Yes, there is a “culture war,” and a spiritual one, and lives hang in the balance.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

www.americansfortruth.org

Thank you to all who have stood with Americans For Truth in 2007.  Your generosity keeps us in the battle for Truth!

By Peter LaBarbera 

NOTE TO READERS: When we made our initial comments on our story, we were relying on what turned out to be a sloppy and erroneous Chicago Tribune story (see bottom), and we had not seen the Chicago Sun Times story on this crime, which conflicts with the Tribune account. I apologize for reporting this so quickly and for foolishly relying on a single Chicago media story for accurate news (not a good idea).

Here are the essential details from the Sun-Times article, “Alleged gay advance cited in rape” (emphasis added):

Felipe Rivera, 43, is charged with a hate crime as well as aggravated criminal sexual assault and other offenses, said a spokesman for the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. If convicted, he could face more than 30 years in prison, a source said.

 

According to a spokesman for Cicero police, Rivera and the victim encountered each other at a party Friday night in the 1200 block of South 50th Avenue.

 

“Mr. Rivera got upset apparently because he believed the victim, No. 1, didn’t respond to a female and then, No. 2, somehow winked at him — made what he perceived as a sexual advance,” said Cicero police spokesman Dan Proft.

 

30 years possible
Rivera then punched the victim in the face, Proft said, and was asked to leave the party. He allegedly waited outside for the victim. According to Rivera, the victim, 37, then propositioned Rivera for a sex act — a claim the victim denies, Proft said.

 

Rivera followed the victim to the outer staircase of a basement apartment, where he removed the victim’s pants and raped him, authorities said. Afterward, Rivera punched the victim in the head, leaving him semi-conscious, then inserted a metal broom handle in the victim’s rectum, sources said.

 

Rivera gave police these details in a videotaped statement, according to Proft. When asked why he did it, Rivera allegedly said it was “because he hates f – – – – – s, and this is what they get,” according to Proft.

 

A spokesman for the state’s attorney said Rivera also shouted “sexually oriented derogatory comments” during the rape.

 

After the alleged attack, Rivera went to his mother’s residence nearby. Because she has an order of protection against him, she called the police, Proft said.

I just spoke with Cicero spokesman Dan Proft, who says that the Sun-Times story is the most accurate he’s read.

In our original commentary (below), I relied on the Trib account which appears to have mangled Proft’s statement so as to assert that the violent assailant propositioned his male victim for sex. According to the Sun-Times, however, the assailant claims that his victim did the propositioning (which the victim denies actually happened). 

By Mike Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine 

That is what Coach Dave Daubenmire calls them.  He is referring to Christian leaders who choose Herod over John.  I imagine them in the crowd gathered around John the Baptist out in the wilderness.  They are the ones that started quaking when John stopped focusing on urging individuals to repent and be baptized.  They became fearful when John turned his preaching on the political elites.  The Bible doesn’t record every conversation John had, of course.  It does hit the highlights, however.  I think John probably made a lot of powerful people uncomfortable during his short time of ministry.  We only know about King Herod.

John confronted Herod.  He didn’t hold anything back.  Herod was a Roman tyrant who literally had the legal right to kill whoever he pleased.  John’s society recognized no individual rights that superseded Herod’s tyrannical power, unlike our great country.  The [Christian Civic League of Maine] is exactly like John the Baptist in the moment he publicly condemned Herod for sleeping with his brother’s wife.  There are some in the crowd who are less pleased with us than they are afraid of Herod….

…I used to care what people like this pastor think.  I’m teaching myself to care more about what God thinks. 

I used to think that Chicago historian Martin Marty is right.  He claimed the worst sin is to be mean.  While most Christians worked on fine tuning “nice” Satan made sodomy a virtue.  Imagine it.  The once great Church of England is splitting down the middle over nonsense.  I moved on from Martin Marty to Thomas Oden.  He is a scholar who wrote a book called “Requiem.”  He urges men like me to become known as “young fogeys” for refusing to be intimidated by the sexual orientation mob.

I’m now convinced that nice is merely an excuse to avoid controversy and righteous indignation.  Christians don’t need to get angry about what is being done to their families, children, grandchildren and neighborhoods.  They just need to get Biblical.  They need to take a stand for common sense.  They need to invite everyone to be honest about sexual morality.  Most people think sodomy is perverted, disgusting and miserable — and worse.  Fine by me.  We should encourage everyone who believes that to say it….

Click HERE to read Heath’s entire column on “Evanjellyfish”

Americans For Truth received the following two e-mails via our website after our recent posts mentioning Matt Barber’s firing by Allstate in 2005. Note the crude, concocted e-mail address in the first hate message, which we redacted below (AFTAH regularly gets emails from cowardly, “insult-and-run” activists who block the reply to their message):

From: Illinois Resident [mailto:wouldntyouliketoknow@[f–k]you.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:40 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Bigots

 

I read through your hate speech filled website and saw that some bigot was fired for gay bashing. GOOD! Let this send a message!

________________________

—–Original Message—–
From: Non scrivetemi [mailto:nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:41 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net; peterlabarbera@comcast.net
Subject: Matt Barber DESERVED to be FIRED by ALLSTATE INSURANCE

 

Allstate is a reputable company, Matt Barber is an IDIOT.
Peter please quit distorting the Truth!

 Steve Meriwether of San Francisco’s pro-homosexual “Most Holy Redeemer” church.

This open letter below (emphasis added) was delivered to San Francisco Archbishop Niederauer on October 29.

It is a request to publicly excommunicate the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and other similar groups and to remove the pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish, Fr. Steve Meriwether.

(If you’re not familiar with this event, please take a few minutes to check these links: http://americansfortruth.com/news/more-san-francisco-nuttiness-catholic-archbishop-gives-communion-to-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence.html (Americans For Truth was the first to report that Archbishop Niederauer gave Communion to members of the blasphemous, drag-queen-“nuns” group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence; he later apologized);
http://www.qdomine.com/Morality_pages/MHR.htm and http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/10/bill-oreilly-di.html
 
or Google “Niederauer Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”  or “Niederauer homosexual” for pages and pages of documents, photographs, videos, interviews and commentary about this event that occurred 3 weeks ago and is STILL being reported on from Canada to Germany.  The latest: an interview with an openly “gay” member of Most Holy Redeemer Parish Council with other historical facts here:
http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/san_francisco_article.htm

Please call the archbishop’s office (don’t talk to a voicemail – make your request to a human). Fax and email them asking the archbishop to excommunicate these groups and their members and to replace Fr. Steve Meriwether as pastor:

Contact info here:
Phone:   Chancery Office: 415 614 5500
Lori Miller, Secretary; John North, Pastoral Ministry xt 5504; Barbara Lordi, Pastoral Outreach ext. 5506 and Maury Healy, Dir. of Communications.

 

email : (with a personal note)
info@sfarchdiocese.org
 
Also fax to: 415 565 3679

Please consider forwarding to the nuncio at nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org, and Pope Benedict XVI at benedictxvi@vatican.va

____________________________
 
Open Letter delivered to the archbishop, Oct 29, 2007

St. Joseph’s Men Society 

15732 Los Gatos Blvd. #303, Los Gatos, California 95032

October 29, 2007

Most Reverend George H. Niederauer 
Archbishop of San Francisco
One Peter Yorke Way
San Francisco, CA 94109-6602

Your Excellency: 

During your first visit to Most Holy Redeemer parish on Sunday October 7th, 2007, you gave Our Lord in Holy Communion to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (SPI) a homosexual activist group widely known for its attacks upon and mockery of the Catholic Faith.  Your subsequent October 11th apology notes that you did not recognize these “strangely dressed persons” as members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and that these individuals should not have received Holy Communion, nor should the minister of the Church administer the Sacrament to them. 

First: For the sake of their souls and the souls of those Catholics worldwide who have been scandalized, your office requires you to state this formally, according to the teachings of the Church.