American Family Association

American Family Association

The American Family Association (AFA) has been a long-time promoter of "traditional moral values" in the media, particularly television. AFA built its reputation on organizing boycotts against sponsors of TV shows with "anti-Christian" messages and ideas, or against companies it claims support the so-called "homosexual agenda" or marriage equality.

PFAW

Another Day, Another Anti-Gay Post From Bryan Fischer

Guess what? 

The AFA 's Bryan Fischer is back with yet another post about gays - shocking, I know: 

Gays showering with straights? Absolutely.

If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or grandson may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

Talk about creating a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality!

As former General Colin Powell observed in 1993 (before bowing to pressures of political correctness), "...it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure."

Strangely, Fischer doesn't bother to mention that just last week Powell announced his support for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Regardless, Fischer has his own inane explanations for why we must not repeal it DADT: 

The bottom line here is that if we do not insist on retaining the ban on homosexual military service, our military will no longer be the place America's families want to send their best and brightest young men and women.

Overturning the ban will have an obvious and devastating affect on recruitment, retention and readiness. If open homosexuals are allowed to serve, fewer of America's best young men will want to sign up, fewer will want to re-enlist and as a consequence the military's readiness to defend us from our enemies will correspondingly decline.

Allowing open military service will compromise the good order, discipline and morale necessary for our military to remain the finest in the world.

The military's purpose is to kill people and break things to keep us safe. It never should be used as laboratory for experiments in social engineering that are doomed to fail.

Do you ever get the impression that the bottom line here is really that Fischer just dislikes gay people? 

PFAW

Fischer: Everything Would Be Better If Homosexuality Was Illegal

The AFA's Bryan Fischer sure does seem intent on driving home his point that homosexuality ought to be illegal, as he has now written yet another post on this subject, this time seeking to how much better life would be if gays were still considered to be criminals: 

This raises the question, then, as to whether sodomy laws should be, or legitimately have been, repealed just because they are rarely enforced.

The answer to this is a clear and unequivocal "No."

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn't make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don't want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That's why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn't throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he's free to say that murder is not only contrary to man's law but also to God's law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

This list could actually be extended, but you get the point. Laws not only curb dangerous and risky behavior, they keep such behavior from being normalized, sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of society, and as such render an enormous benefit to a healthy culture.

The promos for the old movie "American Graffiti" asked the question, "Where were you in '62?" If the same question were asked about the United States, we'd have to answer: in a much better, saner and healthier place when it comes to criminal sexual conduct.

I think Fischer is aiming to establish himself in the obsessively anti-gay wing of the movement heretofore inhabited mainly by people like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.

PFAW

Since When Did The FDA Dictate Criminal Policy?

We've listened to, and posted, a lot of Alan Colmes' interviews with right-wing figures here in the past, but I don't think we've ever come across one as frustrating and contentious as last night's interview with the AFA's Bryan Fischer. 

I can say for sure that I have never heard Colmes use the word "weasel" so many times in one interview, but it was entirely warranted as he had brought Fischer on to discuss his position that "those 'who practice homosexuality' should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery." 

But Fischer refused to do so, stating, as he did in his follow-up post yesterday, that he never explicitly said that gays should be imprisoned, insisting rather that his point was that gays should be treated exactly the same as intravenous drug abusers. 

When Colmes attempted to get Fischer to explain just what he thinks should happen to drug abusers (and, by extension, gays) Fischer refused to say, simply repeating that whatever the policy is, it ought to be the same for gays.

It went on for twenty minutes as Colmes tried to get Fischer to defend and explain his point, while Fischer played games with semantics and pretended that he was doing so: 

Basically, Fischer's position is that if the law says that drug users get jail time and/or rehabilitation, then that is what should happen to gays as well.  And that view seems to rest entirely upon FDA policy banning gay men and intravenous drug users from donating blood.

I have no idea why Fischer thinks that this FDA policy regarding blood donation means that drug use and gay sex are exactly the same thing and ought to be treated the same in all regards. 

His logic seems to be that:

Intravenous drug use can spread HIV;

Gay male sex can spread HIV;

Intravenous drug use is illegal;

Therefore gay male sex should be illegal.

Of course, intravenous drug use is illegal not because it can spread HIV, but because all drug use is illegal.  Drug use has been illegal for decades in this country, long before the emergence of HIV. 

It is not the spread of HIV that makes drug use illegal, it is the drug use itself that is illegal. 

The fact that the FDA bans both intravenous drug users and gay men from donating blood is fundamentally irrelevant to the legality of either drug use or gay sex. 

For that matter, you know who else is banned from donating blood:

People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD).

So, using Fischer's logic, organ donors and people who have lived abroad ought to be subject to the same punishments/treatments as drug users, since they too are banned by the FDA from donating blood for the very same reasons.

PFAW

AFA's Fischer: Gays Should Be Treated Like Drug Addicts

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has now responded to the flurry of comments regarding his blog post from last week in which he declared that we should "impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse," and force them into therapy.

In his follow-up post, entitled "Why Homosexual Behavior Should Be Against the Law," Fischer declares:

I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

He then goes on to discuss FDA policies banning gay men and intrevenous drug users from donating blood and citing CDC stats regarding HIV in order to claims that "the neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse":  

It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It’s a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.

Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that's the place for the discussion to begin.

Wow.

Of course, none of the points Fischer made citing the FDA or CDC would apply to lesbians, so does his call for "sanctions toward homosexual behavior" also apply toward women?  

I, for one, am very much looking forward to Fischer's inevitable follow-up post in which he lays out exactly the steps he expects the government to take in order to "curtail homosexual conduct."

PFAW

AFA's Video Introduced in Prop 8 Case

Today, the lawyers challenging California's Proposition 8 rested their case after showing a six-minute video of Prop 8 supporters claiming marriage equality would lead to polygamy and bestiality, including one that was produced by the American Family Association.

The video is now gone, but AFA touted it as instrumental in helping pass Prop 8:

In response to Proposition 8, the California referendum that would amend the state’s constitution to protect marriage as being only between a man and a woman, AFA produced a 30-minute documentary supporting the ballot measure and distributed it at no cost to 21,000 churches in California. The video was written and produced by AFA staffers for a small fraction of typical production costs. The video proved to be a valuable tool in the passage of Proposition 8.

As luck would have it, we grabbed a few segments of that video when the AFA put it up on their website in August 2008 and posted them to YouTube:

PFAW

AFA: Obama Will Be Lucky To Even Make It Through One Term

I don't really know why I am even posting this, other than to marvel at what passes for punditry at the American Family Association as Bryan Fischer, AFA's Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, explains in hilariously overwrought terms how President Obama's first year in office has been such a dismal failure that he might not even get a chance to finish out his term: 

There is virtually unanimous agreement that President Obama is toast ... If the Democrats do not insist that Obama resign from office - politically unlikely to be sure - they are liable to be dessicated, withered and powerless by 2012. His coattails are just long enough to drag them all under unless they detach themselves immediately if not sooner.

...

The president is now dead weight, an albatross around the neck of every Democrat member of the House and the Senate. They simply cannot afford to be linked to him anymore. He is blindly pursuing policies that the great majority of Americans flatly reject, and yet he soldiers on, oblivious, perhaps through sheer hubris, to the fact that voters aren't buying the swill he is trying to sell as champagne ... Few in political history, apart from appalling scandal, have fallen so far so fast. He is the Tiger Woods of the political world ... Congressional Democrats now can safely ignore their own president, and in fact must do so to preserve any chance of survival ... He has grossly misread the American public, perhaps again because in his insular and self-adulating world he believes he is the smartest person in the room and is sure that his brilliance will inevitably be recognized by the great unwashed. Ain't gonna happen. The American people are a lot smarter than he thinks, maybe even smarter than he is, and surely wiser when it comes to politics. They will never trust him again about anything.

The president is catastrophically weak and naive when it comes to our war against Islamofascism. He is indifferent, desultory, casual, and lacking in seriousness regarding the threat. The American people know this ... Surely the Democrats in the party will see the same thing, and know that if they back Obama in 2012 they will be backing a loser. Believe me, there will be an underground movement among Democrats to plead with Hillary (or somebody) to save what shreds will remain of their party from The One in the next presidential election.

President Obama has no chance at a second term. And eroding chances of completing his first one.

If this doesn't qualify for one of Andew Sullivan's "Hewitt Awards," I don't know what does.

PFAW

And A Nazi New Year

One of the most notable responses to the election of Barack Obama has been the virtually endless parade of right-wing warnings that his administration is leading the nation down the path to communism, socialism, Nazi tyranny, or somehow all the above. The latest example is the eye-catching cover of the January 2010 issue of the American Family Association Journal. It’s a large bright red Nazi flag against a dark cloudy sky, with the headline, “THE EVIL LIVES.” The cover points to two related stories inside, one on secularism and another on abortion:

The secularism story, “What Hitler Knew,” is punctuated by a picture of the dictator in a stiff-armed salute. The article attacking church-state separation is essentially a reprint of the speech given by AFA’s “director of issues analysis” Bryan Fischer at last fall’s Values Voter Summit making the case that the First Amendment does not apply to the states or any entity other than Congress:

It is constitutionally impossible for a governor, a state legislature, a mayor, a city council, a principal, a teacher or a student speaking at graduation to violate the First Amendment, for one simple reason: they’re not Congress.

Perhaps Fischer apparently failed to take into account the 14th Amendment which makes the First Amendment applicable to the states.

Fischer equates Hitler’s efforts to silence Christian opponents of Nazi evils with American church-state separationists:

Secular fundamentalists in the United States know the same thing that Hitler knew. The only thing that stands in their way of the total takeover of our culture, the final removal of any mention of God from the public arena, and the shredding of the last remains of our Judeo-Christian value system, is the church of Jesus Christ.

Fischer also has an extremely narrow interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause as it applies to Congress. He writes that the only way Congress can violate the First Amendment would be “to select one Christian denomination, make it the official church of the United States, and compel citizens to support it with their tax dollars.”

Apparently, according to Fischer’s dubious constitutional analysis, there would be no federal constitutional problem with a state government declaring itself a Baptist state and requiring state taxpayers to support a particular denomination. (In fairness, it should be noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas also believes the First Amendment's establishment clause does not apply to the states.)

According to Fischer’s analysis, it would seem that the First Amendment’s protections for free speech would also apply only to Congress and not to governors or state or local governments. If Fischer finds that the least bit troubling, he doesn’t let on.

PFAW

The Attacks On Amanda Simpson Just Won't Stop

Apparently not content with the trans-bashing statement his organization released last week regarding Amanda Simpson, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association thought it necessary to write his own blog post attacking her as well:

According to both the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), transgenderism is mental health "disorder." Their word, not mine. A male transgendered individual is so confused and twisted around in his own thinking that he believes he is trapped inside a woman's body.

The world's leading mental health professionals agree that this is a form of mental illness. It is a psychiatric condition which requires therapeutic treatment. It is listed as such in the APA's official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and on the WHO's official International Classification of Diseases.

That's why it is a travesty that the president appointed the former Mitchell Simpson (who now goes by "Amanda") to a prominent position in his administration. What the deviance cabal wants more than anything is society's approval for their sexually aberrant lifestyles.

In fact, that and that alone is what drives the entire homosexual agenda: they want society to affirm their non-normative behavior, and want anyone who disagrees with them to be punished for daring to hold the values that have under-girded civilization for 8,000 years.

Gay activists are making a big deal out of Simpson's New Year's Eve appointment, clearly indicating that this is a milestone moment for them. Mr. Simpson himself said he hopes that "I will soon be one of hundreds."

Simpson, at the expense of some $70,000, has undergone no less than six surgical mutilations in an effort to reject science, biology, his own DNA and his own mental health in a vain effort to pretend he is a woman. He has had his Adam's apple removed, had breasts implanted, his forehead ground down, and his genitals revised.

Simpson was conceived as a male, was knit together as a male by the Creator in the womb of his mother, was born as a male, grew up as a male, married as a male, fathered a son as a male, and remains a male in every single cell of his body. No amount of surgical mutilation is ever going to change that.

He can only view his own sexuality through a transgendered prism by rejecting scientific reality and the stubborn biological truth about his own DNA. He is living in a state of alarming denial.

We rightly condemn the genital mutilation of young girls in Islamic countries. It is simply bizarre to celebrate genital mutilation among American adults, even if that mutilation is self-inflicted.

By appointing Simpson, the president has put the weight of the federal government behind the normalization of sexual confusion, sexual mutilation, and mental health disorders. Simpson, according to the APA and the World Health Organization, is mentally ill and should be in therapy rather than in a position of important public responsibility.

The president is contributing to the terrible practice of defining deviancy down in our culture. This appointment is bad for America and should be rescinded immediately.

Since the Religious Right seems intent on claiming that the APA considers transgenderism to be a "disorder," it would be nice if they were willing to ackloweldge that the APA's recommendations for treating this "disorder" involve gender transition and that the APA calls for "legal and social recognition of transgender individuals consistent with their gender identity and expression" so that they may live "free from discrimination, harassment, violence, and abuse":

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA encourages legal and social recognition of transgender individuals consistent with their gender identity and expression, including access to identity documents consistent with their gender identity and expression which do not involuntarily disclose their status as transgender for transgender people who permanently socially transition to another gender role;

...

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA supports efforts to provide safe and secure educational environments, at all levels of education, as well as foster care environments and juvenile justice programs, that promote an understanding and acceptance of self and in which all youths, including youth of all gender identities and expressions, may be free from discrimination, harassment, violence, and abuse;

...

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA supports the provision of adequate and necessary mental and medical health care treatment for transgender and gender variant individuals;

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments

PFAW

AFA Gets In on the Trans-Bashing, Barber Outdoes Himself

Via Raw Story, we see that the American Family Association is giving the Traditional Values Coalition a run for its money in the race to see which group can release the most bigoted statement regarding the appointment of Amanda Simpson:

The American Family Association (AFA) believes the appointment is a severe mistake, because it puts the weight of the federal government behind the normalization of sexual deviancy.

Tim Wildmon, president of AFA, said, "'Amanda' is a biological male in every cell of his body, and no amount of surgical mutilation is ever going to change that. It's a mistake for our president to appoint such a sexually confused individual to a position of public responsibility.

"Gender is assigned by the Creator at the moment of conception, and no healthy society should ever regard sexual mutilation, even if it's self-inflicted, as something that's normal and merits approval. But that's exactly the kind of signal the president has sent here. This appointment should be rescinded immediately."

Bryan Fischer, AFA's director of issues analysis, adds that there are some important psychiatric issues that need to be considered here: "According to the American Psychiatric Association, transgenderism is a mental health 'disorder.' That's their word, not ours. This means bluntly that mental health professionals believe that Simpson is suffering from mental illness. Simpson needs therapeutic help, not a position where's he's shaping public policy.

"As they say in Washington, 'personnel is policy.' By this appointment, the president has normalized sexual confusion, sexual mutilation, and mental health disorders, and has contributed to the terrible practice of defining deviancy down in America. This appointment is bad for America."

And if anyone has been hoping to get an opportunity to listen to ten minutes of Matt Barber and Concerned Women for America bashing "Mr. Amanda Simpson" and going on about how "he" (as they insists on referring to Simpson) desperately needs psychiatric therapy and "spiritual healing ... so that he might come to a relationship with Jesus Christ," well you are in luck.  Barber warns that America is "rebelling against God's natural law and natural order" and says he doesn't know "how much longer we can expect Him to leave His finger of blessing upon our nation."

PFAW
Syndicate content