stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

Pat Robertson Fires Top Attorney After Gay Relationships Accusations

by David Badash on October 9, 2012

in News

Post image for Pat Robertson Fires Top Attorney After Gay Relationships Accusations

Pat Robertson‘s American Center for Law And Justice (ACLJ) has reportedly fired a senior attorney after several blogs reported the married father of eight was engaged in romantic relationships with several young men.

“The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) confirmed in a statement provided to Metro Weekly that James Henderson, a senior counsel with the group who focused on federal civil rights and constitutional law, had been fired from the group Sept. 25, one day after a report surfaced on a blog that he may be gay,” MetroWeekly’s Justin Snow reported:

“He is no longer affiliated with any ACLJ entity,” said Ronn Torossian of 5W Public Relations in an email to Metro Weekly. “ACLJ will not comment further on this personnel matter.”

ACLJ’s confirmation comes after two blogs — Exposed Politics and The Patriot-Ombudsman — published troves of information about Henderson and his relationship with two younger men. Henderson is married and has eight children.

Although there has been speculation as to the age of the two men, it is unclear if they were under the age of consent in the state of Virginia where Henderson lives.

According to the two bloggers, Henderson used a Facebook account to communicate with the two men. Conversations obtained and published by the two websites indicate that Henderson may have provided the younger men, who appear to be possibly younger than 21, with alcohol and marijuana. The Facebook account cited by the bloggers has since been deleted.

Neither blogger has indicated how they obtained the mountain of information published last week. The editor of Exposed Politics, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, told Metro Weekly he received an anonymous tip alerting him to the story.

Exposed Politics, one of the two websites that first reported the allegations, last month reported:

Could one of our nation’s top Conservative, First Amendment lawyers have a problem he can’t talk his way out of? James M. Henderson is considered one of the most prominent 1st amendment constitutional lawyers in the country, and depending on your interpretation of the evidence, he may have a fondness for young boys and pot.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is a law firm located at 205 Third Street, SE Washington, DC 20003. James M. Henderson, Sr. is Senior Counsel of the ACLJ in the Washington, D.C. office and has been counsel of record on many cases, including amicus briefs to the Supreme Court regarding  “The Child Pornography Prevention Act” and “The Child Online Protection Act.”  ACLJ states in its Mission Statement that it is a God driven law firm: ACLJ “is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms.”

Pat Robertson, who openly condemns gay people on a frequent basis, last month in a religious diatribe called the Democratic Party the “party of gays, godlessness, and whatever else,” and claimed they are now “going after God.” In August, Robertson, speaking in defense of Chick-Fil-A, said gay people should “shut their mouth” until they can produce a child from their rectums. In May, Robertson said, “the union of two men doesn’t bring forth anything except disease, apparently, and suffering, and the same thing with the union of two women.” And in March, Robertson said homosexuality is an “obsession,” and “a compulsion,” and added, “I think it is somehow related to demonic possession.”

Earlier this year, The New Civil Rights Movement reported that Colby May, director of the office of governmental affairs at Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, where Henderson worked, teamed up with the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and other groups to examine the new media platforms censorship, and claimed that Christian broadcasters are being censored “on the issue of the gay rights agenda.”

Robertson’s American Center for Law And Justice on its website urges followers to “pray” against same-sex marriage:

Pray for our nation, pray for our leaders, pray for those who wish to undermine marriage in our culture, and pray for the Church that it would be able set an example of what marriage should be. 2 Chronicles 7:14 outlines what God asks of His people: “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

But worse, Robertson’s American Center for Law And Justice filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case that rendered sodomy laws unconstitutional and thus, made unconstitutional laws barring same-sex sex.

In that brief, Robertson’s ACLJ wrote:

The ACLJ is committed to the defense of marriage and the traditional family. This case poses a threat to both. First, none of the petitioners’ arguments challenging the distinction in legal treatment of extramarital heterosexual acts and homosexual acts would not also be an argument against the distinction in legal treatment of marital heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. Thus, petitioners strike at the institution of marriage itself. Second, petitioners argue for substantive due process protection of extramarital sexual acts. To recognize extramarital sex acts as “fundamental rights” would jeopardize the wide array of state laws governing even consensual, adult sexual activity, further pushing this nation toward sexual libertinism. The Constitution, however, neither does nor ought to enshrine the Sexual Revolution.

The ACLJ also filed an amicus brief in the Prop 8 case, stating:

There is a basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and any other kind of sexual union. Only a man and a woman have the inherent, categorical capacity (even if disabled in particular cases) to engage in genital intercourse of the type that can procreate. A union of man and man, or of woman and woman, by contrast, lacking sexual complementarity, is inherently, categorically incapable of consummating a marriage and generating children.

It is not irrational for a state to notice this categorical difference.

Nor is it irrational for a state to act upon it by formally recognizing man- woman unions, but not others, as the kind of union which can constitute a marriage. In constitutional terms, treating dissimilar things differently is not a denial of equal protection. “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Likewise, declining to jettison the concept of marriage, in order to assign the label “marriage” to something inherently, categorically different, is not a denial of due process. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 711 (1997) (rejecting due process challenge to ban on assisted suicide where ban reflected “enduring themes of our philosophical, legal, and cultural heritages”).

Lastly, the ACLJ in 2006 wrote a letter to the American Bar Association on the topic of revising the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and advocating they remove the term “sexual orientation” as a protected category. The ACLJ lamented that the term “sexual orientation” … “as a category” which protected against “bias, prejudice, or harassment,” “is notoriously fluid, having once meant heterosexual or homosexual, then expanded to include bisexual, now expanding to include transgender, and in principle open to further expansion to include the universe of possible sexual proclivities. Hence, use of this term creates a vagueness problem.”

In addition, given the traditional, historic criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and given the sharp and deeply felt division of the public over whether sexual proclivities, or any particular subset thereof, should be singled out for special protection, on the one hand, as opposed to condemnation (or at least nonapproval), on the other, the ABA’s use of this term entails the imposition by the ABA of a highly controversial and historically revolutionary moral and political position upon the judiciary.

Finally, given the ambiguity and breadth of the term “sexual orientation,” there is a problem of unintended consequences. What in this rule prevents its use in contexts where even the ABA’s Joint Commission would presumably have qualms, such as orientation toward pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? Such concerns cannot be cavalierly dismissed as red herrings unless something of substance in the Model Code provides a basis for such dismissal. Ideas have logical consequences, and the unadorned term “sexual orientation” contains no inherent limiting principle.

For these reasons, I recommend that the Joint Commission delete all references to “sexual orientation”. 

Yes, equating homosexuality to pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality is the business the ACLJ is in.

Anyone supporting this kind of bigotry and ugliness is beyond the pale.


GOP Congressman: Obama Giving Muslims Waivers To Bypass TSA Regulations


Image from American Center for Law and Justice’s Facebook Page 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 1 comment }

LOrion October 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm

No, Pat, having relationships, especially concurrent ones with BOTH sexes is called BISEXUAL..not gay.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: