Connect with us

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

Published

on

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.

Related Topics:
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.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

18 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.