The website also defines a “christohet supremacist” as “a person who speaks or acts according to the belief that people who claim to follow their version of Christianity, and all heterosexuals, have more value to humanity than people who don’t say they follow that version, and all Queers. Variations include het supremacist or heterosexist, Christian supremacist and religious supremacist.”
The website asked visitors to supply personal information about its targets, including: their home, office and church addresses; favorite hangouts; family members; phone numbers; automobile license plate numbers; and “just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose.”
If you are Christian, and you preach biblical truth about homosexuality, watch your back. The pro-homo agenda folks are gunning for you.
Fortunately, even for us Christians, there is still a Second Amendment.
Sodomy defenders judge GOP senator as ‘extremist’
Gary Morella is a research mathematician at Penn State University and a Catholic pro-family advocate who has written extensively on sexual morality and life issues, frequently challenging liberal ethos at the university. We offer excerpts of the following WorldNetDaily.com article about the homosexual lobby’s attack on Sen. Rick Santorum— interspersed with Morella’s commentary, which appears in red:
'Gays' Attack Senator for 'Mainstream' View
Transcript shows high court seriously considering his argument
Posted April 23, 2003
Full story at WND.com
By Art Moore, © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Homosexual activists and Democrats are urging Republicans to remove Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., from his leadership position for remarks about a Supreme Court case, but a transcript of questions asked during oral arguments indicate justices share his constitutional concerns.
The rights groups contend Santorum's comments in an Associated Press interview about a case challenging the constitutionality of a Texas sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas, were "disparaging an entire group of Americans."...
Santorum told the AP: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [homosexual] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
[Gary Morella comments: Santorum is right, and need not make apologies to anyone—least of all pro-homosexual groups. Because their arguments are irrational, these groups must resort to the demonization of their opponents. They use intimidation tactics to shut up all those who dare oppose their agenda of "confirming vice as virtue" under force of law. When it comes to National Defense and security, maybe America should start looking inward. Because the very liberating freedoms we are fighting for in the world arena are being not so subtly stolen from us by a PC crowd that demands that society make them comfortable with their vices. ]
That assertion was a major part of the debate, attorney Jordan Lorence told WorldNetDaily. Legal counsel from both sides essentially were asked by justices: If we find a right to engage in private, consensual sodomy, are we also creating a right to bigamy?
[Morella: Just where does the promotion of aberrant behavior as a civil right end? The entire premise is ludicrous, as anarchy is the inevitable result. Good states are classically defined by their promotion of societal common good as referenced in Aristotle's Politics. How can the legitimization of behavior that is so filthy it cannot be described in mixed company without conveying the most revolting feelings be considered "tending toward the common good"? The pro-sodomy lobby takes advantage of this very revulsion for homosexual acts, knowing full well that many individuals do not have the stomach for rightly describing them publicly.
[This is the consequence of conceding the field to militant homosexual advocates who politically bastardize the language. They tell us that sodomy is "gay," and that "sexual perversion" somehow evolved to "sexual deviance," then to "sexual preference," and finally to "sexual orientation"—an evolution necessary to anesthetize the public as to what is really going on. The final "evolved" state, "sexual orientation," has been proven to be a lie many times over. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever indicating that an orientation to homosexual acts is innate and final. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, with the absence of a "gay" gene admitted by homosexual researchers, and the success of reparative (ex-“gay”) therapy admitted by representatives from the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.
[Even if there were a "gay" gene, does that make homosexuality's aberrant behavior any less so? There have been genetic arguments made for alcoholism, adultery (promiscuity) and serial killing. Certainly, no one would argue for the acceptability of such ruinous behavior just because it's "in our genes."
[The slippery slope that Sen. Santorum argues regarding "what's next" is a logical question. ]
"This is mainstream stuff," said Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Arizona. "This is part of the debate on this case." ...
[T]he Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based homosexual rights organization, joined several Pennsylvania groups in calling for Republicans to remove Santorum from his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the party's number three post.
[Morella: The immediate response to militant pro-homosexual organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign should be the following:
We do not recognize the legitimacy of your promotion of proven changeable, aberrant behavior in the name of "special rights" nor in "civil rights"—the latter applying to innate, immutable characteristics such as ethnicity and skin color—or constitutionally protected religious freedoms.]
"These remarks certainly do not reflect the tone of compassionate conservatism espoused by President Bush," said John Partain, president of the Philadelphia chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. "He's out of step with mainstream Republicans. He's aligning himself with the fringe right-wing extremists of the party."
[Morella: Militant homosexual advocates need to look in the mirror before accusing anyone of being on the fringe. Homosexual journals and publications have promoted de facto child sexual abuse under the guise of "intergenerational intimacy"—where the authors tell parents that they should welcome the "loving" pedophile into their homes.
[And how is standing up for the promotion of societal common good being extremist, in view of the considerable evidence that sodomy brings with it many serious physical and psychological consequences? It is common knowledge that the main reservoir for HIV/AIDS in America remains with the homosexual community, per the consistent statistics kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for years.
[To be compassionate does not mean lying to individuals about the consequences of their aberrant behavior. Integral to the definition of compassion is a desire to alleviate the cause of the distress. To confirm an individual in his/her vice is the opposite of compassion. Why is that truth so hard to see? Because "compassion"—like the word "gay"—has been redefined by militant homosexual advocates to mean confirming, not alleviating, the distress.]
Yesterday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also called for Santorum to step down from his leadership position.
[Morella: The continued hypocrisy of Sens. [Tom] Daschle and [John] Kerry, who call themselves Catholic, is glaring in their demand that fellow Catholic Santorum step down. The church in this country should speak out in defense of politicians like Santorum who recognize that it is not enough to follow one's conscience. The conscience must be informed in accordance with the teachings of the Faith, especially the eternal truths of the Natural Law. ]
"They are trying to demonize one side of a major court decision," Lorence said of the opposition.
"I can't think of a time that that's ever happened before," he said. "It's one thing to be critical, to say, 'I disagree, I think the law should be upheld.' But they are saying it is morally wrong to make the argument that Texas made or to ask the questions the justices did. That, to me, is very chilling."
Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said the quote was accurate "only in the context related specifically to the right to privacy in the Supreme Court case," The Washington Post reported. The senator, she said, "has no problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals."
But the activist groups insisted Santorum's remarks are comparable to comments by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), which forced him to resign as majority leader in December.
"For the second time in a matter of months, we see a senior Republican leader in the Senate disparaging an entire group of Americans," said Human Rights Campaign spokesman David Smith. "While we welcome his spokeswoman's clarification that he has no problem with gay people, it's analogous to saying, 'I have no problem with Jewish people or black people, I just don't think they should be equal under the law.'"
[Morella: To equate immutable, innate characteristics and constitutionally protected religious freedoms with sodomy is insane.]
...Lorence asked: "If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas, does that mean the majority of Supreme Court justices should step down? If they go the other way, are people not allowed to criticize the Supreme Court?"
'Right to privacy'
Defenders of the Texas sodomy law have insisted attorneys for Lawrence want the high court to expand the "right of privacy" used as the foundation of the controversial 1973 abortion decision, thereby establishing a constitutional right to practice homosexual sex.
[Morella: Again, what's next, a constitutional right to bestiality? After all, the pervert [bestialist] in question, I am sure, will ensure that his despicable acts are performed in private—which makes them OK, as privacy trumps all, right? No matter that the allowance of the private act wounds society severely. And can you imagine the gall of homosexual activists denouncing the analogy to incest because that behavior is “wrong” and “unhealthy”? Fifty years ago, until the perverted homosexual researcher Alfred Kinsey came along, homosexual acts were unspeakable. Advocates for the unnatural and unhealthy act of sodomy have no basis upon which to declare other perversions as immoral.
[Also, did you ever notice that when it comes to sexual hedonism, the only “choice” allowed is for sexual gratification? Certainly, the "pro-choice" disciples could care less about the baby's choice to survive—he is the one party who is never allowed a choice before being brutally killed by abortion.
[What is about to happen in the Supreme Court regarding the Texas decision for/against acts of sodomy is comparable to Roe v. Wade. That horrendous mistake must not be repeated. Sadly, we must remember that we're dealing with a court which, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, incredibly said that every individual can define his own universe with applicable laws made to his choosing. His choice can take place without any consideration for the inevitable collision with his neighbors’ equally relevant universe. The author of that decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy) somehow calls himself a Catholic. ]
Texas attorney Kelly Shackleford, who wrote a brief on behalf of 70 Texas lawmakers, contends a high court establishment of such a right would have "massive implications," jeopardizing, if not overturning, thousands of laws that have a definition of marriage embedded in them, from tax laws to custody laws.
Ultimately, this case is about establishing same-sex “marriage,” he asserts.
"If you don't have a law that says a man and woman can do something and a man and man can't, then every marriage law is unconstitutional," Shackleford told WND earlier this year.
During the March 26 session for Lawrence v. Texas, attorney Smith of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund argued for the sodomy law to be struck down on the basis of a "right to privacy" and equal protection under the law.
Smith told the justices: "There's no legitimate and rational justification under the Equal Protection Clause for a law that regulates forms of sexual intimacy that are permitted in the State only for same-sex couples, thereby creating a kind of a second-class citizenship to that group of people."
The transcript shows Supreme Court justices took seriously the argument that overturning the sodomy law could threaten the constitutionality of other laws that govern behavior. One justice, noting that society always has made moral judgments in its laws, asked Smith, "Why is this different from bigamy?"
[Morella: It has been said that we cannot legislate morality. This is a neat trick since practically every law worth its salt on the books de facto assumes a distinct difference between right and wrong behavior. Unfortunately, in America, the PC crowd would have us buy into the morally relativistic premise that there is no such thing as right or wrong. "I'm OK; you're OK" rules. It matters not that being "OK" leads to the destruction of civilization as we know it. ]
Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org
Young noted that she herself struggles with bipolar disorder and, “it’s a hellish disease. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”
Let's see...Ross' excuse was that he's bipolar. Now, Young premptively is afflicted with the same mental illness.