Professional Homosexual Hater Attacks Beck, Says “Gays Will Come To Get Us”
Peter. LaBarbera.
I probably could make this a two-word post, just leaving it at that, and you’d have enough information. But for those of you who have yet to have the “pleasure” of Mr. LaBarbera’s “thoughts,” let me introduce him to you.
From his website: “Peter LaBarbera, 47, is president of Americans For Truth (about Homosexuality, or AFTAH), a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda. Founded as a part-time venture in 1996 but reorganized in August 2006, AFTAH seeks to apply the same single-minded determination to opposing the radical homosexual agenda and standing for God-ordained sexuality and the natural family as countless homosexual groups do in promoting their harmful agenda.”
OK…
If that weren’t enough, try this, from Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, who a few days ago in The Huffington Post, wrote, “A few years ago, I dubbed LaBarbera “Porno Pete” because of his bizarre fascination with naughty gay magazines and his penchant to go “undercover” at leather events and photograph naked men. It seems the sodomy-obsessed LaBarbera’s strategy is for anti-gay activists to talk explicitly about gay sex and why it is an unbecoming, immoral “behavior” that undermines society.”
OK.
Now, let me share with you a few of the more “choice” words LaBarbera had to say to Glenn Beck and, well, everyone, today, in his op-ed, “Why Glenn Beck Is Wrong about Legalizing Homosexual ‘Marriage’.”
And then let me counter his asinine thoughts with a dose of reality and truth.
Peter LaBarbera (just typing his name makes my skin crawl) is angry with Glenn Beck, who recently told his fellow Fox co-worker, Bill O’Reilly, that marriage equality (“gay marriage,”) is not a serious threat to America.
Remember? Watch:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4FMe3LpUhpY%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US%26border%3D1
By the way, listen to Bill O’Reilly make that oh-so-close slippery-slope statement that almost blames same-sex marriage for what Beck describes as, “the country burning down.” Oh, and, I’m sorry, Canada. Glenn Beck now has a big problem with you.
OK. So, now back to Peter LaBarbera.
Actually, this first: Why does LaBarbera feel the need to use the word, “homosexual” forty-four times in his piece?
Here’s a sampling:
homosexual “marriageâ€
federalized homosexual “marriageâ€
homosexual activism
homosexual Judge
homosexual ‘unions’
Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Centers
homosexual teachers
homosexual relationships
homosexual-â€marriage†states
homosexual practice
homosexual-led households
homosexual Scoutmasters
pro-homosexual activism
homosexualist “rightsâ€
pro-homosexualist ideology
homosexual activist attorneys
homosexual legal “rightsâ€
Get the idea that Labarbera has a lot of homosexuality on his mind?…
Now, to the actual “article.”
LaBarbera says, “federalized homosexual “marriage†would override the documented will of the people in the 31 states that have already voted…”
So?
Marriage is a civil right. The Supreme Court has said so. Now, Judge Walker has said so. Civil rights are federal, not state. (The FBI, for instance, investigates civil rights violations.) That one state or thirty-one states have voted against it means nothing. It was not something that should have been up for a vote in the first place.
Oh, and by the way, I’ll remind you that when interracial marriage was deemed “legal,” only 20% of America supported it. The “states rights” thing didn’t work then, it didn’t work when we had slavery, it doesn’t work now.
Perhaps we should have a vote on other rights? Should we vote on, say, if conservative bigots should have the right to spread their hate across America? Should we vote on allowing Peter LaBarbera to continue to spread his falsehoods without consequence?
LaBarbera’s next “point”:
“Legalized homosexual “marriage†will force businessmen and -women to subsidize homosexual relationships even if they rightly believe that those relationships are immoral and deviant.”
Really? I’m pretty sure that as a tax-paying citizen, along with thirty million or so other members of the LGBTQ community, we’ve been subsidizing heterosexual marriage for centuries. We pay taxes that support the 1138 federal benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy that we cannot. We also pay taxes for things like schools — gladly, I might add — that up until recently we rarely had children to send to.
The gay community had been “subsidizing” the straight community for centuries. It’s time for some payback — in the form of simple equality.
LaBarbera continues, “A businessman who provides marital benefits to his employees could not choose which “marriages†(normal or counterfeit-â€gayâ€) merit company support and which do not — even if he strongly disagrees with homosexual ‘unions’ as a violation of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence. ”
That’s right, Peter. Just as a businessman who provides marital benefits to his employees cannot choose which marriages, say, interracial, black, white, Asian… to support. It’s a little thing called “equality,” and it’s the very foundation of America. To quote our Declaration of Independence.
LaBarbera writes, “Legalized homosexual “marriage  turns America’s schools into Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Centers – an evil on a par with legalizing the killing of innocent, unborn children in the womb in the name of “choice†and “reproductive rights.â€
Wow. I’m not even going to touch that.
Yes, I am.
So, Peter, same-sex marriage is equal to abortion, and, to your mind, murder?
Wow.
What do you think? Is same-sex marriage akin to murder? How very “Christian” (not!) of you. Isn’t saying same-sex marriage is akin to murder disgusting?
Now, and I’ve said this before, the thing I love about these far-right-wing radical bigots is that they actually think their positions and opinions are so valid, so correct, so true, that other people must believe them also.
Maggie Gallagher is the queen of saying such bigoted things and never realizing what it sounds like.
Here are a few of Peter’s crazy “issues”:
“Picture a lesbian teacher putting the photo of her and her female parter — or maybe the celebratory photo of them kissing after their “marriage†ceremony — on her desk in front of the class.”
Um, I’ve never had a teacher put a photo of their wedding on their desk, but so what?
“In homosexual-â€marriage†states, school textbooks will be re-written to validate homosexual “marriages†as the real deal — and the winning “gay marriage†would be portrayed as a genuine civil rights achievement.”
Um, yes, and your point would be?…
“[E]ven very young students would be taught that those who fought the “gay†civil rights movement — culminating in its greatest prize, “marriage equality†— are the modern-day equivalents of Americans who fought against racial reconciliation and true civil rights.”
Um, yes, and your point would be?…
“The law is a teacher and unfortunately the lesson here is that Americans of faith who agree with God against homosexual “marriage†are small-minded, intolerant bigots who “hate gay people.â€
Um, yes, and your point would be?…
I’ll leave you with this last “point” from LaBarbera:
“Finally: yes, Glenn, the “gays†— read: driven and well-funded homosexual activists — will “come to get us,†in one important sense (see Beck’s comment to FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly). If history is a guide, homosexual activists will absolutely set their sights on demonizing churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples (a saccharine term I avoid; these are not normal “couples†but people practicing perversion together). Here Mr. Beck, reportedly a Mormon, displays astonishing naivete, particularly for someone in the conservative information business.”
This is a lie, and you, Peter, I believe are a liar.
“Homosexual activists,” as you call us, want nothing to do with religious institutions. We’re not going to try to force them to do or not do anything. And we cannot. That little thing called “separation of church and state,” which you, Peter, and your conservative nincompoops hate so much, actually would protect churches and other houses of worship from “homosexual activists” — or anyone else — who tried to “force” marriage equality on anyone.
So, Peter, how does it feel to be the last vestige of a dying hate, of bigotry and intensely un-American activities?
I guess you know what those who opposed interracial marriage, or the end of slavery, or women’s suffrage, must have felt like as they saw their lives crumble on the wrong side of history.
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.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
