Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) has a strong pro-homosexual voting record, and voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, among other anti-life votes.

By Laurie Higgins

With all the recent bad press about Mark Kirk’s prevaricating about his military record and his weaselly responses when confronted by the media about his prevarications, multiple people have made the argument that as bad as he is, it’s better to have a Republican elected than a Democrat. In the past I shared that view.  I have never voted for a third-party candidate or refused to vote—until now.  I have always been firmly committed to voting for the Republican candidate even if I had to hold my nose while voting—until now. Is there a limit to how bad a Republican candidate can get before Republicans will stand on principle? I’m beginning to think that Republicans have a limitless capacity for capitulation.

This is my thinking:

I think that it will be easier for a good Republican candidate to unseat Alexi Giannoulias in six years than it will be for a good Republican to unseat a semi-skillful incumbent like Mark Kirk. If Kirk gets in office, I fear we’ll have him for decades. I don’t think that’s the case with Giannoulias. The loss of the Senate seat to Giannoulias would provide Illinois Republicans six years to find a truly worthy Republican candidate. No matter which position Republicans take, it’s a crapshoot. We’re all speculating. Giannoulias could be an effective senator and, therefore, very difficult to unseat. Or he could be incompetent and, therefore, easy to unseat. With Kirk, we know we’re getting a skillful and experienced legislator who will be difficult to unseat.

Marc Ambinder, political editor of The Atlantic, writes this about the prospect of a Kirk win:

If Kirk wins the seat, he’s instantaneously the biggest name in the GOP.  The seat, you’ll remember, was Barack Obama’s seat. Kirk would be bigger than Massachusetts’ lion killer Scott Brown, bigger than the presidential candidates for a while, and he can be a kingmaker.

He’ll have a huge donor list, he’ll own Obama’s seat, and then he’s faced with a choice. Does he moderate himself truly, work in a bipartisan way and be a leader in the Senate.  Or, does he go with immediate ego gratification and position himself to be on the vice presidential short list for 2012? If Kirk doesn’t want to run again in 2016, he can bank on the fact that he’ll either be on the veep short-list then, or he’ll be a bona fide presidential contender in his own right.(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/mark-kirk-the-next-scott-brown/56598/)

There is too much at stake to risk letting Kirk get into the Senate. I’m willing to pay a relatively small price now by letting Giannoulias get elected rather than pay a huge price in a few years by letting Kirk get his nose in the Senate tent.

In addition to Kirk’s wholly indefensible embellishment of his military record, there is the significant matter of his sexual predilections, about which, thanks to homosexual activist, blogger, and “outer” extraordinaire Mike Rogers, there is less doubt. Behind the scenes, many people on both sides of the political aisle have long claimed that Kirk is homosexual, but it took Rogers to give wider exposure and greater credibility to those rumors.

Rogers, who “outed” Kirk last week, has the dubious honor of being reliable when it comes to “outing” politicians. For those unfamiliar with Rogers, click here to see him when he appeared on the View a year ago to promote the “outing” documentary Outrage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOJwVmFozs&feature=player_embedded .

Why did he “out” Kirk now? Rogers “outed” him now because Kirk did not vote with the “gay” lobby on the recent vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” As long as Kirk toed the “gay” line—which he has consistently done—his secret was safe with political lefties. A thrill goes up the legs of homosexualists whenever the “Republican” Kirk endorses yet one more assault on sexual norms and families. They will tolerate many things, including both open and secret sexual deviance, as long as they get the votes they need. According to that paradigm of virtue, Mike Rogers, there is one thing they will not, however, tolerate, and that is “hypocrisy.”

Here’s yet more skin-crawling information on Kirk’s voting record:

Kirk voted against the ban on the barbaric procedure euphemistically called “partial birth” abortion; he voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions; he voted against making it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of another a crime; but he voted in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

For those Republicans who foolishly dismiss the “social” issues and character, there’s always Kirks infamous defense and fiscal votes. Kirk stunned his constituents by first voting against the troop surge in Iraq and then voting for cap and trade, which Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence describes as “the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change.”

Some Illinois Republicans have described my decision not to vote for Kirk as “misguided,” arguing that with Giannoulias’ youth, we risk having him in the Senate for decades. Well, Kirk too could serve for decades. While my Republican compatriots think even six years of Giannoulias is too high a price to pay, it’s a price I am willing to pay in the hope of preventing a two or three-decade reign by a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and deceitful “Republican.” It’s a price I am willing to pay to prevent Kirk from getting a shot at the White House.

These same Republicans argue that the Republican Party desperately needs Kirk’s vote, but what are the crucial upcoming legislative issues for which we desperately need a win and for which we can rely on Kirk for the right vote? We know we won’t get the right votes on any legislation pertaining to the rights of the unborn or the family. Yes, Kirk threw conservatives a bone on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but as we all know that vote was an anomaly, perhaps motivated by his need to appease social conservatives. And as his vote for cap and trade and against the troop surge prove, we can’t rely on his votes on fiscal or defense issues.

These same Republicans reveal their own deformed moral sensibility when they express more moral outrage about my refusal to nose-hold than they do about Kirk’s support for the slaughter of the unborn. They argue that the battleground was the primary, and now it’s time to rally around the Republican candidate. Some say that in six years, we can try to field a better candidate to run against Kirk in the primary. Really? Do they actually believe that in six years any Republican challenger to an incumbent Senator Kirk would have a shot? Do they actually think the Republican Party would support a challenge to an incumbent Republican senator?

For years I’ve heard Republican strategists and party operatives tell voters that it’s imperative that we do what we’re told, that for the good of the party and the state and the nation, we must vote for the Republican candidate no matter how offensive his positions and no matter how unethical his personal life. And we do. Like obsequious little minions, shamed by being labeled “naïve” “ignorant” or “misguided,” we support with our money and our votes any lousy candidate the Republican establishment parades before us. What have we gotten in the bargain? Mark Kirk.

The IL Republican party and the national Republican Party keep telling us to be good little team players and go along. Not me—not any longer. It strikes me that there is an important difference between justifiable political compromises and wholesale selling out. Voting for Kirk represents the latter. I think that if all the disgruntled IL Republicans would band together and say with their votes “no more. We’re mad as h*** and we’re not gonna take it any more”—even if that means we’re stuck with Giannoulias for six years—the powers-that-be might finally get the message. They might then busy themselves with the important task of finding good candidates.

The right to vote is a precious right, and I’m not willing to squander it on someone who refuses to protect the unborn, who refuses to defend sexual morality, and who, in his desperate and unholy quest to advance those views, lies to Illinoisans. For once, I’m following my moral principles rather than the political dictates of those who have given us Mark Kirk.

Laurie Higgins is a writer based in Deerfield, Illinois.

Mark Kirk has a radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-agenda voting record, so most conservatives are not enthused about him becoming the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Dear RFFV Readers,

We’re back! With this post by my friend Laurie Higgins, Republicans for Family Values (www.rffv.org) is reactivating after a long silence — just in time for primary elections. The case of Congressman Mark Kirk running as a Republican for U.S. Senate in Illinois is a troubling one: here’s a fellow who voted AGAINST banning partial-birth abortion — and then rationalized the vote to party VIPs and activists as one necessitated by his liberal district (suburbs north of Chicago).

I don’t know which is more pathetic: Kirk’s pandering to pro-abortion feminists, leading him to miss an opportunity to criminalize de facto infanticide; or his sorry attempt to justify it politically. I realize most pseudo-compassionate left-wingers are heartless when it comes to the defenseless unborn, but is there really any congressional district so liberal that it necessitates protecting the gruesome practice of piercing the skull of a late-term unborn baby fully capable of living outside the womb so as to end its (inconvenient) life? Shame on you, Mark!

On the “gay” front, Mr. “Real Integrity” (a Kirk radio ad extols him as a “leader with real integrity”) is one of the most pro-homosexual-agenda of all the Republican legislators on Capitol Hill. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most powerful homosexual lobby group, Kirk has the following rankings for the last three Congresses (voting with HRC’s misguided agenda) : 85%, 575 and 88% in the 110th, 109th and 108th Congresses, respectively.

In contrast, fellow Illinois Congressman Peter Roskam, also a Republican, has an HRC ranking of zero percent in the 110th Congress (his debut term).

This may explain why radical homosexual “outers” like Mike Rogers are in no hurry to talk about Kirk’s sexual proclivities, since they focus more on secretly homosexual Republicans who have a strong “pro-family” voting record. Of course, as Higgins writes, this would influence a “Senator Kirk” to continue voting pro-homosexual while the “gay” pressure ratchets up for him to reverse his few pro-family votes on the issue as his profile grows in Washington.

Anyway, with Republicans like Kirk in the nation’s capital, who needs Democrats? And Higgins is correct: if Kirk has a personal homosexual issue in his life — I would call it a problem — don’t the voters have a right to know given his radically pro-homosexual voting record ? You bet they do. – Peter LaBarbera, www.RepublicansForFamilyValues.com

_______________________________________________

Mark Kirk’s weaselly denial is very Clintonesque

Posted: January 08, 2010

By Laurie Higgins

I taped the Channel 5 news last night [Jan 7], and was mesmerized by Mark Kirk’s performance in the brief excerpt Channel 5 aired in which he decidedly did not deny that he’s homosexual. He used quintessential weasel words in his non-denial, which should infuriate all Illinoisans who believe that engaging in volitional homosexual acts constitutes a character issue and one which very likely influences the policy decisions of legislators.

Here’s Kirk’s exact statement: “It’s ironic that I was there fighting for his rights while he was using his free speech rights to say things which were untrue.”

This is a clever (or not so clever) way of appearing to deny the claim that he is homosexual while never actually denying the claim. He simply referred to “things that were untrue,” which could be any number of things that Andy Martin said.

It’s the same kind of weaselly non-denial as the one issued by Kirk’s campaign in which they said Andy Martin’s ad was untrue, which, of course, is entirely different from saying that Kirk is not homosexual. If at some later time, Kirk and his disciples are compelled to acknowledge that he is, indeed, homosexual, this squishy, expansive marshmallow rhetoric provides the cover they need. It allows Kirk and company to say, for example, that the” untrue things” were Martin’s claim that Raymond True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Kirk seems to be cut from the same weasel cloth as the weasel who infamously said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” and “that depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

The indignant huffing and puffing of pundits and politicians on both the left and the right about Martin’s public question strikes me as both amusing and utterly hypocritical. Many of these self-same arbiters of social decorum have been talking about Kirk’s alleged homosexuality for years, and then in high dudgeon they moralistically condemn Martin for publicly discussing the same topic. Granted, due to a history of unsavory actions, Martin makes an easy target, but how about a modicum of truth from the press and our elected officials.

I first heard the Kirk rumor over a year ago from a good friend who worked closely with a current U.S. congresswoman. I was told that it is “well-known secret that Mark Kirk is gay.” It seems that the only people who haven’t heard this well-known secret are those who are asked to vote for him.

The “sexual orientation” of our legislators is relevant for it tells us precisely what they hold to be true about the nature and morality of homosexuality which will likely shape their policy decisions. Those who claim “sexual orientation” is irrelevant are usually those who hold the arguable theories that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Kirk’s distinctly un-Republican voting record on issues related to homosexuality could be explained by his philosophical views and sexual proclivities.

And concealed homosexuality is relevant because it opens up legislators to blackmail: vote a certain way or be outed.

I have heard that Kirk was asked directly by reporters if he is “gay” to which he said “no.” Due, however to some of his and his campaign’s equivocal answers, and the pervasiveness and longevity of the rumors, and the overwhelming disincentives Kirk has to an admission that he is homosexual, the wannabe lawyer in me would be more reassured if Kirk were to say in a written statement “I have never engaged in homosexual activity.” I know, I know, very McCarthy-esque. But after Bill Clinton’s deceit and Mark Foley’s deceit and Larry Craig’s deceit, we can never be too circumspect or precise. One thing the Republican Party does not need is another sex scandal-or another vote that affirms the social and political goals of homosexuals.

Some of Kirk’s evasive, obfuscatory statements have not only intensified questions about his sexual proclivities, but left me with serious doubts about his capacity for unequivocal, unambiguous truth-telling.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of the Division of School Advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute. This article represents her views as an individual and not necessarily those of IFI.

Republicans For Family Values  — News Release
www.rffv.org

November 3, 2008; contact: Peter LaBarbera: rffv@comcast.net

CHICAGO – Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (RFFV), said Barack Obama’s ideological devotion to both the homosexual and abortion agendas should weigh more heavily than non-moral issues as committed Christians weigh their vote tomorrow.

RFFV has published an essay, “Obama is FOR Gay Marriage even as He’s Against it,” to illustrate the Democratic candidate’s double-speak on “same-sex marriage.” Obama has promised homosexual activists that he would work to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This issue has been largely ignored by the media, and John McCain has given Obama a pass on it.

“The Obama spin machine has done a con job on evangelicals and Catholics,” LaBarbera said. “Obama courts Christians by saying he supports traditional marriage. Meanwhile, he does everything he can to support the homosexual ‘marriage’ agenda – including his promise to “gay” activists to repeal DOMA.

“Similarly, Obama courts people of faith by pledging to ‘reduce the number of abortions.’ Yet he opposed an Illinois bill to give human rights to babies ‘born alive’ through botched abortions. And he blasted a Supreme Court ruling upholding a law banning heinous partial-birth abortions (infanticide).

“Talk about ‘audacity’: here’s a politician who lectures America about reducing abortions — when he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eviscerate pro-life laws across the country, thus increasing the number of abortions.

“I don’t know what’s worse – palling around with an unrepentant American terrorist or palling around with Planned Parenthood,” LaBarbera said, urging pro-life voters to watch the YouTube video of Obama’s friendly 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM.

Regarding Obama’s pro-homosexual agenda, RFFV reveals that:

• Obama congratulated homosexual activists for “getting married” at a San Francisco Democratic gay event;
• Though Obama says he “personally” opposes “gay marriage,” he supports identical federal “civil unions,” saying, “I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license.” This has led Obama to support a bill to allow homosexual partners to immigrate to the United States just like married spouses;
• Obama promises homosexual activists that he will use the bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoptions – which would place children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design.

By Peter LaBarbera

As a social conservative, one of the most troubling aspects of this presidential campaign has been the media’s (and John McCain’s) failure to flesh out Barack Obama’s “audacious” doublespeak on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

Here’s the question Obama was lucky enough to have never been asked in this campaign: What does it mean to say you support traditional marriage (one man, one woman) – when you do so much to advance the pro-“gay marriage” cause, including denouncing state marriage-protection amendments like Prop 8 in California as “discriminatory and divisive”?

Did you know that Obama has promised homosexual activists that he will work to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, 85-14, with Sen. Biden joining 28 other Democrats in voting yes. How liberal is Obama’s anti-DOMA scheme? Hillary Clinton, a trusted gay ally, pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

Neither McCain nor Gov. Palin has made an issue of Obama’s extreme anti-DOMA sop to the homosexual crowd even though they had a clear opening. (One 2007 Quinnipiac poll revealed that a homosexual group’s endorsement of a candidate would be a net electoral loser among voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.) The result is that Obama’s DOMA Destruction Plan never surfaced in the debates and barely in the major media.

The Democratic spin on marriage has fooled a lot of voters. If you watched the presidential debates, including the Saddleback Church event with Pastor Rick Warren, you might have concluded that Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, pretty much agree with McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin on same-sex “marriage.”

That is a precisely what the savvy strategists at the Obama/Biden campaign want you to think, as they strive to hide their candidates’ radical pro-gay agenda and portray themselves as reasonable moderates on this wedge issue. Truth is, the gulf between the tickets is the difference between saying you support marriage and actually doing something to protect it – and NOT favoring policies like repealing DOMA that are completely in line with the homosexual activists’ goal of radically redefining this sacred institution.

McCain is a strong DOMA supporter who will embrace a Federal Marriage Amendment if he sees activist judges forcing “gay marriage” on the states. Obama, on the other hand, went from supporting DOMA in 2004 to calling it “abhorrent” as part of his radical promise to homosexual groups to overturn it. Obama is setting the stage for nationalizing “same-sex “marriage” (perhaps under the guise of “civil unions”), while reporters dutifully provide him cover by repeating his alleged opposition to same.

If only one major media reporter would ask Sen. Obama: how can you say you support traditional marriage and yet “abhor” a popular law (DOMA) that helps states to preserve it? Alas, we mere mortals have to choose sides – and most politicians flip and then flop — but apparently Obama, The One, is allowed to embrace both sides of an issue simultaneously and get away with it.

Consider the following Obama policies and rhetoric and ask yourself if this sounds like a man who supports traditional marriage:

• Obama congratulated homosexual activists for “getting married” at a San Francisco Democratic gay event;
• Though Obama says he “personally” opposes “gay marriage,” he creates a distinction without a difference by supporting federal “civil unions.” Obama told the nation’s leading homoseuxal lobby group: “I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license.” Interestingly, this stance has led Obama to support a bill to allow homosexual partners to immigrate to the United States just like married spouses;
• Obama promises gay activists that he will use the bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children. Thus Americans may have to endure the absurd spectacle of a President Obama using the prestige of the White House to defend placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design;
• Obama said he “respects” the California supreme court’s 4-3 decision earlier this year forcing “gay marriage” on that state, even though it wiped out a previous statewide ballot vote by Californians to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman;
• Obama denounced the Federal Marriage Amendment as a mere “political ploy”;
• Obama dismisses a key passage in the New Testament Book of Romans and distorts Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to justify his pro-homosexuality agenda.

Considering the above, is it asking too much of the media to stop repeating the distortion that Obama and Biden support traditional marriage?

Appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres show, Sen. Biden eagerly told Ellen, a “gay-marriage” activist, that if he were a California voter he would vote “no” on Prop 8 in California. How strange, since Prop 8 does nothing but reinstate the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. (It does not affect same-sex “domestic partners,” who already receive the same benefits as married couples under California law.) Of course, earlier, in the vice-presidential debate, Biden claimed to oppose gay “marriage” — creating the false impression that he and Palin essentially agree on the same-sex-”marriage” question.

John McCain blew it by not calling out his opponents on their “gay marriage” deception and their plans to do in DOMA. All he needed to say was that the Illinois Senator doesn’t have the guts to tell the truth — that Obama’s “personal” opposition to “gay marriage” is meaningless because his pro-gay pledges would greatly advance the spread of homosexual “marriage” across the land. With friends like Obama and Biden, McCain could have said, the beleaguered institution of marriage really doesn’t need enemies.
_________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) and president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (for identification purposes only).

A Special Report for Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org)

Note: RFFV has excerpted the text in question on pages 222-224 of Barack Obama’s book, The Adacity of Hope, here:  “Obama’s ‘Audacity of Hope’ Passage Downplays ‘Obscure Line in Romans’ Proscribing Homosexual Sex.” The “obscure line” in the New Testament Book of Romans to which Obama refers is evidently this (all links are to the New International Version of the Bible):

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

________________________________

Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu

October 23, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1]  He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2]  These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).

On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).

On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.

The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]

The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness 
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.

What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.

Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.

What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.

Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity.

Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:

• Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses even on relatively minor matters such as tithing, to say nothing of a foundational law in sexual ethics; and his view of the Old Testament as inviolable Scripture, which Scripture was absolutely opposed to man-male intercourse.
• The fact that the man who baptized Jesus, John the Baptist, was beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws in the case of the adult-incestuous union between Herod Antipas and a woman who was both the ex-wife of his half-brother Philip and the daughter of another half-brother. The rejection of homosexual practice in the same two chapters of Leviticus from which the incest laws stem (18 and 20) is the closest analogue to the incest laws inasmuch as both types of law’s reject sex between persons too much alike in embodied structures, whether in terms of kinship or in terms of gender.
• Early Judaism’s univocal opposition to all homosexual practice—no exceptions anywhere within many centuries of the life of Jesus.
• The early church’s united opposition to all homosexual practice. This completes the historical circle and underscores the absurdity of positing a homosexualist Jesus without analogue in his historical context: cut off from his Scripture, from the rest of early Judaism, from the man who baptized him, and from the church that emerged from his teachings.
• Jesus’ saying about the defiling effect of desires for various forms of sexual immoralities (porneiai, Mark 7:21-23), which distinguished matters of relative moral indifference such as food laws from matters of moral significance such as the sexual commands of his Bible and connected Jesus to the general view of what constitutes the worst forms of porneia in early Judaism (same-sex intercourse, incest, bestiality, adultery).
• Jesus’ affirmation of the Decalogue prohibition of adultery, which in early Judaism was treated as a rubric for the major sex laws of the Old Testament, including, prominently, the laws against homosexual practice.
• Jesus’ saying about Sodom which, understood in the light of Second Temple interpretations of Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15, with parallel text in Luke 10:10-12), included an indictment of Sodom for attempting to dishonor the integrity of the visitors’ masculinity by treating them as if they were the sexual counterparts to males.
• Jesus’ saying about not giving what is “holy” to the “dogs” (Matthew 7:6), an apparent allusion to Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and texts in 1-2 Kings that indict figures known as the qedeshim, self-designated “holy ones” identified as “dogs” in Deuteronomy for their attempt to erase their masculinity by serving as the passive-receptive partners in man-male intercourse.
• The fact that Jesus developed a sex ethic that had distinctive features not shared by the love commandment (love for everyone does not translate into having sex with everyone); reached out to tax collectors and sexual sinners while simultaneously intensifying God’s ethical demand in these areas; insisted that the adulterous woman stop sinning lest something worse happen to her (i.e., loss of eternal life; compare John 8:3-11 with John 5:14); appropriated the context of the “love your neighbor” command in Leviticus 19:18 by insisting on reproof as part of a full-orbed view of love (Luke 17:3-4; compare Leviticus 19:17: you shall reprove your neighbor lest you incur guilt for failing to warn him); and defined discipleship to him as taking up one’s cross, denying oneself, and losing one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25).

Conclusion
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]

Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.

___________________________

Endnotes:

1. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Crown, 2006), 222.

2. Cited in: Michael Foust, “Obama: Sermon on the Mount supports gay civil unions,” Baptist Press, March 3, 2008 (online: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532); Sarah Pulliam, “Obama Cites Sermon on the Mount for his Support of Civil Unions,” Christianity Today, Mar. 3, 2008 (online: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/obama_cites_ser.html).

3. Audacity of Hope, 222. Obama refers to a woman in a lesbian relationship who was hurt by his not going all the way to endorse “gay marriage”—a silly observation in retrospect since Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which he has called “abhorrent” [see RFFV article at http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/18/obama-calls-defense-of-marriage-act-doma-abhorrent-in-letter-to-chicago-gay-newspaper/] and whose main purpose is to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states), strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8 (which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman”), has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state, opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. To take such positions is obviously to support the foisting of “gay marriage” across the country. The only reason why Obama doesn’t say that he supports “gay marriage” is because it is not a popular position around the country and would make him look like the extremist that he is on homosexual issues. Yet even in his 2006 book he coyly stated that he wants “to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided” (an unwillingness that, at any rate, is nothing more than political expediency, opportunism, and pragmatism) and that his main reason for not coming out for “gay marriage” is that, “in the absence of any meaningful consensus, the heightened focus on marriage [is] a distraction from other attainable measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians” (ibid.). Translation: Obama will come out publicly for “gay marriage” just as soon as feels that he can do so without significant harm to his political aspirations, and not a day later. In the meantime, he will do everything possible to advance the ‘cause’ for “gay marriage” without declaring that he is for “gay marriage” itself.

4. The issues of hospital visitations or health insurance coverage are red herrings. Few hospitals today, if any, reject visitations by a limited circle of very close friends. No law has to be passed here affirming homosexual relationships as marriage equivalents. At most a law could be passed entitling a person in a hospital to name any person of their choosing, within a limited number, as someone entitled to full hospital visitations. The insurance coverage issue is invalid because homosexual unions, which are as immoral as adult-committed incestuous unions and more immoral than heterosexual polygamous unions, should have no greater claim than any close friendships between unrelated persons. Obviously it is not fiscally practical to extend insurance coverage to all one’s close friends. It is not violating any principle in the Sermon on the Mount, in spirit or letter, to take such stances.

___________________________

About the author

Robert Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon, 2001). The views expressed herein are Dr. Gagnon’s own and do not speak for Pittsburgh Theological Seminary as a whole. Gagnon came to PTS in the Fall of 1994 after a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. In addition to being the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.), Gagnon is co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality. In addition, he has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century.

For a partial curriculum vitae of Dr. Gagnon go HERE. To contact Dr. Gagnon send an e-mail to: gagnon@pts.edu or call 412-441-3304, ext. 2205 or 412-362-5610, ext. 2205. If you would like to be included on his mailing list and notified once a month or so regarding new materials on his website, e-mail Dr. Gagnon with the request. To view his superb website, go to www.robgagnon.net.

News Release; October 13, 2008

CONTACT/INTERVIEWS: Print, Radio, Web: Lynne Campbell or Shauna Whitlock 630-848-0750
office@specialguests.com

Television: Todd Bauman 512-868-8395; todd@specialguests.com  OR
Jerry McGlothlin 212-699-2518; jerry@specialguests.com

Over 325,000 USA churches, synagogues get new publication, ‘The Judeo-Christian View’

Vista, CA (Monday, October 13) – Over 325,000 rabbis, priests and pastors in every Jewish and Christian congregation in America have received the inaugural issue of The Judeo-Christian View by U.S. mail, according to the publisher of the new periodical. The launch edition deals with the volatile issues of religion, presidential politics, same-sex unions and “child sacrifice.” Signed by dozens of clerics who concur that homosexuality and partial birth abortion – plus related policies of U.S. Senator Barack Obama – are at odds with the ancient Biblical faiths, the first edition also went online during Yom Kippur (www.thejudeo-christianview.com) and is heading to another 5 million U.S. clerics, theologians and religious laity via e-mail as part of an ambitious subscription strategy.

Signatories of the ecumenical epistle — rabbis, pastors and theologians themselves — urge congregational leaders to boldly pray, preach and teach “the Judeo-Christian view” on same-sex intercourse while conveying to their flocks where Senators Obama and John McCain stand on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that shields states from forced legal recognition of gay unions from other states, such as Massachusetts and California. The “multimedia journal of opinion”– including a graphic DVD “video sermon” for congregations which cites both Jewish and Christian Bible translations — reports that Obama favors full repeal of DOMA and supports same-sex unions, while McCain takes the opposite stand.

The clerical signers come from Jewish, Roman Catholic, evangelical and “mainline” Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist, Anglican, African Methodist Episcopal, Brethren, Baptist and Congregational traditions. Among them: Rabbi Herzel Kranz from The Jewish Center of Silver Spring, Maryland; Rev. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Father Frank Pavone, Roman Catholic head of Priests for Life; Rev. Rosemary Schindler, San Francisco Board of the Anti-Defamation League and member of the Oscar Schindler family (of Schindler’s List); Dr. James M. Hutchens, Brigadier General and Deputy Chief of US Army Chaplains (Ret.); Rev. Ben Kinchlow, former co-host of The 700 Club; Dr. Bruce Fong, president, Michigan Theological Seminary; Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, Washington; Dr. Erwin Lutzer, senior pastor of Moody Memorial Church, Chicago; and Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America of Torah Loyal Jews and The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada.

On the issue of “child sacrifice,” The Judeo-Christian View springboards from Jewish Scriptures (eg., Leviticus 18:21, Jeremiah 32:35) into graphic verbal and video descriptions of partial birth abortion — a late-term procedure that involves piercing the skull and vacuuming the brain of the fetus, something McCain would ban, but Obama would allow. The rabbis and pastors contend that Obama’s policy to liberalize the practice, “combined with his effort to kill a bill that would protect babies who survive abortions, tends to gut the USA’s moral standing to condemn jihadic use of Muslim children as suicide bombers; both are horrific cases of child sacrifice that support a Culture of Death and demonstrate utter contempt for the Judeo-Christian Culture of Life.”

“We don’t advise political endorsements from pulpits, but we certainly do urge leaders to teach Jewish and Christian ethics while naming names of politicians who reject aspects of that foundation,” said Dr. O’Neal Dozier, General Publisher of the journal and pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, Florida. “It is a simple matter of full disclosure and informed consent. Shepherds must lead their sheep.” Dozier, an African American and former NFL linebacker for the Chicago Bears and New York Jets, said the new publication is unrelated to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal aid group that recently encouraged some pastors to make express political endorsements from their pulpits.

“We think our readers will appreciate the eloquence and courage of the interfaith signatories who say what so many others fear to say,” said Dozier. “Our model is predicated on free, opt-in online subscriptions and eventual advertising support. We hope to hook both the shepherds and their flocks on bold content that emphasizes the common values of Jews and Christians in the USA and globally. Threats to religious liberty and civil freedom here and around the world make it essential that we ‘People of the Book’ work closely together.” Dozier said the next issue will be The Judeo-Christian View on “The Free Exercise of Islamic Violence.”

Although juxtaposing Scripture with the two senators’ policies, the multiracial signers reject “any kind of hatred, mean-spiritedness or gay-bashing”, “bigotry against peaceful Muslims”, racism, or mistreatment of “young mothers pressured by boyfriends, parents or society to abort their pre-born infants.” Urging “love the sinner, hate the sin”, the signers encourage the same “attitude toward erring politicians as well.” The publication also reports that the two senators differ on integrating open gays into U.S. military barracks, and urges prayer for ballot measures in California, Florida and Arizona designed to uphold traditional monogamy.

The publication’s mission statement says it “is a multimedia journal of opinion for rabbis, priests pastors and religious lay leaders of Jewish, Christian or mixed heritage which seeks to research, report on and uphold the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Judeo-Christian foundations for Creator-endowed human rights, religious liberty, civil freedom and tolerance, respect for women, family structure, American exceptionalism and Western Civilization. We do not endorse, oppose, coordinate with or advocate on behalf of any politician or party; rather, we seek to uphold the Judeo-Christian View.”

LINKS: www.TheJudeo-ChristianView.com

Republicans For Family Values News Release, www.rffv.org

Barack Obama says he supports traditional marriage even as he actively supports the homosexual lobby’s campaign to spread “gay marriage” nationwide. Obama supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which running-mate Joe Biden supported and which was signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996. “Both Sides Barack” also opposes ALL statewide ballot measures to constitutionally preserve marriage as one-man, one-woman.

Contact: Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

NAPERVILLE, Illinois, Oct. 7, 2008 — GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin missed a golden opportunity Thursday in her debate with Joe Biden to expose Barack Obama’s double-speak on “gay marriage,” Republicans For Family Values founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

Obama claims to support traditional marriage even as he promises to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – signed into law by Bill Clinton – which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages.” Obama also opposes state Marriage Protection Amendments, and even promised gay activists that he would use the “bully pulpit” to promote same-sex adoptions.

After vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden, “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?” the Delaware senator answered that “in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.”

Seemingly contradicting that sweeping statement, Biden then said that he (like Obama) does not “support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

Responding to the same debate question, Palin strongly defended traditional marriage but failed to mention Obama’s extreme plan to overturn DOMA. Palin – who as Governor vetoed a bill denying benefits to homosexual state employees on the advice that it was unconstitutional — said granting same-sex benefits undermines marriage.

LaBarbera said Palin could have responded as follows:

“Gwen, I oppose all efforts to redefine traditional marriage, and to give marital benefits to unmarried and same-sex partners. I strongly support the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. Back then, Joe Biden – like John McCain — voted YES on DOMA, but now Biden’s running-mate, Barack Obama, wants to repeal this vital law.

“It’s time for some straight talk on defending marriage. ‘Both-Sides Barack’ claims to support traditional marriage – while simultaneously opposing DOMA and helping to defeat ballot measures in California, Florida and Arizona that would constitutionally protect marriage. If Obama gets his way and DOMA is overturned, it would open a Pandora’s box for judicial activists to spread same-sex ‘marriage’ across the nation. By the way, Obama is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton, who pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

“Sen. McCain and I want to preserve traditional marriage – and not just in name only like the Democrats. Obama and Biden want to give all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples – while still pretending that they are standing up for marriage as one-man, one-woman. What a sham.

“Obama even wants to use the ‘bully pulpit’ to promote homosexual adoption of children. That may appeal to liberal elitists but surely not to Main Street Americans, who – perhaps ‘clinging to their religion’ – know instinctively that every child deserves a mom AND a dad.”

For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.

Republicans For Family Values
www.rffv.org

September 2, 2008

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexual candidate ever to receive a major party’s nomination, Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

RFFV will be at the GOP convention to educate Republicans and the media on Obama’s extreme record on the two most important moral crises facing our nation: the killing of millions of innocent, unborn babies; and the campaign to use government to force Americans to support (and subsidize) homosexual behavior against their conscience.

“While pro-life advocates have done an outstanding job alerting the nation to Obama’s radical abortion record — he opposes banning heinous partial-birth abortions and opposed an Illinois bill recognizing human rights for babies “born alive” after botched abortions — Obama’s extreme pro-homosexual record remains largely hidden from the public.

The following are some examples of Obama’s pro-homosexual advocacy:

• Despite repeatedly professing his belief in traditional marriage, Obama’s stated public policies invariably promote the Homosexual Lobby’s “gay marriage” agenda. In other words, he claims to support marriage while simultaneously undermining it;
• For example, Obama promises to completely repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. If DOMA were to be repealed, states could be forced to recognize out-of-state “same-sex marriages” against their will. (Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.);
• Obama opposes the California marriage protection amendment (Prop 8), which would simply reinstate marriage as solely between a man and a woman – the very thing that the Illinois Senator SAYS he supports;
• Obama congratulated San Francisco Democratic homosexual activists on “getting married” – again showing his hypocrisy on marriage, and his old-politics habit of trying to appeal to both sides of this and other controversial issues at the same time;
• Obama pledged to homosexual activists to use the White House bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children – thus creating the potentially absurd spectacle of a U.S. President using the moral authority, power and prestige of the office to push for placing children in same-sex households that are motherless or fatherless by design;
• Obama distorts the Bible to justify his support of homosexuality and even used Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex unions.

America’s liberal media do not see Barack Obama’s radical pro-homosexual advocacy as a big deal, but to many millions of Americans, it may help solidify him as too liberal to be president. But will most Americans find out how strongly pro-homosexual Obama is?

In the interview for the following story by AFA’s OneNewsNow, I indicated that Barack Obama becomes the first major party’s presumptive presidential nominee to support homosexual “marriage.” Other Democratic presidential primary candidates in 2004 and this year — e.g., Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) in 2008 and Rev. Al Sharpton in 2004 — went even further than Obama in supporting full “gay marriage” rights, but they never got close to the Democratic nomination. — Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values

OneNewsNow reports (click HERE to listen to it online):

Obama — the Pro-’Gay’ Candidate

Jeff Johnson – OneNewsNow – 8/11/2008

According to at least one political analyst, Barack Obama has gone farther in supporting the homosexual agenda than any other presidential candidate [major party nominee] in history.

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans for Family Values, says a recent letter from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to a homosexual activist group confirms the extremism of his positions.

“He advocates the full repeal of DOMA, which goes farther than Hillary Clinton, who only recommended repealing part of the Defense of Marriage Act,” note LaBarbera. “He’s talking about opening up the military to homosexuality in a time of war. He’s talking about ‘gay’ adoption — putting children in homes that are intentionally fatherless or intentionally motherless, and using the White House bully pulpit to do that.”

On August 1, Obama responded to an inquiry from the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, pledging in a letter [click HERE for PDF] his support for “LGBT families” — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. He also congratulated homosexual couples that have recently “married” in California and Massachusetts.

According to LaBarbera, “that makes Obama…the first presidential candidate to actually support homosexual marriage. When you’re congratulating homosexuals for their supposed marriage, that’s being for and celebrating homosexual marriage,” he emphasizes.

LaBarbera hopes Obama’s candor about his positions will awaken conservatives who may be considering sitting out the November elections.

Says LaBarbera: “I think the central question of this election is this: Can Barack Obama take these extremely radical, pro-homosexual positions and, yet, still pull the wool over the eyes of enough American Evangelicals to win the election?”

McCain’s Human Rights Campaign 2006 Congressional Scorecard rating of 33 percent, though way too high from the perspective of most conservatives, is in stark contrast to Obama’s 89 out of 100 in the same HRC Scorecard. McCain voted against HRC on all but one key vote (he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment), while Obama voted with HRC on all but one vote (he did not support a pro-homosexual immigration bill).

Here is another way to compare the two senators’ records: Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of Obama’s co-sponsorship of pro-homosexual legislation backed by HRC, versus the same analysis for McCain.)

The fact that McCain’s spokesman reports (below) that the senator was “proud” to receive the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans — a group that crusades for homosexual “marriage” and routinely demonizes Christian conservatives just as all the other “gay” activist groups do– will stick in the craw of pro-family Republicans.

We eagerly wait to see if McCain smartly makes a serious play for pro-family, conservative voters in the wake of California’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, or opts instead to try to split the middle of the GOP’s “big tent” — perhaps even making bolder pro-homosexual overtures to court “moderates.” — Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from a Washington Blade report June 6 (emphasis added):

HRC Blasts McCain

HRC [Human Rights Campaign] on Tuesday released a compilation of Sen. John McCain’s statements and stances on gay issues. The five-page report called McCain an “opponent of equality” and “out of touch with the GLBT community.”

Lisa Schwartz, HRC’s legal director, said McCain as president would “act against the civil rights” that gay Americans seek, including “basic fairness” guarantees in the workplace.

“John McCain opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” she said. “He opposes protections for GLBT people so that they can go to work and lead the productive lives that they can and deserve to.”

Schwartz said McCain also opposes hate crimes legislation that is supported by an “overwhelming bulk” of Americans, plus many chiefs of police and state attorneys general.

“John McCain has had three opportunities to vote for hate crimes legislation that would protect people on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability,” she said. “And all three times, he’s voted against this legislation.”

Schwartz said McCain exhibits a “backward looking way of thinking that doesn’t reflect what most Americans believe about” these issues.

The report does not assign McCain a score. He received 33 of 100 on HRC’s most recent congressional scorecard. Obama scored 89 of 100.

Brian Rogers, a McCain campaign spokesperson, said in a statement to the Blade that McCain would continue to seek support from all Americans.

“Sen. McCain is seeking support from all Americans this November, based on his vision for moving America forward and his long record of treating people with respect and dignity,” Rogers said. “He was proud to receive an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans in his 2004 re-election campaign, and we’re confident he’ll win strong support this fall.”

Log Cabin has not yet announced whether it will endorse McCain.

www.rffv.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; rffv@comcast.net

Peter LaBarbera, founder of the website Republicans For Family Values (http://www.rffv.org/), issued the following statement today:

We who know his real record celebrate the news that the media’s favorite fake “conservative,” Mitt Romney, has abandoned his GOP presidential bid.  Congratulations to Mass Resistance’s Brian Camenker and all those who worked so hard to expose the truth about this man who, frankly, deceived many. Camenker’s report, “The Mitt Romney Deception,” was the linchpin of our campaign to expose Romney’s incredible string of flip-flops, anti-family sellouts and conveniently-timed conversions to the pro-family cause.

Said Camenker: “It’s quite astonishing that a rag-tag army of truth-tellers was able to take down the most well-funded and best organized political campaign in modern times — which was also in collusion with the “mainstream” conservative movement.”

Sadly, Brian is correct: the facts about Romney’s record that should have been reported by major “conservative” and pro-family leaders – such as his continued embrace of homosexual “special rights” laws and the $50 co-pay for abortion as a “benefit” resulting from his state health insurance plan — were left untold. Curiously, major conservative opinion-leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt – who readily bashed Mike Huckabee and John McCain for being too liberal — couldn’t bring themselves to expose the Real Romney.

Worse yet, some major Christian pro-family leaders failed in their role to inform the public about Romney’s social liberalism. Curiously, some embraced Romney even though his (post-pro-life-conversion) record on abortion paled in comparison to Mike Huckabee’s 100% pro-life record — and despite the fact that Romney’s (current) pro-homosexual-special-rights advocacy broke with decades of pro-family tradition. We know that some of these groups accepted large donations from Romney.

Right up to Super Tuesday, millions of Christians and conservatives – relying on talk radio and not hearing the truth from some major Christian organizations – were ignorant of Romney’s pro-homosexual, liberal record, demonstrating the lack of fair play of key conservative and pro-family leaders who — at the very least – should have exposed equally the warts of all the GOP contenders.

Politics is a tough business, but is it wrong to expect conservatives – and especially Christian leaders – to conduct it with more integrity?

This was a David vs. Goliath battle, and shows that truth is more powerful than fiction.  Now we must be vigilant as many of the same opinion-leaders will try to perpetuate their own myth by selling Romney as the “conservative” standard bearer waiting in the wings.

“I cannot support Mitt Romney.  His conversion to the pro-life position is suspect and his ongoing support of homosexual rights is not. His position on the deity of Christ does not align with orthodox Christianity and his positions on abortion and Gay rights does not align with orthodox Mormonism. He flip flops on the core values which drive Christian conservatives.”

Scarborough is supporting Mike Huckabee for president.