Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) has declared that passage of the LGBTQ “Equality Act”–essentially adding homosexuality and transgenderism as the bases for new federal “civil rights”–a top priority in 2019.

Click HERE to listen to today’s interview between Jim Schneider of VCY America’s “Crosstalk” and AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera. The program description is below. Read Prof. Robert Gagnon’s article on the evangelical groups’ compromise in support of federal LGBTQ rights HERE.

____________________

Evangelical Groups Adopt LGBT Compromise

Posted: 18 Dec 2018 02:58 PM PST

Peace in Our Time? Apparently some evangelical “leaders” are taking their cues from 20th-Century British appeaser Neville Chamberlain in seeking to work out an unbiblical compromise with the powerful homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby–supposedly to preserve their religious freedoms. No Christian should support the creation of “rights” based on sinful sexual behaviors that are changeable and do not define a person.

“Jesus didn’t formulate the Golden Rule to provide special legal protections for, and promotion of, immoral behavior.”

*      *      *

“These Evangelical appeasers have the ‘innocent as doves’ demeanor down but not the ‘wise as serpents’ part.”— Prof. Robert Gagnon

Take Action: Contact the National Association of Evangelicals at their DC office at 202-479-0815 (or online HERE), and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities HERE (Phone — choose option #8: 202-546-8713). Voice your opposition to their unbiblical compromise that would create and recognize federal “rights” based on immoral homosexual and transgender lifestyles.

Related info:

• NAE compromise proposal (obtained by WORLD mag): [HERE]
• WORLD magazine article, “Boards Back SOGI Compromise,“
• Ryan Anderson’s article in Daily Signal: “Misguided Proposal From Christian Leaders and LGBT Activists Is Anything but ‘Fairness for All’”

_______________________

Folks, the largely Christian social conservative movement never seems to learn that by constantly “playing defense” and backing up in the face of a hyper-aggressive LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) movement, we will always lose. Now a group of “leaders” from two evangelical associations are getting in the game, floating a disastrous and cowardly compromise with “gay” and “transgender” activists that if enacted, will only help advance the normalization of sex-and-gender perversion in the United States. Prof. Robert Gagnon, probably the world’s leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality, ably responds to their misguided proposal below. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera 

_____________________________

Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Response to Evangelical Leaders’ Compromise with LGBT Activists

Written by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 12-17-18, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute

In a blog post titled “‘Fairness For All’: Smart Politics, Or A Sellout?” (Dec. 13), Rod Dreher, senior editor at The American Conservative, reports a defense of the recent decision by the boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to support “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “federal anti-discrimination law in exchange for religious liberty guarantees written into the same law.” The defense was made by “a prominent conservative Evangelical political strategist who works at both the national and state levels” and whom Dreher calls “Smith.” Rod himself professes to be unsure about the whole subject; an uncertainty that appears to be fueled by his usual belief that voting Republican changes nothing.

The substance of the defense is essentially born of naïve utilitarianism, overlaid with a veneer of high rhetoric about standing up for the “rights” of LGBTQ persons. In effect: We are losing the battle over human sexuality in the culture so, while we still can, let’s cut a deal with proponents of all things “gay” and “transgender” that gives us something in return. They will (allegedly) recognize our good will and then become favorably disposed to protect our “religious liberties” in both the short- and long-term.

The problem with the argument is that it amounts to a policy of appeasement with sexual extremists who advocate (from our perspective) a grossly immoral sexual policy and have never exhibited a “we’ll stop here approach” before. It is an appeasement that requires us to sacrifice our basic principles to get some statutory assurance that can easily be retracted by legislative vote after a full-court indoctrination surge, predicated on the new law, overwhelms remaining resistance. In addition, it is an appeasement that provides only the narrowest of exemptions for religious institutions while throwing under the bus the vast majority of Christians who work and live outside those institutions.