Peter Heck

Radio talk show host Peter Heck is livid about the success of the “anti-family, pro-sexual anarchy movement” that he blames for increasing support in America for gay rights and marriage equality. Heck, who rarely has kind words for the gay community, writes in a column this week for the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow that gay rights advocates are denigrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement.

Heck, addressing Jesse Jackson’s observation that Occupy Wall Street is making use of some of the same tools and ideas that Dr. King used, writes that Jackson’s comparison “is only slightly less offensive” than comparisons of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. In contrast to Dr. King’s movement, Heck writes, the gay rights movement is composed of “grown men prancing around American city streets in tutus and G-strings, flinging pixie dust and condoms”:

Jackson's false comparison is only slightly less offensive than those who claim to see a connection between Dr. King's street prayer vigils and the grown men prancing around American city streets in tutus and G-strings, flinging pixie dust and condoms at their gay pride parades. King preached fidelity to biblical morality, something eschewed by the sexual anarchists of the left.

On his radio show last week, Heck, incensed that gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry in several states, reminisced about the days when homosexuality was “a forbidden vice” and was “something that was against the law.” He took issue with the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws criminalizing sodomy, and wondered how “we have gone from something—the day before that ruling, homosexuality, a vice something that is illegal to be done, to the point where we are now where you have Governor Cuomo marching in the streets of New York celebrating the codifying of homosexual relationships.”

Listen:

When you step back, and you look at what has been achieved by this anti-family, pro-sexual anarchy movement and crowd and the left in just the last just ten years alone it’s remarkable. I don’t know if remarkable is the right descriptor for it but it’s unbelievable. How does that happen? Let’s zero in on homosexuality, specifically the practice of homosexuality, how does something go from being a forbidden vice, which is what it was, something that was against the law, to the point where it is now being publicly embraced and endorsed by sitting governors and even presidents of the United States? How does that happen? In such a short period of time, how does that happen? Relatively short, we’re talking what, a couple decades? When was the sodomy case, I mean it was what, the ’90s? I’ll have to look it up I don’t know the exact date but it hasn’t been that long ago that sodomy was allowed by the Court, and in that period of time we have gone from something—the day before that ruling, homosexuality, a vice something that is illegal to be done, to the point where we are now, where you have Governor Cuomo marching in the streets of New York celebrating the codifying of homosexual relationships. How does that happen in such a short period of time?

Radio talk show host and conservative columnist Peter Heck is outraged that CNN anchor Don Lemon recently came out of the closet in his memoir, calling it part of “an alarming fad amongst the entertainment glitterati by joining the LGBT crowd.” Heck said that while Lemon may be public about the fact “that he enjoys practicing homosexuality,” coming out didn’t take any courage and is instead another sign that “proponents of sexual anarchy” continue to “shove their unconventional behavior in front of our children's faces.”

The Religious Right activist instead told Lemon to keep it a private matter. Heck went on lament that Lemon has received support from members of the press and that even “someone as vile and perverted as Lady Gaga is hailed as a courageous trailblazer.”

CNN host Don Lemon recently became the latest in a string of high-profile individuals to "come out of the closet" and inform everyone who would listen that he enjoys practicing homosexuality. Every time this occurs, and we are treated to the seemingly endless litany of interviews that applaud the recently outed individual's courage and fortitude, I'm left scratching my head.

First, why do the very people who constantly tell us that what a person does in their bedroom is no one else's business, simultaneously find it necessary to inform everyone of what they do in their bedroom? If this is a private matter, Don, then let's keep it private. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but frankly, I don't care to know what kind of sex the evening news anchor is into. Beyond it being remarkably irrelevant to the dissemination of news, it's just kind of creepy that these proponents of sexual anarchy feel it is their civic duty to incessantly shove their unconventional behavior in front of our children's faces.

But beyond that, let me be blunt: there is absolutely no courage to be found in following what has become an alarming fad amongst the entertainment glitterati by joining the LGBT crowd. Does anyone actually think that in the politically correct world of American media there was any chance Don Lemon was going to be publicly criticized amongst his peers for such a declaration? Lemon's home network of CNN has become notorious for their one-sided reporting of the emerging face-off between homosexual rights claims of sexual anarchists on the left and the rights of conscience for the traditional morality crowd on the right.

…

If Lemon really wanted to demonstrate courage, let's see him "come out" in the media as a Bible-believing, born-again follower of Jesus Christ whose faith teaches him that homosexuality is morally improper. Rather than basking in the glow of the entertainment crowd's unyielding affection, he would be immediately tarred and feathered for his draconian allegiance to discriminatory and prejudicial fairy tales coming from an ancient, bigoted book.

…

That inconsistency is what leads us to a culture where someone as genial and pleasant as Dr. James Dobson is branded a hater, while someone as vile and perverted as Lady Gaga is hailed as a courageous trailblazer.

In the end, it's not the presence of decadence in our culture that is the issue. Free societies will always produce the occasional oddball, and embracing liberty means securing the basic rights of those who are different. But what we're experiencing is a move on the part of the oddballs not to secure their own rights, but to deny and disparage the rights of others to disagree with them and their choices. If outlawing decadence is bigoted, codifying it is even worse.

A few weeks back, Rick Santorum made news when he declared it "almost remarkable for a black man" like President Obama to be in favor of reproductive choice because, in the Religious Right worldview, abortion is just like slavery.

But in case that tortured analogy was not clear enough, right-wing Indiana talk show host Peter Heck has penned a column that has been posted on the AFA's OneNewsNow claiming that Obama's support for reproductive choice means he is an enemy of the likes of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln and is therefore a disgrace to "his ancestors":

Only a man terrifyingly unmoved by the injustices perpetrated against his own ancestors could, just a century and a half later, facilitate even worse atrocities without a hint of remorse.

Intellectual honesty demands that we face a harsh and uncomfortable reality: Barack Obama -- our first black president -- has chosen to take up the whip against his fellow man. By doing so, he carves out an eternal legacy for himself far removed from the dignified halls of honor reserved for those with the moral courage to defend the defenseless. By instead regarding them as subhuman, Obama wars against the life work of [Frederick] Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln.

Imagine how history would regard Lincoln had he chosen to respond to the great moral evil of his day as Barack Obama has chosen to respond to the holocaust of child sacrifice that has occurred with impunity since 1973. Imagine Lincoln proclaiming that determining whether blacks were entitled to human rights was "above his pay grade." Imagine Lincoln pledging to "protect this constitutional right" of slavery, while calling the brutality of plantation masters a "legitimate disciplinary procedure."

How would history have judged such a small man if not for the same way it will soon regard Mr. Obama: an utter coward. When given the incredible opportunity to stand on the shoulders of the Great Emancipator -- an opportunity generations of slaves labored to make possible -- Barack Obama chose not to use it to defend the inalienable rights of all, but to undermine them.

In the final analysis, such an incomprehensible betrayal of human rights for the sake of convenience and political expediency far outweighs any contributions his electoral success has brought to "black America." For what Douglass, Tubman, Truth and so many other courageous black abolitionists fought for was not the day when they would see a man with dark skin pigmentation sitting in the White House. They fought for the day when all men -- black and white, large and small -- would see their inalienable rights protected from those who would callously demean them as less than human.

Obama has failed miserably in living up to their vision, and shamefully discredits their efforts. As he commits himself to what Douglass called the denial of justice, the perpetuation of ignorance, and the organized conspiracy to degrade his fellow countrymen, it can rightly be concluded that Barack Obama disgraces his office, his ancestors, and his place in the eternal struggle for the rights of man.