Tag Archives: gay agenda

LGBT Lawyers Sue Pastor for “Crime Against Humanity”

By Wendy Wright

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A law firm known for publicity-seeking tactics is suing an American minister in U.S. Federal Court because he criticized homosexuality in Uganda.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) says pastor and attorney Scott Lively committed “persecution,” a “crime against humanity” as defined in the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court.

CRR filed the case in the U.S. on behalf of a Ugandan advocacy group called Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and are using the Alien Tort Claims Act, an old and very controversial U.S. statute that allows foreigners to sue in U.S. court for violations of international law committed outside the U.S.

SMUG charges that Lively “worked extensively with key anti-gay political and religious leaders in Uganda with the overall purpose and objective of depriving LGBTI persons of their fundamental rights” by defeating anti-discrimination legislation on sexual orientation and gender identity, and introducing a bill heightening penalties against homosexuality.

CRR spokesman Pamela Spees told the New York Times, “This is not just based on his speech. It’s based on his conduct.” The lawsuit claims that Lively “traveled to Uganda twice,” “spoke at a ‘Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda,’” “held an all-day pastors’ conference allowing only invited media or guests,” “addressed students at Nkumbe University on the ‘Dangers of the Culture of Porn,’” “led a service at the Ugandan Christian University,” “met with the Kampala City Council” and other activities the group considers objectionable and legally actionable.

SMUG claims their members have suffered “severe deprivations” of “freedom of expression, association, assembly and the press; . . . to be free from attacks upon one’s honor and reputation,” and fears harassment, arbitrary arrest and physical harm, including death.

The complaint begins with the bombshell claim that the bludgeoning murder of SMUG member David Kato was somehow connected to Lively’s work in Uganda. Not mentioned is that a man Kato bailed out of jail confessed to killing him for making unwanted sexual demands. He’s been sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Ugandan legislators introduced a bill criminalizing the promotion of homosexuality. It included the death penalty for a person with AIDS engaging in homosexual sex with a minor or disabled person, or if the perpetrator is a “serial offender.” The bill has not passed.

Lively was disappointed the legislation “is so harsh.” He advocates for remedies focused on rehabilitation, not punishment.

Lively called the accusations against him “absurd.” “Implying that my speech and writings about homosexuality overpowered the intelligence and independence of the entire government and population of Uganda, bending them to my supposedly nefarious will is a breathtakingly insulting and racist premise.”

CRR describes itself as “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.” CRR was co-founded by William Kunstler, a self-described “radical lawyer” famous for representing sometimes violent political and social activists. The law firm uses the courts to advance the activists’ work. Its strategy is “Success without victory,” that is, choosing cases not to win but to generate media or bolster the activists.

[Blogger note: Such a case might set a precedent for foreign people’s whose constitutional rights has been undermined or destroyed by the conduct of NGOs and groups like CRR who use the foreign courts for nullify legislation of their approval.]

Wendy Wright is interim executive director of the Catholic Familiy and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). Her article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Navy Sued For Records Aimed at Exposing Deception of Congress Over Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promoting a strong national defense, announced Tuesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit seeks to obtain records that the plaintiffs believe will show intentional deception by the Pentagon to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Prompting the lawsuit was a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality in the military (Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).

Erin E. Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, explained the reason for the lawsuit, “The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Plaintiffs Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). Plaintiffs are seeking information to determine the extent to which the Department of the Navy engaged in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.

The Plaintiffs are also seeking the information to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy fulfilled the requirements mandated by Congress for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to become valid law. Congress required specific regulations and procedures be implemented to protect national security prior to the repeal taking effect. [See lawsuit here]

CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that concentrates on military issues. CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, has done extensive reporting on and analysis of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and the consequences of repealing that law.

Plaintiffs first submitted their FOIA requests on August 31, 2011 requesting all records, documents and e-mails concerning the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shared among the military Chiefs of Staff, various combatant commanders, and political appointees at the Pentagon and White House. To date, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide any of the requested documents.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “ Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.”

Contrary to media headlines based on selective misleading leaks about the survey, the actual survey numbers show that nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units, and among Marine combat arms the number was 67%, thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

Concerns of Senior Military Leaders Disregarded

During 2010 hearings prior to the rushed lame-duck vote for repeal, both the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway, and the incoming Commandant, General James Amos, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

However, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific Command, was publicly reprimanded by both Gates and Mullen for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

An Anti-Christian Policy

Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian, the Pentagon brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. The Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery to go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Moreover, recognizing that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Pentagon claimed that their objections, based upon deeply held religious beliefs, could be overcome through education and training. Ongoing controversies about the Defense Department’s attempts to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act by authorizing same-sex “ceremonies,” which are simulated marriages on military bases, remain unresolved. Documents obtained by this FOIA lawsuit will improve public understanding of what happened during the lame-duck Congress in 2010, and what must be done to repair the damage.

Political Leaders Protect Marriage and Children from Homosexual/Transsexual Demands

By Wendy Wright

(New York – C-FAM) Resistance to the United States’ new foreign policy priority is emerging around the world for the same reasons it has been rejected within the U.S. Political leaders are holding the line against homosexual/transsexual demands when it comes to marriage and teaching children about homosexual/transsexual activity.

Leaders from the United Nations, UK and European Union have joined the U.S. in exerting pressure on countries to promote the homosexual agenda. Rather than advocating for human rights to encompass people identifying as homosexual, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s slogan of “gay rights are human rights” attempts to transform special preferences for homosexual persons into human rights.

Recently, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated his opposition to homosexual marriage because it opens “the door to adoption.” France’s highest court has ruled that a marriage between two men was unlawful.

“In troubled times, when our society needs to keep its bearings, I don’t think that it is necessary to blur the image of this essential institution that is marriage,” Sarkozy told a newspaper. While there may be good parents who are homosexual, “they do not lead me to think that it is necessary to inscribe in law a new definition of family.”

In Russia, St. Petersburg became the latest city to pass legislation protecting schoolchildren by barring public actions that promote homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism and pedophilia to minors.

Vitaly Milonov, who initiated the measure, explained, “The bill doesn’t touch upon the human rights of the LGBT community. It deals purely with the direct propaganda among minors. Such propaganda is banned on the federal level and we as a regional body are only imposing sanctions. We are only talking about propaganda as this information about sexual deviations affects our children.”

Orthodox Christian leaders asked lawmakers to bar the dissemination of “gay propaganda” among minors explaining, “We do not collect signatures in order to [harm] them. If they want to be like this, let them live.” A regional governor said the ban would “serve for the good of public morals.”

The bill describes homosexual/transsexual propaganda as “able to harm the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including [forming] misconceptions about the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional marriage. ” Also illegal are actions or information that would normalize “intimate relationships between adults and minors.”

The U.S. and the UK criticized the bill when it was introduced last November. The Russian response was to increase the fines to ten times higher than before the U.S and the U.K. intervened. A Russian Foreign Ministry Commissioner defended the legislation, noting that it is designed to protect children.

Homosexual/transsexual activists plan to complain to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Human Rights Watch Europe called the bill a “blatant attack on freedom of expression.”

Last week the ECHR convicted four people in Sweden of “hate speech” for distributing literature prodding high school students to question homosexual/transsexual propaganda taught in schools. The Court said the leaflets were offensive to homosexuals and thus not protected by the freedom of expression guaranteed in the European Convention of Human Rights.

A bill in Tennessee would limit instruction in elementary or middle school to “age-appropriate natural human reproduction science.” The sponsor explained, “homosexuals don’t naturally reproduce.”

Wendy Wright is Interim Executive Director of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM and is republished here with permission.

Clash of Competing Rights Claims Raises Free Speech Concerns: Analysis

By Piero Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK C-FAM) Tension between free speech advocacy and efforts to curb “hate speech” has arisen over the past year as the result of recent initiatives at the United Nations (UN) and by the Obama administration.

Freedom of opinion and expression have long been recognized as fundamental, and a recent UN Human Rights Committee “General Comment” affirmed these twin liberties as “the foundation stone for every free and democratic society.”

Yet while heralding these bedrock rights, others are seeking to curtail criticism of homosexual behavior and shelter certain religions from “defamation.” Such efforts also butt against religious liberty and conscience rights, two other bright constellations in the firmament of fundamental rights.

The tension became evident in a 2010 initiative by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which sought to reconcile broad free speech protections found in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with article 20, which calls upon governments to limit “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Though the ICCPR is largely a charter of “negative rights” protecting liberties from government intrusion, article 20 is anomalous, calling for affirmative governmental action. Concern over Article 20’s compatibility with domestic constitutional guarantees caused the United States (US) and other western governments to opt out from this particular article at the time of the ICCPR’s ratification.

Critics noted that in calling for dialogue on the interplay between free speech and “hate speech”, the OCHCR conspicuously misquoted the text of Article 20, stating that it banned “incitement of hatred” – a lowered standard that could cause provocative speech which did not incite violence to be banned. Such concern is not merely theoretical, as a number of Western nations once tolerant of the free exchange of ideas have enacted strictures curbing non-violent speech deemed critical of certain groups and individuals.

For example, Germany’s criminal code punishes “insults” – defined as “an illegal attack on the honor of another person by intentionally showing disrespect or no respect at all” – with up to one year’s imprisonment.

Fortunately, free-speech stalwarts such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, pushed back, and the General Comment on ICCPR article 19 issued last September is largely protective of free expression while giving short shrift to article 20.

How such interpretations work in practice is another matter, however. “Workshops” on the interplay of the two articles have taken place in a number of cities around the world, including Vienna and Santiago de Chile. At the latter, most panelists sought to import “sexual orientation,” a concept absent from the ICCPR, as a category equivalent to the specified categories of nationality, race, and religion.

The cheerleading at the Santiago meeting in favor of “sexual orientation” speech restrictions by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Heiner Bielfeldt, was especially disconcerting. It indicated lack of awareness or concern over heavy-handed state restrictions on legitimate religion-based criticism of homosexual behavior by the rapporteur tasked with speaking out in defense of religious liberties.

Attempts to punish religious speech include Sweden’s criminal prosecution of a Pentecostal pastor for a sermon he gave in church critical of homosexual behavior and human rights proceedings in Canada against a pastor who had written a letter to a newspaper critical of the “homosexual agenda” and its threat to “innocent children and youth.” A human rights panel held the cleric to have violated a provincial statute that prohibited speech “likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt” due to the “sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

Global concern over the issue has been heightened by the Obama administration’s initiative, announced last month, that would make promotion of the rights of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” persons a high US foreign policy priority. US embassies across the globe are now tasked with advocating repeal of anti-sodomy laws in nations which have them and with monitoring groups, including religious groups, deemed opposed to this agenda.

Piero A. Tozzi is a Senior Fellow at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Obama Elevates LGBT as U.S. Foreign Policy Priority

By Wendy Wright

(GENEVA – C-FAM)   All federal agencies dealing with U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance must now promote lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. This new priority puts U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with religious freedom.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced President Obama’s sweeping directive to UN diplomats in Geneva last week. Along with the full-force of the U.S. government, a Global Equality Fund will equip foreign LGBT groups to agitate within countries.

Every federal agency engaged overseas, and “other agencies as the President may designate,” is directed to “combat the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct abroad,” assist LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, leverage aid to advance LGBT nondiscrimination, respond swiftly to abuses of LGBT persons abroad, enlist international organizations “in the fight,” and report on progress.

A State Department official said, “We are not just having people . . . whose full-time job it is to occupy ourselves with concerns of human rights, but also people whose daily grind is, most of the time, spent on different things.”

This elevates LGBT above every other people group, including those persecuted for religious beliefs, promoting democracy and human rights, ethnic minorities, and women.

Asked by the Friday Fax if any other minority has this status, the State Department did not respond.

By one account, only nine countries do not discriminate in some way against LGBT individuals, such as donating blood or “higher age of consent laws.”

Obama’s directive comes as Nigeria debates a bill to protect marriage. The Catholic Medical Association of Nigeria denounced “the coordinated ferocity” by foreign governments and international groups “browbeating” legislators to adopt laws that are premised on “dubious science and ethical mischief.”

Reacting to Obama’s order, Oliver Kisaka with the National Council of Churches of Kenya told the CS Monitor, “God did not make a mistake; being gay is that person’s own perspective. Those who live as gays need help to live right and we should not be supporting them to live in a wrong reality.

“Society should reach out to gays and transgender people to help them out of their situation. They have not ceased to be God’s children and no one is a gone case.”

Clinton equated religious and cultural views on sexuality and gender identity with “violent practices toward women like honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation.”

Tina Ramirez of the Washington DC–based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty told the Friday Fax, “The Administration is sticking its head in the sand when it comes to the conflict between gay rights and religious freedom. The failure of either the President or the Secretary of State to articulate how the international LGBT rights initiative will interact with religious conscientious objection is a recipe for conflict between the two. No one disagrees with Secretary Clinton’s truism that religious freedom doesn’t protect religiously-motivated violence against anyone. But the real issue, that neither the President nor Secretary Clinton talked about, is what happens when the LGBT initiative conflicts with sincere conscientious objection. Religious liberty is a fundamental human right protected in the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and countless other human rights instruments; the Administration seems to be treating it as an afterthought.”

Wendy Wright is Managing Editor of FridayFax, internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

US State Department Steps Up Promotion of Homosexual Agenda

By Lauren Funk

The Obama administration has made it repeatedly clear that one of their priorities is the promotion of the homosexual agenda both in the US and around the world. The latest salvo in this campaign is the just-announced policy that the applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and passports would use the designations of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2,” instead of “Mother” and “Father.”

The State Department said, “The improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” Homosexual activists celebrated the change. Such groups have been pushing for the gender neutralization of passport applications and other official document for years, launching online petitions and lobbying government officials.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, played a key role in achieving the gender neutralization of the passport application. She applauded the change last week, while assuring her supporters online that the FEC would continue to lobby for similar modifications in other identification and medical forms. The gender-neutralization of such documents is one of the goals of the Blueprint for Positive Change, a comprehensive homosexual -rights agenda presented to the Obama Administration in 2008.

In response to rising criticism from conservatives and pro-family groups, last weekend Secretary Clinton modified the previously announced change so that the application would include “mother or parent 1” and “father or parent 2.” Clinton’s press secretary reported that she was unaware of the complete removal of mother and father from the application, and decided to include both terms so that the application would be as “inclusive and informative” as possible.

Clinton has made the advancement of homosexual rights a personal priority, prompting Change.org to name her the most “pro-LGTB” Secretary of State ever. In 2009, Clinton announced that the partners of homosexual diplomats would be eligible for spousal benefits, a move that rest of the US government promptly replicated. Additionally, the State Department recently eased the regulations regarding change of gender procedures on passport applications, making it easier to verify a sex change. Both of these changes were goals of the Blueprint of Action for Positive Change.

The US’s homosexual-rights agenda has also made its way into the halls of the United Nations. Last summer, Clinton instructed the US diplomatic corps to prioritize reporting homosexual rights violations and related issues in their correspondences. The US also muscled through a reversal in a UN committee’s rejection of a homosexual group’s application for official UN recognition. What’s more, US-UN Ambassador Susan Rice recently pushed the UN to include the language of sexual orientation in a General Assembly resolution, a resolution from which the US abstained when it came time to vote. Days earlier, Ambassador Rice pledged to a Human Rights Day event that the US would continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda in international law and policy.

This article was originally published in Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute publication FridayFax, January 13, 2011.

Liberals Memorial Weekend Assault On America’s Military

On the eve of the weekend that we honor members of the military who have served and those who have fallen to protect our nation, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to use our military for social engineering to benefit the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) political agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi only gave Member of Congress a total of 10 minutes to debate the overturning of a 1993 law that bans homosexuals from openly serving in the military. Congress spends more debate time naming Post Offices than they gave to this historic policy shift in how our military functions.

This will fundamentally change our military – yet Pelosi thought it was so unimportant that she only gave five minutes for supporters of the ban and five minutes to the opponents of the ban to debate this issue. This is an outrage of immense proportions! Now the Senate will attempt to ram the repeal through when they return in two weeks.

The liberal controlled House of Representatives added an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that overturns the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Isn’t our military worth more than 10 minutes of debate? Not to liberals.

The failure to permit an honest debate on this amendment is an affront to every soldier, sailor and marine who has ever fought and died to protect this nation from foreign and domestic threats.

The rush to pass this measure is evidence that liberals know their time is short to impose LGBT social engineering upon our military before the mid-term election. The overturning of the 1993 ban is simply Obama’s way of paying back his LGBT supporters who helped get him elected. It has nothing to do with concern for military readiness, morale or unit cohesion.

The men and women we honor this weekend didn’t give their lives so that a zero tolerance program could be instituted in the Armed Forces to silence criticism of homosexual conduct – or to force our military into sensitivity training sessions to affirm gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender sexual behaviors. Yet, this is apparently what our leftist “Representatives” think.

Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law banning homosexuals in the military. The 1993 law states “there is no constitutional right to serve,” and the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” In living conditions offering little or no privacy, homosexuality presents an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion—qualities essential for combat readiness.

Legalizing homosexual conduct in the military will inevitably lead to the destruction of our all-volunteer forces and potentially bring back the draft. Why? Because heterosexual warriors and patriots know instinctively that homosexual sex is abnormal and threatens to create all sorts of problems within the Armed Forces.

In 2008, the Military Times reported the results of a poll regarding lifting the ban on gays in the military. It showed that 10% of our military will not re-enlist or extend their service if the ban is overturned; another 14% said they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service. In essence, this could result in a loss of up to 323,000 men and women from the service.

This loss of hundreds of thousands of patriotic soldiers will threaten our national security, yet liberals don’t care.

This Memorial Day let’s remember our fallen soldiers, but also remember that our current soldiers face a domestic enemy in our Congress and among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activist groups who seek to exploit the military for their political gain.

We must put an end to the liberal-gay dominance of our Congress this November. The future of our national security depends on it. Remember this: Our soldiers can’t defend themselves in the political realm. We must do it for them. They’re willing to die for you; are you willing to protect them from social engineering by LGBT zealots?

Source: Traditional Values Coalition, email newsletter, May 28, 2010.