Connect with us

Fischer: ‘Homosexual Activists Want To Re-Criminalize Gay Sex’



Bryan Fischer is now — falsely — claiming that “homosexual activists want to re-criminalize gay sex.” Fischer says the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is a “homosexual activist group” and wants to make gay sex illegal. Fischer is of course wrong on all these points, as he often is on so many issues, but here he is especially wrong, and his being wrong is literally playing with people’s lives.

In “Homosexual activists want to re-criminalize gay sex. Wow,” Bryan Fischer, the public face of the certified anti-gay hate group, American Family Association, writes:

Who‘d have thought that the first group to propose re-criminalizing gay sex would be a homosexual activist group?

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which advocates for marriage based on the infamous crime against nature, has collected enough signatures to place an initiative on the Los Angeles County ballot in November that will provide civil and even criminal penalties for any acts of unprotected gay sex that occur in filming pornographic movies. The penalties, by the way, would apply to heterosexual productions as well.

The president of the AHF, Michael Weinstein, says, “The lives of these performers are not disposable.” He is optimistic that the measure will pass, after releasing a poll that indicates that the measure has the support of 63% of likely voters.

Do not miss the significance of this. A homosexual activist group is leading the charge to re-criminalize gay sex.

Of course, Fischer is merely twisting facts, and he’s twisting them into falsehoods.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, is an international organization — and the largest global AIDS organization — serving more than 130,000 people in at least 22 countries. They also state they are “the largest provider of HIV/AIDS medical care in the U.S.”

The President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), Michael Weinstein, told The New Civil Rights Movement by telephone today that Bryan Fischer’s characterization of his organization — in fact, much of what Fischer described in his op-ed, is “wrong on most counts.” Weinstein says that the AHF is “strongly opposed to the use of criminal sanctions as the basis for educating about safer sex,” and adds that most gay porn films already require the use of condoms by their performers. Rather, Weinstein tells tNCRM, “this issue has been primarily a heterosexual one.”

Weinstein was also very clear to tell The New Civil Rights Movement that the legislation would focus not on actors but on the producers.

In response to Fischer calling the AIDS Healthcare Foundation a “homosexual activist group,” Weinstein notes that while they support gay activists, theirs is not a “homosexual activist group.”

That’s an incorrect characterization. In fact, the vast majority of our clients are heterosexual.

But facts to Bryan Fischer are merely chess pieces to be used and sacrificed in performance of his daily radical religious rites. Fischer, who spends his Sunday mornings tweeting voraciously, apparently prays at the altar of hate, homophobia, and hysteria.

“Gay sex should be contrary to public policy, and it looks like the first steps in that direction are being taken by gay activists themselves,” Fischer wrongly writes. “Who could have seen that coming? Perhaps the best thing the pro-family community can do is just get out their way.”

He continues:

We have been saying for years that homosexual behavior ought to be contrary to public policy because it is a menace to public health. We ought to care too much for our citizens to promote behavior that we know is linked to a disease which can destroy human health and shorten life spans. It is callous and indifferent to endorse behavior that we know can be lethal to people we are supposed to love and care for.

It’s almost surreal to have gay activists echoing our message, and going beyond our message to propose financial and criminal penalties for this health-destroying conduct.

This brings us to the final point. Gay activists want to punish producers who allow film workers to engage in behavior which threatens their health and the health of their sexual partners. So they want to protect the health of people who get paid to have sex.

But what about people who engage in this kind of dangerous and risky behavior without getting a paycheck for it? Should we just seek to enact public policies that protect professional sex workers, or should we seek to protect the health of all of our citizens? An HIV/AIDS victim is a victim whether the partner who infected him got paid to do it or did it for free.

Of course, Fischer totally ignores the fact that this ordinance isn’t about gay sex, but sex. period. All sex. Gay sex, straight sex, and any combination thereof, when it comes to pornography. Period.

Ged Kenslea, the Marketing & Communications Director at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, also spoke with The New Civil Rights Movement and offered us this statement via email:

AIDS Healthcare Foundation is NOT seeking to re-criminalize gay sex, and we are certainly not anti-porn–gay or straight. Performing in adult films is a legally permitted activity in the State of California, sanctioned by a 1988 California State Supreme Court decision. As such, our ballot measure, which Mr. Fisher references and mischaracterizes, would merely require adult filmproducers to obtain a public health permit as a condition of doing business in Los Angeles County—just as nail salons, barber shops and tattoo parlors must, and then to follow California and federal health and safety laws regarding employees. The ballot measure is simply to allow Los Angeles County voters to weigh in on a means to ensure that adult producers, and the adult film performers working for them, follow existing California state and federal health statutes, which already require the use of condoms in the production of any and all adult films.

So, let’s get this straight, Bryan. The use of condoms in pornography — gay or straight — is a good thing. No one, except you and your radical minions, wants to criminalize gay sex. Period.

Apparently, Bryan Fischer has a problem getting his facts straight.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Buttigieg on Martha-Ann Alito: Flags Symbolizing Love vs. Insurrection Are Different



U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg says he hopes Americans can see the difference between an LGBTQ Pride flag representing love, like the one Martha-Ann Alito lamented she has to look at daily, and flags that symbolize the January 6, 2021 insurrection, two of which she flew at the homes she and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito live in.

“I’m often reminded that the most important thing in my life, which is my marriage, and my family and the two beautiful children that my husband Chasten and I are raising that that marriage only exists by the grace of the single vote on the United States Supreme Court,” said Secretary Buttigieg, responding to a question during a CNN interview Wednesday morning about secretly-recorded remarks Mrs. Alito made. “That expanded our rights and freedoms back in 2015 and made it possible for somebody like me to get married.”

“And, you know, Supreme Court justices have an unbelievable amount of power and, and by the nature in the structure, the Supreme Court, there’s no supervision over that power. They are entrusted with it literally for as long as they live. And part of that trust is we expect them to enter into those enormously consequential decisions that that shape our everyday lives with a sense of fairness,” Buttigieg continued, appearing to acknowledge the tremendous drop in perceived credibility the Supreme Court has suffered in recent years. Last summer Pew Research reported the court’s favorability rating had dropped to a “historic low.”

RELATED: Secret Audio of Justice Alito’s Wife Exposes His Plans and Her ‘Bitterness’: Critics

“I also hope that most Americans can understand the difference between a flag that symbolizes you know, love and acceptance and signals to people who have sometimes feared for their safety that they’re going to be okay. And insurrectionists symbology, I’ll just leave it at that.”

CNN’s Berman played audio of Martha-Ann Alito before asking the Secretary to offer his remarks.

“I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month,” Mrs. Alito can be heard saying in the secretly-recorded audio. “And he’s like, ‘Oh, please don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it. Because I’m deferring to you but when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day.’ ”

Although CNN did not play the full clip of Mrs. Alito’s remarks, she continued, saying, “I’ll be changing the flags. They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’ in Italian means shame — vergogna. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna.”

She also said, “I’m German. I’m from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you. And there will be a way — it doesn’t have to be now — but there will be a way they will know. Don’t worry about it. God — you read the Bible. Psalm 27 is my psalm. Mine. Psalm 27, the Lord is my God and my rock. Of whom shall I be afraid? Nobody.”

Watch Buttigieg’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Insists No Mandatory Military Draft Advisers Have Been Planning

Continue Reading


Speaker Johnson on Why He Thinks Hunter Biden’s Conviction Is Valid but Donald Trump’s Is Not



Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who could gain tremendous power if Donald Trump is elected president in November, explained to reporters his belief that Tuesday’s jury conviction of Hunter Biden on three federal felony gun charges was absolutely legitimate while Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 state felony charges was not.

“Every case is different,” Johnson told CNN’s Manu Raju (video below) when asked if “the president’s son being convicted on three counts” undercuts the Republican Speaker’s claims of a “two tier system of justice.”

Johnson added, “clearly the evidence was overwhelming” in the Hunter Biden prosecution, one which some legal experts said should not have been brought and at least one member of the jury who spoke to CNN said was a waste of the taxpayers’ dime.

“I don’t think that’s the case in the Trump trials, and all the charges that have been brought” against Trump “have been obviously brought for political purposes. Hunter Biden is a separate instance.”

READ MORE: Secret Audio of Justice Alito’s Wife Exposes His Plans and Her ‘Bitterness’: Critics

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) issued a strong response to the Johnson’s claims.

“We should be very very worried that Republicans are so brazen in their belief that convictions of Democrats are fine but convictions of Republicans are illegitimate. This is a political party TELLING US OUT LOUD that they plan to use the justice system to persecute opponents.”

Speaker Johnson and Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and members from both their GOP conferences will be meeting with Donald Trump on Thursday, reportedly to create a game plan to pass major right-wing legislation if the convicted ex-president wins back the White House on November, NBC News reports.

Watch below or at this link.



Continue Reading


Trump Insists No Mandatory Military Draft Advisers Have Been Planning



Presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump slapped down a report revealing his top advisors, including former high-ranking administration officials working on Project 2025, want to reinstate the mandatory military draft.

“Influential figures in Donald Trump’s orbit, including his former acting defense secretary, have proposed making military service mandatory,” The Washington Post reported Tuesday in a morning brief. “Christopher Miller, the former acting secretary of the Defense Department, shared his pitch for a national service mandate in Project 2025, the outline for a second Trump term prepared by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.”

In an expanded report, The Washington Post revealed if Trump is elected and if Miller becomes his Secretary of Defense, high school students across the country could be required to take a military assessment, “the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a standardized test developed by the Defense Department decades ago to help the military funnel recruits into occupations that match their skills and intellect.”

In an interview with the Post, Miller “detailed his vision for the ASVAB and a range of other changes as part of Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s aspirational government-wide game plan should the presumptive Republican nominee return to the White House. Though Trump has not publicly endorsed its policy proposals, Miller is among a cluster of influential former administration officials and GOP lawmakers who have mused aloud about a national service mandate and other measures to remedy what they see as a ‘crisis’ facing the all-volunteer military.”

READ MORE: ‘False’ and ‘Irresponsible’: DOJ Smacks Down Jim Jordan’s ‘Conspiracy’ in Sharp Letter

“Miller said a national service requirement should be ‘strongly considered.’ He described the concept as a common ‘rite of passage,’ one that would create a sense of ‘shared sacrifice’ among America’s youth.”

Despite the facts, Trump blasted The Washington Post and its report.

“The Fake News Washington Post came up with the ridiculous idea that Donald J. Trump will call for Mandatory Military Service,” the ex-president and now convicted felon wrote on his Truth Social platform. “This is only a continuation of their EIGHT YEAR failed attempt to damage me with the Voters. The Story is completely untrue. In fact, I never even thought of that idea. Only a degenerate former Newspaper, which has lost 50% of its Readers, would fabricate such a tale. Just another Fake Story, one of many, made up by the DEAD Washington Compost!”

It’s unclear if by “DEAD” Trump was referring to The Post’s official slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” instituted the same year he became president.

The concept of “national service” is far from new, but the United States has not ever had mandatory military service, where everyone of a certain age was required to serve. Up until 1973 America still had the draft, before transitioning to an all-volunteer military.

President Barack Obama expanded opportunities for Americans to serve in non-military agencies, including AmeriCorps, FEMA Corps, and School Turnaround AmeriCorps.

Trump has kept his distance publicly away from Agenda 2025, but some experts believe should he be elected in November, that massive project, including its 920 manual, could easily become the national policy of the Trump administration.

The Biden administration has been campaigning against Project 2025.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Secret Audio of Justice Alito’s Wife Exposes His Plans and Her ‘Bitterness’: Critics

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.