Dating Website OkCupid Displays Liberal Terrorism: Asks Users to Boycott Mozilla Firefox Due to Browser CEO’s Gay Marriage Opposition

Mediaite.com:

OKCupid.com is now actively asking Mozilla Firefox users to reconsider their browser choice due to the new Mozilla CEO having publicly expressed his opposition to gay marriage in California.

On Monday afternoon, a note appeared on the OKCupid homepage for Mozilla users only, asking that they switch to another browser in light of Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, having been a vocal supporter of Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that created a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Back in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign supporting Prop 8, with Mozilla’s name attached as his employer in the public database. When he became CEO this year, boycotts emerged primarily among the web development community.

Below is a screenshot of what a Mozilla user would see on their home page, including links to download alternative browsers:

And the full text:

Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
[Google Chrome] [Internet Exploder] [Opera] [Safari]

Thank you,
OkCupid

Users are able to continue on to OKCupid.com after scrolling through and reading the note.
UPDATE: A Mozilla spokesperson issued the following statement:

Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. No matter who you are or who you love, everyone deserves the same rights and to be treated equally. OK cupid never reached out to us to let us know of their intentions, nor to confirm facts.

RELATED: The New Mozilla CEO's Political Past Is Imperiling His Present

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/30/14

Hollywood, Leave My Childhood Alone: A Guide to What You Can Maim

What Happens When The Facts Don’t Fit The Progressive Script?

Homofascists Turn Their "Gay" Guns On Mississippi

Moviegoers Flood 'Noah' With $44 Million

A Whole Lotta Democratic Corruption Going On

Politico's Dylan Byers: MSNBC in Freefall

How Unborn Babies Become 'Clinical Waste'

Hundreds of Children Abandoned by Illegals Heading into US

NYT Frets as GOP States Burden Blacks Based on 'Unfounded' Vote Fraud Fear

It Has Begun: Connecticut Raises Minimum Wage to $10.10

7 Ways Noah Turns the Bible Upside Down 

Harry Reid Will Refund Campaign For Gifts

Gay Groups Oppose Black Mayor Nominated to Head Virginia Democrat Party; Will MSNBC Cover Spat?

Newsbusters.org:

To its credit, the Washington Post this morning is reporting an intramural spat roiling inside the Democratic Party in the Old Dominion. Turns out gay rights groups are livid that Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.) has nominated Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones to chair the state's Democratic Party. Jones, who happens to be African-American and is a Baptist pastor, "has not endorsed same-sex marriage," the Post's Laura Vozzella noted, even though he has a strong record on other issues of import to the gay-rights movement.

"Activists are working to thwart Jones's election at the party's central committee meeting March 15 -- setting up a highly unusual battle for a sitting governor, whose choice for party chairman is rarely challenged," Vozzella noted in the fourth paragraph of her March 7 front-page story. While the Post deserves kudos for noting the rancorous division within the Democratic ranks, it remains to be seen if MSNBC -- which revels in portraying Republicans as bearing antipathy towards African-Americans -- will dare to cover the story at all.

Democratic racial politics aside, this is also a matter of a new litmus test which is emerging throughout the country in Democratic Party politics, with would-be party leaders being pushed to stifle their moral and religious objections to same-sex marriage, even though they may be wholeheartedly in support of other items in the LGBT agenda. As Vozzella noted, Jones "issued a proclamation to mark the [Richmond's] Transgender Day of Remembrance."

We don't expect that MSNBC, much less any other liberal media outlet, will pay significant attention to this spat, although, quite frankly, they should. There are a few reasons the political press should care:

• This episode is evidence that the Democratic Party, just as much if not more so than the GOP, has pretty heated disagreements within itself when coalition constituencies come into conflict
• This matter is evidence of how the approval of the gay rights agenda within the Democratic Party poses an existential threat to the political futures of loyal Democrats who dare to transgress the emerging litmus test over "marriage equality"
• This episode shows the internal divisions within the Democratic Party of Virginia which Gov. McAuliffe will have to bridge during his tenure, particularly if he wants to prove a reliable surrogate for the Democratic presidential nominee in the crucial swing state in 2016
• The liberal media love to hype "victim" narratives and many of them are scripted with gays or blacks as the victim of conservatism. Here is a case which doesn't neatly fall into that pattern

Political journalists always insist that they do have a bias, but that it's a bias for conflict or controversy. particularly if it involves an underlying debate roiling in the arena of public opinion.

A bias for conflict demands significant media attention to the Jones nomination controversy, but the liberal newsroom's rooting interest for the fortunes of the Democratic Party demands adherence to a overarching midterm election narrative which exclusively focuses on real and imagined Republican divides. Expect partisan and ideological loyalties to win over the journalistic thirst for a good story.

RELATED: Yes, Gay Activists Failed in Sochi. Here’s Why.

The Cultural War Against Christians

Townhall.com:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was right to veto SB1062, which would have amended the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

The bill, per most interpretations I’ve read, would have given broad discretion to business owners, because of their religious convictions, to refuse to do business with anyone associated with homosexual lifestyles. 

Religious freedom is about protection of your right to practice your religion and not being forced to violate it.

However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don’t like or agree with. 

Under Jim Crow, the problem whites had with blacks was not what blacks thought or did, but that they existed. These laws were designed to relegate one class of citizens to separate and unequal status, simply because of who they were. 

Such actions have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with bigotry and racism. 

But, unfortunately, the failure of this poorly conceived Arizona bill will be misinterpreted. Some will incorrectly claim that this means it is not a violation of religious freedom to force a business owner to provide a product or service for activity that is against his or her religious convictions. That is incorrect. 

Would anyone question the refusal of a black vendor to sells sheets to the local Ku Klux Klan chapter? Or a Jewish merchant refusing to sell the poster board for a Neo-Nazi rally? Or refusal of a Christian video service to make a pornographic film? 

So why is it not perfectly clear that the religious freedom of a Christian merchant is violated if that merchant is forced to bake a cake or prepare a flower arrangement for a same-sex marriage which is not only as personally repugnant to that vendor as any in the cases above, but is also a clear and literal violation of the scripture that defines the faith of these individuals? 

And why is it that same-sex couples have such a hard time finding bakers and florists that are not offended by their wedding? Why do they wind up with such regularity trying to buy from Christian vendors? 

The reality is that the “gay rights” crusade is not about a struggle for justice but rather it is a cultural war. 

Homosexual activists understand the ongoing erosion of traditional values as a pillar of our society and use this opportunity to push Christian reality, once and for all, into the closet and to lock the door. 

The cultural script has been re-written such that Christians have been put in a position of either rejecting the precepts and prohibitions of their religion, or being faithful to them and being branded as against “equality.”

RELATED: The Ingrained Intolerance of Liberal Tolerance

Bipartisan Group of Legal Scholars: Critics 'Egregiously Misrepresented' Arizona's SB 1062

Newsbusters.org:

The Arizona governor’s decision Wednesday to veto a bill widely seen as pitting religious protections against gay rights puts an end to two controversial amendments proposed by lawmakers.

But it leaves standing the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which continues to empower individuals to sue when they believe state or local laws – including antidiscrimination laws – are violating their religious rights.

In announcing her decision to veto the amendments, known as SB 1062, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said that religious liberty is valued in Arizona. She added that the state also values the principle of nondiscrimination.

How those two goals coexist in Arizona in the future remains unclear. But it is clear from the governor’s veto that the potential downside of following through with the amendments outweighed the advantages.

“I sincerely believe that SB 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve,” she said in a brief statement.

While the Brewer veto ends the current dispute in a way that appears to deliver a clear victory to gay rights advocates and their supporters, the underlying causes of the conflict remain unresolved.

On one side are Arizona residents seeking to live their lives in accord with traditional moral positions embraced in the Bible’s Old Testament – positions that condemn homosexuality. On the other side are gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transsexual individuals fighting for equal rights and equal dignity in communities they also call home.

The Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) seeks to protect religious faith from coercive laws. That protection continues to exist throughout Arizona.

What is changing is a growing recognition of civil rights for gay Americans that is clashing with traditional religious teachings. For example, Arizona law offers no protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but three Arizona cities – Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff – have passed ordinances banning sexual orientation discrimination in their jurisdictions.

The two proposed amendments to the Arizona RFRA were an attempt to address the issue in a way that favored religious adherents. Brewer’s veto eliminates the attempt, but it does nothing to address the underlying clash.

The veto was issued amid a growing controversy in Arizona over what had been a little-noticed state law patterned on a 21-year-old federal statute designed to shield religious adherents from government measures that violate their beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, far from a hate-inspired antigay measure, sailed through the US House of Representatives on a voice vote and passed the US Senate 97 to 3 before being signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993.

The law was written to fill a vacuum left after the US Supreme Court embraced a significantly narrower reading of the protections of religious liberty under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause. Congress responded with RFRA.

RELATED:  Tea Party Leader: Arizona Veto Enslaves Christians into Baking Giant Penis Cakes

Jan Brewer Vetos Religious Freedom SB1062 Bill and Caves To Godless, White Liberals

Is it any wonder so many social conservatives in this country have lost faith in the Republican party? With losers like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the 3 Arizona Republican members who caved to liberal lies and hyperbole on SB1062 and changed their mind, who needs the GOP?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made a statement Wednesday night declaring she already vetoed the controversial SB1062 bill that would permit state businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals, confirming an earlier report that she was planning to veto the bill.

Advocates of the bill have argued that the bill was meant to protect people’s religious liberty, while opponents insisted it’s just the government adding on another layer of discrimination that gay people have to face in their lives.

Brewer previously pledged she would “do the right thing for Arizona,” and deferred questions by saying she had until Friday to make her decision. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce came out against the bill, as did many businesses (Apple and Marriott among them), and a number of high-profile Republicans, including both of Arizona’s GOP senators, called on Brewer to veto the bill.

RELATED:  7 Myths About Arizona's Religious Freedom Law

Arizona Religious Liberty Law Does Not Cause Discrimination, It Prevents it

RenewAmerica.com:

Arizona's new religious liberty bill is exactly that – a bill that protects the religious liberty of faith-driven businessmen in the Copper State. Lawmakers there are seeking to prevent the truly un-American and shameful things that have happened in New Mexico, Oregon and Colorado where wedding vendors are facing state-imposed penalties, including possible jail time, for simply running their businesses according to deeply-held religious values.

There is no question that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian teaching, and that marriage is exclusively a man-woman proposition. Same-sex "marriages" are thus counterfeit marriages, and no wedding vendor should be compelled against his conscience and Christian conviction to positively affirm something that Scripture condemns.

Now the right to the free exercise of religion – "exercise" means it applies all the time, 24 hour a day, seven days a week – is enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, it is the very first of the unalienable rights the Founders protected in the Bill of Rights.

Conversely, there is no express right in the Constitution to engage in sodomy. You can read the Constitution from left to right, from right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find no mention of sodomy whatsoever. But the right to religious liberty is right there in black and white, staring you in the face in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

In addition, every state in the Union, including Arizona, prohibits discrimination on the basis or religion. I submit that throwing a practicing Christian in jail because of his religious views is egregious discrimination, and should be in the eyes of any clear-thinking individual whose mind and heart have not been darkened by the spirit of the age.

So the Arizona bill simply affirms protections that are already found in the Constitution and state law. It prevents unconstitutional and illegal discrimination rather than causing it.

Just as no homosexual printer should be forced against his will to produce pamphlets for the Family Research Council, so no Christian baker should be forced to participate in the solemnizing of a ceremony that violates Scripture's view of human sexuality.

The Bible is straightforward and unambiguous: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11).

The bullies and bigots of Big Gay find themselves in the untenable position of wanting to use the tyrannical power of government to force Christians to commit sin and to violate their most deeply held convictions. This is offensive to a colossal degree and violates every classic American value you can mention.

If homosexuals actually believed in tolerance, they would respect the convictions of Christian businessmen and happily and contentedly go to other vendors. It's worth noting that every one of the complaining homosexual couples readily found other vendors to photograph their ceremonies, make their flower arrangements, and bake their cakes.

But the truth is they don't believe in tolerance at all. In reality, they are jack-booted homofascist thugs who want to use the totalitarian and tyrannical power of the state to send men of faith to jail. That sounds far more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America.

RELATED: Kirsten Powers’ Understanding Of Sin And Conscience Lacks A Biblical Foundation

Ugandan President Calls Homosexuality 'Disgusting', Correctly Calls Being Gay "Unnatural" And Not A Human Right

Isn't it always funny when a morally-bankrupt, sex-obsessed, pedophile-enabling, deviance-loving country being taken over by Godless, white liberals tells other people how they should live?

President Yoweri Museveni, who made anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda much tougher Monday, told CNN in an exclusive interview that sexual behavior is a matter of choice and gay people are "disgusting."

After signing the bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, Museveni told CNN's Zain Verjee that, in his view, being homosexual is "unnatural" and not a human right.

"They're disgusting. What sort of people are they?" he said. "I never knew what they were doing. I've been told recently that what they do is terrible. Disgusting. But I was ready to ignore that if there was proof that that's how he is born, abnormal. But now the proof is not there."

Museveni had commissioned a group of Ugandan government scientists to study whether homosexuality is "learned," concluding that it is a matter of choice.

"I was regarding it as an inborn problem," he said. "Genetic distortion -- that was my argument. But now our scientists have knocked this one out."

Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, wrote an open letter to the Ugandan scientists in the New York Times last week urging them to reconsider and revise their report. Among his responses to their conclusions: "There is no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a learned behavior any more than is heterosexual orientation."

Museveni, whose public position on the measure changed several times, signed the bill into law at a public event Monday. The bill was introduced in 2009 and originally included a death penalty clause for some homosexual acts.

The nation's Parliament passed the bill in December, replacing the death penalty provision with a proposal of life in prison for "aggravated homosexuality." This includes acts in which one person is infected with HIV, "serial offenders" and sex with minors, according to Amnesty International.

The new law also includes punishment -- up to seven years in prison -- for people and institutions who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, language that was not in the 2009 version of the bill.

Lawmakers in the conservative nation said the influence of Western lifestyles risked destroying family units.

The bill also proposed prison terms for anyone who counsels or reaches out to gays and lesbians, a provision that could ensnare rights groups and others providing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The White House issued a statement Monday: "Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice, and equal rights for its people, today, regrettably, Ugandan President Museveni took Uganda a step backward by signing into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality."

The statement continued: "As President Obama has said, this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay community in Uganda, it reflects poorly on the country's commitment to protecting the human rights of its people and will undermine public health, including efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. We will continue to urge the Ugandan government to repeal this abhorrent law and to advocate for the protection of the universal human rights of LGBT persons in Uganda and around the world."

RELATED:  Uganda 11th African state to tighten gay laws

New York Times Champions Gay Men's Surrogate Child Purchase For the 'Post Marriage-Equality World'

Newsbusters.org:

In an utterly typical flourish, the front of the "Thursday Styles" section of The new York Times featured two gay men and a tot over the headline "And Surrogacy Makes 3: Surrogate baby-making, through restricted in many states, has been growing among gay men."

Times reporter Anemona Hartocollis told the utterly unopposed story of New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman and his partner David Sigal with their daughter, Silvia Hoylman-Sigal. In New York, Sen. Hoylman is trying to make it easier for gays to use surrogates for their "fundamentally conservative embrace of family values." Their baby story "carries with it an extra frisson of the illicit that seems to them more than a little archaic and unfair in the post marriage-equality world."

Hoylman and Sigal had to travel to California to create a surrogate baby, since commercial surrogacy contracts have been illegal in New York since the "notorious Baby M case of the 1980s." Mary Beth Whitehead kept her child after the pregnancy. Now they're trying to repeal that law:

Surrogate baby-making has long been a path taken by the affluent and celebrities, partly because it takes good legal advice and money to accomplish. But in recent years, it has been growing among gay men, who in a fundamentally conservative embrace of family values, see having children and building a family as the logical next step after getting married.

“Not to be cliché, but you know how the phrase goes — first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby and the baby carriage,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has endorsed the bill. 

The bill’s supporters argue that it makes no sense for New York, which has a large number of fertility clinics, not to mention a flourishing gay community, not to be able to offer commercial surrogacy to those who want it. And they say that making surrogacy more widely available could reduce the exorbitant costs, easily as much as $100,000 per baby. 

In Mr. Hoylman and Mr. Sigal’s case, neither of their parents expected them to have children. “Now they think he’s a family man,” Mr. Sigal said, grinning at his husband.
“It’s a funny phrase,” Mr. Hoylman said. “This is what it takes for people to relate to you.” 

Mr. Hoylman says views on his Facebook page spike when he puts up pictures of their daughter, Silvia, now 3, but not when he puts up photographs of him and his husband without her. 

The bill’s co-sponsors could hardly offer a more perfect vision of the surrogacy constituency. Mr. Hoylman, who took his Senate office last year, represents the heart of gay New York, in the Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen. The Assembly sponsor, Amy Paulin, who actually originated the bill, is from wealthy Scarsdale. 

The Times can't even be liberal enough to balance this out with someone complaining from outside the One Percent that surrogacy's only for the wealthy. Surrogacy subsidies can't be far off. The positive buzz continued, about how surrogate mothers prefer growing babies for the gay men:

Agencies prefer to contract with surrogates who are married with children, because they have a proven ability to have a healthy baby and are less likely to have second thoughts about giving up the child. 

Conversely, gay couples are popular among surrogates. “Most of my surrogates want same-sex couples,” said Darlene Pinkerton, the owner of A Perfect Match, the agency in San Diego that Mr. Hoylman used. Women unable to become pregnant often go through feelings of jealousy and loss, she said. But with gay men, that is not part of the dynamic, so “the experience is really positive for the surrogate.” 

Or as her husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, put it, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”

RELATED: Of Bakers and Beliefs: Kirsten Powers’ Faith-Work Disconnect

Arizona Religious Freedom Bill Riles Gay Rights Supporters

Townhall.com:

The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday evening to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.

Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. 

One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.

Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination defense.

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.

"I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."

The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.

The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

RELATED:  Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

Latest Hollywood Homosexual Ellen Page Kissed Liberal Actress Drew Barrymore On The Lips Back In 2009

There's a reason I've always hated Drew Barrymore flicks. That said, Ellen Page, the latest Godless, Hollyweird liberal to "come out the closet" and declare that she likes to engage in same-sex intimate relationships, kind of clued us in on her love for girls back in 2009:

"Whip It" director Drew Barrymore and film star Ellen Page grace the cover of Marie Claire, give an interview and share a kiss in the October issue.
Drew told the magazine how great Page's body is:

"Ellen has such a beautiful body, and I personally battled with my own body image for years. I used to tell myself, 'You can't wear anything sleeveless or strapless.; And all of a sudden I was like, 'What if I just didn't send such negative messages to my brain and said, wear it and enjoy it?' And now I'm more comfortable in clothes than ever." 

Drew added, "She was in her frickin' bra and with an open jacket and hot-pink shorts, skating around the rink with red lips and... and she was sexy as a mother.... a feral creature. It was great.

RELATED:  Actress Ellen Page Comes Out in Speech: ‘I’m Here Today Because I Am Gay’

Youth Rights: A Trojan Horse for the Left’s Sexual Agenda

TheFederalist.com:

Once again, a liberal promoting the Democrat education agenda has asserted that, “[t]he children,” as in yours and mine, “belong to all of us.” This time it was Professor Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education, who recently defended the controversial Common Core Curriculum with an appeal to shared concern for ‘our’ children. Awhile back, it was MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry who urged more education spending because “kids belong to whole communities,” not to their parents. 

Such talk raises the hackles—and the suspicions—of conservatives. They see progressives as hell-bent on an agenda to restructure the American family. And they worry that liberal activists will mold the next generation in tolerance, autonomy, and moral relativism, while teaching them to reject parental authority and religious values. 

There’s reason to worry. 

But the real threat comes not from pundits and their puffery over ‘who owns the kids,’ but from the Trojan horse of ‘youth rights’— an agenda that’s already influencing schools, medical care, and the law. Under the guise of promoting children’s “rights” to make their own choices, progressives are relentlessly fencing parents out of the crucial, value-laden decisions in their children’s lives.

Pediatricians Vs. Parents

Consider an ordinary aspect of family life: a trip to the pediatrician’s office.

Parents of 12- and 13-year-olds may find themselves unceremoniously ejected from the pediatrician’s examining room so that the doctor can speak privately with their child. It used to be that parents stepped out discreetly for a moment during the physical exam of an opposite-sex child, out of respect for the child’s developing body and desire for modesty. 

But that’s not why parents are shown the door these days. 

Willing or not, today’s pediatrician is a field agent in the campaign for ‘youth rights,’ a global movement that insists children have the capacity—and the right—to make their own decisions about issues that concern them, particularly questions of sexual identity, sexual behavior, and reproductive health. In reality, the demand for ‘youth rights’ is simply cover for the left’s aggressive promotion of its radical sexual agenda. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) seems to have embraced its part in the youth rights campaign. In recent policy statements on emergency contraception and the care of LGBTQ youth, the AAP urges pediatricians to “counsel,” educate, and support young people in the exercise of their sexual and reproductive rights. 

The AAP tells its physicians that, “regardless” of the adolescent’s “current intentions for sexual behavior,” the pediatrician should discuss “sexual safety and family planning,” as a matter of “routine anticipatory guidance.” In addition, the conscientious pediatrician will go even further, offering to “supply” both boys and girls with emergency contraception to “have on hand in case of future need.”

Pediatricians Secretly Assisting With … Sexual Identity?

The progressive powers-that-be have decided that providing emergency contraception is part of the new script for adolescent care— even if the teen doesn’t request it. ‘Let’s check your height, listen to your lungs, and send you home with some emergency contraception.’ With no judgment, shame, or stigma, of course. (And no regard either for family concerns about the health, emotional, and moral implications of teen sex and emergency contraception.)

Similarly, the AAP statement on LGBTQ youth envisions that pediatricians will play “a role in helping teenagers sort through their [sexual] feelings and behaviors…pediatricians should assist adolescents as they develop their identities and to avoid the consequences of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), regardless of sexual orientation.”

In a blatantly political move, the AAP policy also condemns “heterosexism” (the idea that “heterosexuality is the expected norm and that somehow LGBTQ teens are ‘abnormal’”) and recommends that pediatricians display pictures of same-sex couples in order to be more welcoming to “sexual minority” youth. And lest children miss the inclusive message, the AAP tells pediatricians to ask adolescents (even those who are not yet sexually active) if they are attracted to or having sex with “males, females, or both.”  

RELATED: Facebook offers 50 new terms for gender designation

Rush Limbaugh: Straight People ‘Under Assault by the 2 to 5 Percent That Are Homosexual’

Just the facts people:

In taking on the Michael Sam coming-out story Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh asked why, in his belief, homosexuality always comes with a political agenda. He found it striking that homosexuals have activists but heterosexuals don’t, claiming that the majority is “under assault by the two to five percent of the country.”

“Why does homosexuality have a political agenda?” he asked. “Why is there anything political about homosexuality while heterosexuality has no political agenda and there is no agenda attached to it?”

Limbaugh sarcastically wondered why it is considered progress for a gay man to join the NFL when people were outraged about concussions and other dangers of playing football. At various points during the segment, Limbaugh was interrupted by people “shouting” at him who were saying, as Limbaugh put it, that “the media wants a gay football player to succeed.”

RELATED: Video Surfaces of Future First Gay NFL Star Michael Sam Dancing Topless at Gay Club

College Football Player Michael Sam Admits That He Likes To Perform Fellatio On Men, Becomes Instant 'Hero' To Godless, White Liberals

Another sucker for the anti-God, white liberal crowd. Forget that homosexuality is a choice, an unnatural act drenched in immoral indignation and vainglorious debauchery...they'll make him into the Jackie Robinson anyway:

Missouri All-American defensive end Michael Sam says he is gay, potentially paving the way for the first openly gay NFL player.

In interviews with ESPN, The New York Times and Outsports that were published Sunday, Sam said his teammates and coaches at Missouri have known since August.

"I am an openly, proud gay man," he said.

The 255-pound Sam participated in the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Ala., last month after leading the SEC in sacks (11.5) and tackles for loss (19), and he is projected to be a mid-round NFL draft pick.

"It's a big deal. No one has done this before. And it's kind of a nervous process, but I know what I want to be ... I want to be a football player in the NFL," he said in the interviews.

Sam also started a Twitter account Sunday night after the news broke, thanking people for their support.

RELATED: Openly gay ski jumper: It's not worth protesting Russia's anti-gay law because 'no one cares'

Eric Holder Applies "Same-Sex Rights" to Justice Department

Priorities in the Obama administration have never been more transparent: white liberals and their Godless agenda come first:

In an assertion of same-sex marriage rights, Attorney General Eric Holder is applying a landmark Supreme Court ruling to the Justice Department, announcing Saturday that same-sex spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other, should be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly, and are entitled to the same rights and privileges as federal prison inmates in opposite-sex marriages.

The Justice Department runs a number of benefits programs, and Holder says same-sex couples will qualify for them. They include the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and benefits to surviving spouses of public safety officers who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries in the line of duty.

"In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said in prepared remarks to the Human Rights Campaign in New York. The advocacy group works on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights.

Just as in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the stakes in the current generation over same-sex marriage rights "could not be higher," said Holder.

"The Justice Department's role in confronting discrimination must be as aggressive today as it was in Robert Kennedy's time," Holder said of the attorney general who played a leadership role in advancing civil rights.

On Monday, the Justice Department will issue a policy memo to its employees instructing them to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law.

Holder's address is the latest application of a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision applies to legally married same-sex couples seeking federal benefits.

RELATED: Parker: Gay Rights Advocates 'Hijacked The Civil Rights Movement' And Are 'Destroying Black Communities'

Politiks As Usual: In The News 2/2/14

Ann Coulter to Fox & Friends: My Friend’s Sister Died Because of Obamacare

The Republican Suicide Strategy On Immigration

Beyonce By The Book: Rutgers Offers Course On Star 

Obama Doubles Down On Destroying The Economy

US West Faces 'Worst Drought in 500 Years'

Bill Maher: Conservatives to Have Mass Shooting at Country Music Awards

GMA Hypes Christie’s ‘Very Personal Attack’ Against Former Staffer

Parents Warned: Big Brother Owns Your Children

Report: Syria Still Has 96% of Its Chemical Weapons; 83 Killed In Latest Attack

U.S. Taxpayers Fund $52K Study of 16 Schizophrenic LGBT Canadians

2014 Grammys: The Latest Attempt to Push the Liberal Agenda

Maine Supreme Court Locks in Transgender Student Bathroom Rights

5 Wacky Things Liberal Feminists Believe

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

Townhall.com:

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:

“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”

Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

RELATED:  ‘Bachelor’ Juan Pablo Galavis-GLAAD Release New Apology for Anti-Gay Statements

Vladimir Putin: Gays Are Welcome at Olympics as Long as They ‘Leave Kids Alone’

Of course, Putin's law against "the propaganda" of homosexuality amongst minors has always been pretty clear to everyone besides Godless liberals, gays and their advocates in the far-Left press, who have always had an amazing ability to twist the words of conservatives in order to fit their own agenda:

The Sochi Winter Olympics are just weeks away, and concerns about anti-gay laws in Russia are still at the forefront of people’s minds. President Vladimir Putin, naturally, wants to avoid much controversy when Russia is in the international spotlight, and Friday he spoke at a question-and-answer session, where one Olympic volunteer asked Putin about Russia’s anti-gay laws and how it would affect gay people attending the Olympic Games. Putin reportedly responded, “One can feel calm and at ease. Just leave kids alone, please.”

Putin insisted there is no explicit ban on acts of homosexual sex, there’s just a ban on gay “propaganda.”

“We have no ban on the nontraditional forms of sexual intercourse among people… We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia. I want to stress this: propaganda among minors. These are two absolutely different things: a ban on certain relations or the propaganda of such relations.”

Putin was also asked why Russia’s Olympic uniforms are rainbow-colored. His answer: “I didn’t design the uniform.”

When NBC is in Sochi to cover the Olympics, Bob Costas has said they won’t shy away from talking about the discriminatory laws, while President Obama, instead of going himself, is sending a delegation that includes openly gay athletes like Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano.

RELATED: 7 Lies Liberals Tell Young Americans

Fox’s Dr. Keith Ablow: ‘I Am Not Convinced’ Being Transgender Is Real

Mediaite.com:

Dr. Keith Ablow wrote a provocative column for FoxNews.com Wednesday about gender identity and admitting he’s not convinced that being transgender is a real sexual identity. He said that allowing people to make a “choice” about their identity is “profoundly destructive, psychologically,” to all students, not just those who self-identify as transgender. 

Ablow took issue with a law that took effect in California on January 1st that allowed transgender students access to restrooms and locker rooms based on their personal sexual identities. Ablow takes a mocking tone to the idea that a law is on the books based on what students “feel” or “believe” they are, and said that if teachers have to explain sexual identity and what it means to be transgender to students, it would “do harm to their own developing sense of self by suggesting to them that their gender is fluid.” 

I expect to continue getting death threats and calls for me to be fired from my academic teaching position for saying so (because I have endured both): I believe that children have enough to deal with as they struggle to feel comfortable with their bodies, with the notion of privacy and with later changes involving puberty without urging them to grapple with the notion that their souls may have been born into the wrong bodies… 

I am not convinced by any science I can find that people with definitively male DNA and definitively male anatomy can actually be locked in a cruel joke of nature because they are actually female. 

He concludes that by supporting and signing this legislation, “Governor Jerry Brown is a threat to children in California and a threat to children everywhere.”

RELATED: California law allows transgender students to pick bathrooms, sports teams they identify with

Robert Gates: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Fight Was Only Time Obama Showed ‘Passion’ For Military Issues

Of course it was, when you're nothing but a mascot for the white and Godless Left, the only time you get hype is when you succeed in doing their bidding:

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates sharply questions President Obama's "passion" for military matters in his forthcoming memoir, and claims that practically the only time he saw that in the president was during his push to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." 

The former Pentagon chief said in an interview aired Sunday that he was "disturbed" by Obama's "absence of passion" when it came to his military strategy. But in the book, "Duty," reviewed by Fox News, Gates hit Obama harder -- and in personal terms -- by contrasting his style with that of former President George W. Bush. 

"One quality I missed in Obama was passion, especially when it came to the two wars," Gates wrote. "In my presence, Bush -- very unlike his father -- was pretty unsentimental. But he was passionate about the war in Iraq; on occasion, at a Medal of Honor ceremony or the like, I would see his eyes well up. I worked for Obama longer than Bush, and I never saw his eyes well up." 

Gates went on to suggest that the president was far more emotional about repealing "don't ask, don't tell" -- the policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military -- and passing the health care bill. 

He wrote that "the only military matter, apart from leaks, about which I ever sensed deep passion on his part was 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' For him, changing the law seemed to be the inevitable next step in the civil rights movement. He presumably was also passionate about health care reform, but I wasn't present for those discussions."

RELATED: What Gates' book gets right, wrong about Obama, Biden, Afghanistan