Sandy Rios 'Grieved To The Bone' That Gay Pundit May Destroy The Conservative Movement

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, spoke to American Family Association’s Sandy Rios on her talk show “Sandy Rios in the Morning” this week about the danger of growing support for gay rights within the conservative movement.

Rios began the segment by discussing her concern regarding Guy Benson, a conservative commentator for the Salem Media Group-owned who recently came out as gay in a footnote to his new book, End of Discussion, coauthored by Mary Katharine Ham. Rios is not the only AFA affiliate to speak out against Benson, as American Family Radio’s Bryan Fischer also issued a statement calling for Benson’s replacement. Rios played a clip in which Megyn Kelly of Fox News tells Guy Benson on her show, “You are in a safe place here.”

Rios, who hired Benson to be the producer of her previous radio program, responded to Benson’s announcement by sharing that “when he came out last week it was a great shock to me, and very sad, very sad.” For Rios, “it’s not just a matter of Guy coming out; it’s that they’re coming out endorsing gay marriage. That’s not the main part of their book but it’s, it’s a huge part of their book. They’re both mainstream conservative voices.” Rios warned that “even though Guy smiles and is very sweet, I fear for the repercussions of this.”

“Guy Benson’s professed homosexuality is not a mere footnote, Sandy,” LaBarbera added. “And that’s the temptation of the new, I guess I’d call it soulless, conservatism.” LaBarbera explained that identifying as a gay Christian “makes no more sense, Sandy, than someone being a so-called porn-using Christian, or substitute any other sexual sin, and that doesn’t make a positive identity.”

“And yet,” bemoaned LaBarbera, “look what Megyn Kelly says. She says ‘you’re so brave.’ Why is it brave? You can tell there’s an approving tone when you watch the interview. It’s just bizarre that we’ve come to this point that somebody professes homosexuality and a quote ‘gay’ identity, which puts a really sort of nice face on it, is brave and that’s a sign of being honest, when actually it’s merely publicly embracing a sin.”

Rios, seemingly personally offended by Kelly’s “safe place” remark, responded, “Where did that, I mean, what could have been unsafe? I mean, Guy worked with me for years, and he’s still, he may not be happy with me discussing this publicly, but he would not be surprised, and certainly when he was working with me he was in a safe place. My love for him has not changed, but I am grieved to the bone, that he is, that this is an issue in his life.”

Rios added that she felt compelled to speak because, from her perspective, Benson’s coming out will have “detrimental, terribly detrimental effects on what it means to be a Christian conservative because it muddies the lines. And it’s also, if Salem does not care about this, Salem the Christian communications company, and if Heritage, who is fighting gay marriage, doesn’t care that they’re premiering a book that, you know, the authors, Mary Kathrine Ham has her own big following, are supportive of gay marriage, the lines are just being erased.”

Rios, still reeling from her grief, said, “Surely he must know that if the Supreme Court comes out and legalizes gay marriage all over the country people will be breaking the law if they oppose it in any way. So, uh, the normally clear-thinking guy is not thinking clearly, and neither is Megyn.”

“Yeah. I agree with you,” LaBarbera responded. “He also came out for nondiscrimination laws in the BuzzFeed article and those laws have been the basis for the persecution of people who oppose homosexuality.”

Comparing Benson with the “small number of openly homosexual people” who are against marriage equality, LaBarbera said that by embracing LGBT equality, Benson has joined a “radical” and “revolutionary” movement that “is all about normalizing homosexuality.”

“He says he’s standing on the shoulders of gay activists,” LaBarbera said, “and when I saw that I was like, ‘Well, which ones?’ Are you standing on the shoulders of the 1970s gay activists who scream in politicians’ faces? What about the homosexuals who will harass people, harass the psychologists to have them supposedly normalize homosexuality in the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, the direct-action homosexuals who use far-left techniques? I know he said he’s not with the far left, but, I mean Sandy, this is a movement that is all about normalizing homosexuality. That was a radical, a revolutionary goal. So which homosexual activist is Guy Benson standing on? That’s kind of troubling to me.”

Townhall Pundit: 'LGB-Terrorists' Waging A 'Violent War' On Behalf Of 'Odd Lifestyle'

While most people equate the word “terrorism” with “Muslim extremists, radical bombings, and hijacked aircraft,” we learned in Townhall this weekend, “there’s another form of terrorism happening right here in America.”

That would be the “violent war” being waged by “LGB-Terrorists” on behalf of their “odd lifestyle,” writes columnist Joanne Moudy, who identifies herself as an “ambassador” for the influential Religious Right group Alliance Defending Freedom.

h/t Gay Star News

When the word ‘terrorism’ is used today, most people equate it with Muslim extremists, radical bombings and hijacked aircraft. But there’s another form of terrorism happening right here in America, and the perpetrators are out to destroy the very fiber of our Judeo-Christian heritage and U.S. Constitution. Welcome to the bloody LGBT battlefield where everyone is fair game in a relentless, multifaceted assault on our humanity.

Make no mistake about the LGBT intentions. No longer content to ‘fit in’ or simply be ‘accepted’ by others for living an odd lifestyle, today they are out to castrate the minds and hearts of others into supporting their deviant faith – or crush those who might oppose their ranting into oblivion. As per the LGBT website, their goal is “…to seek to change the hearts and minds of Americans to ‘equality’…” – unless you happen to be an American who doesn’t want to be brainwashed.

The best part about this is, that at the time of Ferguson’s lawsuit against Barronelle, the two gay men, Rob and Curt, hadn’t filed a complaint with anyone. But that didn’t seem to matter to Ferguson because he filed the suit against the florist anyway, without a plaintiff. This situation had never before occurred in Washington and gives rise to the obvious question, “Why, with all the other serious infractions happening within the state, was Barronelle such a priority?”

The obvious answer is simple. Ferguson is out to rid Washington of God, teach Barronelle a lesson, and make a name for himself in the process. And he’s gone after God and Barronelle with a vengeance.

And most recently in Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner, Jack Phillips, was sued by two gay lovers, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, because Jack respectfully declined to create a wedding cake for the couple’s union.

It didn’t matter that same-sex marriage is illegal in Colorado, or that the couple got hitched in Massachusetts to circumvent the Colorado law. Nor did it matter that the gay couple had offers from other bakers to do their ‘union’ cake, or that several of those offers were for considerably less money. All that mattered was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) jumped at the chance to unite with the LGB-Terrorism movement and destroy another Christian-run business and bash religious freedom in the process.

As Arizona Congressional candidate for D-2, Chuck Wooten recently wrote, “In this era of extreme political correctness, it’s almost surreal that such a small fraction of our society is allowed to torment average citizens over something as fundamental as the Constitutional right of religious freedom. The ACLU’s predictable tactic is “death by a thousand cuts,” but it’s seldom successful. The time for sanity in these situations is at hand and Americans of faith must stand strong and fight tyranny in whatever form it takes.”

The LGBT has systematically embarked on a violent war against anyone who doesn’t tow the line and jump into bed with their sexual promiscuity and deviance , and it’s refreshing to see some serious candidates step up and say, “Enough is enough.” But sadly, if more elected officials don’t defend our constitutional rights in a timely fashion, the hour of opportunity will pass and our religious freedom will evaporate before our eyes.

Turek: Ban Gay Marriage Because We Can't All Be Police Officers

The fervently anti-gay writer Frank Turek takes to Townhall today to present an interesting analogy. Turke argues that when gays and lesbians advocate for marriage equality, they are being just as unreasonable as someone who “can’t qualify to become a police officer” protesting “when the government pays other people to be police officers.” He goes on to say that gays and lesbians can “simply marry someone of the opposite sex” and that the legalization of same-sex marriage will harm children and cause Americans to “lose the freedom of speech.”

Of course, the argument that gays and lesbians already have marriage equality because they could just marry a person of a different gender was the same claim made by supporters of anti-miscegenation laws who asserted that interracial marriage was unnatural and that people already have the same right to marry someone of their race.

Here’s why promoting natural marriage exclusively does not deny anyone equal rights.

First, everyone has the same equal right to marry a qualified person of the opposite sex. That law treats every man and woman equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn’t. Promoting one behavior does not deny rights to people who don’t engage in that behavior.

An analogy may help clarify this point. Like marriage, the government promotes police work by paying people to become police officers because police do much good for society. But if you can’t qualify to become a police officer, or if you choose another vocation, your rights are not being violated when the government pays other people to be police officers. All people, regardless of their vocation, experience the benefits of police, just like all people, regardless of their marriage status, experience the benefits of natural marriage.

Some will ignore those biological realities and object, “But men and women are the same so there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships!” If that were true, no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. The very fact people demand same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different. If men and women were the same, no one would be spending time and energy trying to get same-sex marriage approved. They would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it.

Now, I am not suggesting that a law would fully achieve either, but only to point out that natural and same-sex marriage should not be legally or culturally equated. The truth is homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. We hurt everyone, especially children, by pretending otherwise.

Finally, as jurisdictions with same-sex marriage show us, people lose their freedoms of speech, association, religion and even parenting due to the imposition of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it; business owners must now provide benefits to same-sex couples, and they can be fined for declining to provide services at homosexual weddings; Catholic charities were forced to close and leave Massachusetts and Washington D.C. because both governments mandated that all adoption agencies had to provide children to homosexuals. So much for freedom of religion! And in Canada, same-sex marriage has led to such a chilling restriction on speech, that my speech here today could get me fined or jailed if given there.

To sum up, the government already permits homosexual relationships, but promoting them by equating them with married heterosexual relationships ignores the facts of nature, the needs of children and the health of society. While people with different sexual attractions are equal, not all behaviors are equally beneficial. True equality treats equal behaviors equally. It doesn’t demand that different behaviors be treated the same.

Harry Jackson: Same-Sex Marriage 'Will be The Beginning of the End of the Family as We Know It'

Bishop Harry Jackson yesterday tried to spin Kim Kardashian’s short-lived marriage as a reason to oppose marriage equality for gays and lesbians by arguing that the “enfeebled state of marriage today is all the more reason to fight to preserve it,” meaning, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Jackson, who earlier called marriage equality a “Satanic plot to destroy our seed,” warned that marriage equality will do even more damage to marriage than Kardashian’s 72-day marriage because it would create a harmful environment for children and lead to an increase in divorce, the legalization of polygamy and the proliferation of “pro-homosexual propaganda.” The anti-gay activist said that same-sex marriage will “further weaken marriage by defining it out of existence” and “be the beginning of the end of the family as we know it”:

For every high-profile celebrity wedding that makes headlines, it seems we are treated to at least two high-profile celebrity divorces. I am praying for people like Kim Kardashian whose marriage problems seem to suggest that there should be a public exam for marriage prior to the issuance of a license. Unfortunately, celebrities are not the only folks whose marriages are caving in under the cultural pressures of our generation. The depressing state of marriage in our nation today provides more fuel for the fire for those that advocate redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. After all, as the joke goes, how can homosexuals make more of a mess of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have?

On the surface, same-sex “marriage” advocates appear to have a point. And I would be among the first to admit that marriage as an institution was terribly weakened by both the no-fault divorce laws first passed in the 1970s and by a general willingness of our culture to separate marriage from childbearing. Neither of these factors had anything to do with homosexuality, and both dealt severe blows to the strength of American families. However, these are not reasons to further weaken marriage by defining it out of existence. (I am not the first to observe that words that mean everything mean nothing, and “marriage” is headed down that very road.) The enfeebled state of marriage today is all the more reason to fight to preserve it and hopefully to restore it to its former strength.

In the few states where marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples, various churches and ministries have already been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refused to perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Earlier this year, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill mandating that public schools teach their students “the role and contributions of” homosexual American historical figures, and forbade the use of any resources that “contain any matter reflecting adversely” upon gays on the basis of sexual orientation. The legislation also urged charter schools and private schools “take notice of the provisions of this act.” It does not take much imagination to see that if marriage is redefined nation-wide, such pro-homosexual propaganda will be mandated in every public school in the country.

Lastly, we are fools if we think that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is the end of the story. To the contrary, it is only the beginning. Groups advocating polygamy and polyamory have their arguments prepared and will begin advocating for the definition of marriage to be relaxed further to accommodate their preferences. Children may then be born to and even adopted by any number of “families” with any number of mothers and fathers, sleeping with whomever they depending in their whims. Redefining marriage will be the beginning of the end of the family as we know it.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious