Tag: Gay Rights - Illinois Family Institute

The “Code of Ethics” of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) says that the media should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.” But on the issue of homosexual rights, the media, from the left to the right, have taken a side. This includes the Fox News Channel, which many conservatives had hoped would stay true to its word of being “Fair & Balanced,” on the issue of gay rights.

The Fox News Channel is joining CBS News and CNN as “silver” sponsors of the upcoming National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) 20th annual New York “Headlines & Headliners” fundraising event. Gold sponsors include ABC News and Comcast Universal, owner of NBC and MSNBC. Daytime talk-show host Meredith Vieira is the host of this year’s event.

The SPJ ethics code urges the media to “avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”

But apparently that ethical standard doesn’t apply to media involvement in the homosexual movement.

Meanwhile, the media-supported Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is ecstatic that the ABC Family network show “The Fosters” has aired a kiss between two 13-year-old boys. The show features two lesbians as “parents” and includes a “transgender teen.”

Media sponsors of the 26th Annual GLAAD Media Awards include 21^st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News; Comcast/NBC Universal; Time Warner, parent of CNN; CBS Corporation; and Bloomberg.

Don’t expect the media to trumpet the news in any headlines or stories about their financial involvement in the homosexual movement. It is a secret that has to be kept hidden from the public because it constitutes a blatant violation of acceptable standards of journalistic behavior and media ethics.

The pro-gay bias in the media is not a big secret, of course. But the involvement of Fox News in the cause may come as a surprise to some. You can be sure Fox News will not admit on the air that the news channel has taken sides in the ongoing debate and that it financially supports the NLGJA.

We have tried over the years without success to get Fox News chief Roger Ailes to explain why his channel pours money into the NLGJA. He simply ignores our inquiries. Many conservatives in the media are reluctant to press the issue out of fear they could be blackballed from appearing on the channel.

The bias shows up in certain ways, such as when the channel forced anchor Bret Baier to pull out of a Catholic conference devoted to traditional marriage. Reputed homosexual and Fox News anchor Shepard Smith occasionally badmouths supporters of traditional values on the air.

The NLGJA fundraiser two years ago showed Smith posing for a selfie taken by CNN anchor Don Lemon. Others posing for the picture included CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow, Fox News anchor Jamie Colby and ABC News correspondent Amy Robach.

Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff claims to have “outed” Smith in 2005 “after Smith hit on him in a Manhattan bar,” according to the gay newspaper’s account.

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in a case that could impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states, the pro-gay term “marriage equality” is being used more frequently by the media. It is supposed to imply that giving special status to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is somehow discriminatory.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, supposedly the hard-right conservative on the channel, says that homosexuals have the most “compelling” argument, and that opponents only “thump the Bible.” The Bible condemns homosexual acts and declares that God’s plan for a family stems from a male-female union.

You can see from the list of “Special Guests” for this year’s NLGJA fundraiser that while outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree over some issues, on the matter of gay rights they are united. The list of “Special Guests” includes:

Brooke Baldwin, CNN
Ashleigh Banfield, CNN
Josh Barro, The New York Times & MSNBC
Jason Bellini, The Wall Street Journal
Gio Benitez, ABC News
Kate Bolduan, CNN
Malan Breton, Fashion Designer
Contessa Brewer, WNBC
Frank Bruni, The New York Times
Jason Carroll, CNN
Carol Costello, CNN
Jamie Colby, FOX News
Frank DiLella, NY1
Ronan Farrow, MSNBC
Melissa Francis, FOX Business
Kendis Gibson, ABC News
Stephanie Gosk, NBC News
LZ Granderson, ESPN & CNN
Kimberly Guilfoyle, FOX News
Sara Haines, ABC News
Patrick Healy, The New York Times
Simon Hobbs, CNBC
Joseph Kapsch, The Wrap
Randi Kaye, CNN
Don Lemon, CNN
Tom Llamas, ABC News
Miguel Marquez, CNN
Erin Moriarty, CBS News
Bryan Norcross, The Weather Channel
Soledad O’Brien, Al Jazeera America
Richard Quest, CNN
Trish Regan, FOX Business
Rick Reichmuth, FOX News
Amy Robach, ABC News
Thomas Roberts, MSNBC
Troy Roberts, CBS News
Christine Romans, CNN
Mara Schiavocampo, ABC News
Brian Stelter, CNN
Kris Van Cleave, CBS News
Cecilia Vega, ABC News
Ali Velshi, Al Jazeera America
Gerri Willis, FOX Business
Jenna Wolfe, NBC News

The participation of representatives from Al Jazeera, which is funded by the Middle Eastern government of Qatar, is surprising. In Qatar, according to the State Department:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons faced discrimination under the law and in practice. The law prohibits same-sex sexual conduct between men but does not explicitly prohibit same-sex relations between women.

The State Department says a man convicted of having same-sex sexual relations with a man 16-years-old or older in Qatar is subject to a sentence of seven years in prison, but that the number of such cases that came before this nation’s courts during 2013 was unknown.

In advance of the New York fundraiser, the NLGJA is hosting another event known as the LGBT Media Journalists Convening, as well as the NLGJA’s National Convention & 11th Annual LGBT Media Summit in San Francisco in September.

The theme for the latter event is “Coming Home,” a reference to San Francisco’s reputation as the “Gay Capital of the U.S.”

Originally posted at BarbWire.com.

Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?

There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.

1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?

Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.

Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.

2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”

Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?

3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.

Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my bookA Queer Thing Happened to America.)

4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does.Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)

Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.

That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.

Fox, CNN and MSNBC Agree: ‘We’re for Gay Rights’

Why Gay Is Not the New Black