Liberty Counsel

I have to ask just when it became standard procedure for anti-gay activists to justify their positions on any issue by pointing to the FDA's blood donation policy?

Peter LaBarbera did it when calling for a "comprehensive federal study on the health risks of homosexual sex" on the grounds that gay sex is more dangerous than smoking. Bryan Fisher did it when claiming that gays should be treated like drug users.  And now Matt Barber is doing it in defending his opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

As I asked before, since when did the FDA's blood donation policy become the foundation for every other national policy?  And why does this only seem to apply to gays?  If the FDA's policy is so foundational, they why isn't Barber demanding that everyone who is barred from donating blood be likewise be barred from military service, including "people who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries ... because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease"?

What is stopping these anti-gay activists from just citing this FDA policy as justification for barring gays from working in hospitals or anywhere in the medical profession ... or from working anywhere, for that matter?  In fact, what is stopping them from citing this policy as justification for instituting wholesale discrimination against gays in all aspects of life?

If the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood is enough to justify treating them as criminals and keeping them out of the military, then why not everything else? 

UPDATE: Well, what do you know? Sen. John Kerry is calling on the FDA to remove its ban on gay men serving as blood donors. What will anti-gay activists do if they can't cite this FDA policy to justify their calls for discrimination any more?

CBS has an article on GOProud and CPAC that revolves mostly around Ryan Sorba's attack on the group from the stage and the boos it elicited from the audience which quotes Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver saying that GOProud free to be part of the conservative movement so long as they don't expect the movement to actually support their agenda. How kind of him.

But he  was also asked about his views regarding the negative reaction Sorba elicited with his attack, and Staver said that this year's CPAC was dominated by libertarian Ron Paul supporters, suggesting that if it had been dominated by social conservatives, Sorba would not have been booed: 

Mathew Staver, dean of the evangelical Liberty University School of Law and founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel, says that he and his allies "certainly don't support the idea that anybody would be eliminated from the political process because of their sexual orientation."

But he said Liberty University School of Law felt compelled to pull its sponsorship from CPAC over GOProud's support for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and other policies.

"Those are not conservative policies, and they are not supported by the Republican Party," he said, noting that the GOP continues to oppose a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal as well as same-sex marriage and hate crimes protections based on gender identity. "I welcome all people being part of the conversation, but I also think that just because of your individual orientation, it does not mean that we change the values that conservatives support."

Asked if he was disappointed with Sorba's reception, Staver noted that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll of 2012 presidential candidates - evidence, he suggested, that those in the room were not "reflective of the conservative movement or the Republican Party."

Really!? So if those who booed Sorba "are not reflective of the conservative movement or the Republican party," then isn't Staver saying that "real" conservatives wouldn't have booed Sorba for his anti-gay rant? 

Imagine, for a moment, that there was a court case involving something like the posting the Ten Commandments in a government facility or opening of government sessions with Christian prayer or marriage equality and that the case was being heard by a judge who was reported to be a rather devout and committed Christian.

Now imagine what the reaction would be from the Religious Right if liberals started demanding that said judge publicly acknowledge their faith and recuse them self from the case because their deeply-held personal beliefs constituted a conflict of interest. 

Do you think that the Right would throw an absolute fit and start screaming about bigotry and discrimination? 

Of course they would ... by that isn't stopping Matt Barber from making a second demand that Judge Vaughan Walker remove himself from the Prop 8 trial:

Prop. 8 was approved by California voters in November 2008 to overturn an earlier state Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage," but a San Francisco newspaper recently "outed" Judge Vaughn Walker as a homosexual. Matt Barber, attorney and director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes Walker ought to resign from the case if the allegation is true.

The Liberty Counsel attorney cites from federal law that "a judge shall disqualify himself when he knows that he has a financial or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding," and he argues that if Walker is a homosexual and overturns Prop. 8, he would benefit by granting himself the right to marry a man. Given that effect, Barber decides that hardly represents impartiality.

He goes on to report that Judge Walker has been silent since the newspaper claim was published. "Well, the judge has said, 'No comment' when asked about his sexual lifestyle," explains the Liberty Counsel attorney. "I think he needs to comment. If in fact he is engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, there is a clear conflict of interest here under federal law."

I have to say that it comes as absolutely no surprise that the very first Religious Right activist to call for Judge Vaughan Walker's removal from the Proposition 8 trial is the militantly anti-gay Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel:

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, released the following statement today on news that the San Francisco Chronicle has “outed” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Vaughn Walker as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle.

Judge Walker has presided over California’s Proposition 8 case filed by homosexual extremists who seek to manufacture a constitutional “right” to so-called “same-sex marriage:”

“The revelation that Judge Walker apparently chooses to engage in homosexual conduct, if true, would explain much of his bizarre behavior throughout this trial,” said Barber.

...

“Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker’s personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.

"For these reasons, and in the interest of justice, Judge Walker should do the honorable thing and immediately recuse himself.”

I'd actually be interested to know if this is an official Liberty Counsel position or if this is just Barber's position, since the press release doesn't appear anywhere on the Liberty Counsel website and instead was posted on Catholic Online.

In fact, Barber regularly issues press releases which he attributes to Liberty Counsel via Catholic Online, like this one:

“While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit.

And this one:

“The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage.

"A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner".

And various others.

Are these Matt Barber's personal opinions or are they official Liberty Counsel positions?  If they are the former, then why are they always attributed to Liberty Counsel?  And if they are the latter, why are they never posted on the Liberty Counsel website? 

It's almost as if Liberty Counsel and Barber are trying to have it both ways in allowing Barber to regularly issue offensively anti-gay statements on the organization's behalf while allowing the organization to avoid taking any responsibility for his vehemently anti-gay bigotry.