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.
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.
 |
Former Representative Matt Gaetz suggested that he could “go after” his “former colleagues in Congress” the day before the House Ethics Committee report came out.
Gaetz made his comments Sunday afternoon at Turning Point USA’s “AmericaFest” event in Arizona, according to The Hill.
“My fellow Floridians have asked me to eye the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee, maybe [be appointed as] special counsel to go after the insider trading for my former colleagues in Congress. It seems I may not have had enough support [to be confirmed as Attorney General] in the United States Senate. Maybe I’ll just run for Marco Rubio’s vacant seat in the United States Senate and join some of those folks,” Gaetz said.
READ MORE: Gaetz Rages at Secret Vote to Release Ethics Report, Insists He Was ‘Fully Exonerated’
This is not the first time Gaetz has suggested he might retaliate against the House. Last week, he suggested on X (formerly Twitter) that since he was elected to the new Congress—despite resigning the position when incoming President Donald Trump initially named him as his pick for Attorney General—he could participate in the vote for House Speaker.
“Someone suggested the following plan to me: 1. Show up 1/3/2025 to congress 2. Participate in Speaker election (I was elected to the 119th Congress, after all…) 3. Take the oath 4. File a privileged motion to expose every ‘me too’ settlement paid using public funds (even of former members) 5. Resign and start my @OANN program at 9pm EST on January 6, 2025,” he wrote, alongside a “thinking” emoji.
Someone suggested the following plan to me:
1. Show up 1/3/2025 to congress
2. Participate in Speaker election (I was elected to the 119th Congress, after all…)
3. Take the oath
4. File a privileged motion to expose every “me too” settlement paid using public funds (even of…— Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (@FmrRepMattGaetz) December 18, 2024
There are reports other Republican representatives are working to make Gaetz’ threat a reality, according to Politico. Though Politico did not name which representatives were involved, one potential Gaetz ally is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who backed his threat on X, according to Newsweek.
“If Congress is going to release one ethics report, they should release them all. I want to see the Epstein list. I want to see the details of the slush fund for sexual misconduct by members of Congress and Senators. I want to see it all,” she wrote.
The House Ethics Committee report released Monday found that while the claims that Gaetz violated sex trafficking laws were unsubstantiated, other accusations against him were supported by evidence. The report says the committee found evidence that Gaetz paid thousands of dollars for sex; violated Florida’s statutory rape law; used cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana illegally; violated the rule on accepting gifts from lobbyists; gave friends special privileges and favors; and tried to obstruct the committee’s investigation.
Gaetz sued in an attempt to block the release of the report, claiming the committee no longer had jurisdiction. Gaetz denied the allegations.
“Once released, the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation and professional standing would be immediate, severe and irreversible, particularly because: a. The Committee’s findings would carry the imprimatur of official Congressional action; b. Media coverage would be immediate and widespread; c. The allegations would permanently remain in the public record,” Gaetz’ attorneys wrote in the suit, according to Deadline.
The committee said that a majority of its members had voted that the release of the report was still in the public interest despite Gaetz’ resignation from Congress.
Image via Shutterstock
Though President Joe Biden commuted all but three sentences for those on federal death row, he ignored the four men on military death row.
On Monday morning, the White House announced that Biden had commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row to life imprisonment. The move comes as incoming President Donald Trump has vowed to resume federal executions.
“Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” Biden said in a statement. “But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level. In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”
Biden said the exceptions he made were in cases of “terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.” The three people to remain on death row are Dylann Roof, the man who killed nine at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Bowers, the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber.
As commander-in-chief, the president also has commutation power over those on military death row. Those four people are: Ronald Gray, who raped and murdered two women, and attempted to rape and murder a third; Hasan Akbar who killed two and injured 16 soldiers in an attack on Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait during the Iraq invasion; Timothy Hennis, who was originally acquitted in state court for the murder of three in North Carolina, but was tried again in military court for the crime and convicted; and Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 at Fort Hood in Texas in an attempt to help Islamic insurgents, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
If Biden chose to apply his criteria to the military death row, it’s likely that only Hasan would remain. Akbar, though he attempted to kill a large number of people, was not driven by hate, according to the BBC. Instead, Akbar said he suffered from mental illness, and his father said Akbar had faced harassment due to his race and religion.
Though Biden has so far declined to commute these sentences, none of these four men is necessarily in imminent danger of being executed. The U.S. military has not executed a prisoner since 1961.
Image via Shutterstock
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is losing support following last week’s funding crisis. But coming into the impending vote for a new speaker, Democrats have said they won’t help him like they did last time.
The new session of Congress is about to start, and on January 3, the House will vote for who should lead the chamber. In the past, it was nearly a sure thing that a sitting speaker whose party maintained control of the House would be reelected. But Johnson has always had a tenuous grasp on the position. Following the ouster of former Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy by the far-right wing of the party in November 2023, it took over three weeks for the House to agree on Johnson.
That vote was along party lines—but even still, Johnson was not solidly in position. Last May, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) filed a motion to remove him as speaker, but it failed, thanks in part to Democrats vowing to support him, according to Axios.
READ MORE: ‘Hell No!’: Democrats ‘Unified’ Against Reworked Funding Bill More Favorable to Trump
While Democratic support at that time was based around Johnson’s support for a Ukraine aid bill, that relationship has faltered after he abandoned his support of a bipartisan federal funding package last week. That fight also lost him favor with incoming President Donald Trump, as the Trump-preferred version of the package also failed. Trump was “upset”, according to Trump insiders speaking anonymously to Politico.
So far, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is the only Republican to come out and say he’s not voting for Johnson. But other Republicans say they’re undecided, with Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) telling Axios it would be up to Democrats to save Johnson.
“If Mike Johnson wants to continue to be the speaker, he’s going to have to get Democrats to support him. Otherwise, it will be tough for him,” Nehls said.
Johnson himself appears to not be optimistic about keeping the speakership. He asked Elon Musk if he wanted the position, according to Newsweek. Though the speaker of the House has traditionally been chosen from the sitting congresspeople, there is no law saying the speaker cannot be an outsider. During the fight that ultimately lead to Johnson winning the position in November 2023, Nehls was pushing for Trump to get the gig.
The House cannot function without a speaker. In the event of a protracted fight for the position, the House will be unable to pass any legislation.
Image via Reuters
House Could Be Heading For Another Speaker Battle As Dems Refuse to Help Mike Johnson
Biden Ignores Military Death Row In Commutation Spree
Matt Gaetz Suggests He Could ‘Go After Former Colleagues’ in House as Special Counsel
Matt Gaetz Suggests He Could ‘Go After Former Colleagues’ in House as Special Counsel
Biden Ignores Military Death Row In Commutation Spree
House Could Be Heading For Another Speaker Battle As Dems Refuse to Help Mike Johnson
Report: House GOP Eyes $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts — Social Security, Medicare at Risk
‘What Constitution Is He Reading?’: Republican’s Interpretation of Role of Congress Stuns
News4 days ago‘Hell No!’: Democrats ‘Unified’ Against Reworked Funding Bill More Favorable to Trump
News3 days agoReport: House GOP Eyes $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts — Social Security, Medicare at Risk
News4 days agoTrump Threatens Shutdown, Says Biden Will Be Blamed
News3 days ago‘What Constitution Is He Reading?’: Republican’s Interpretation of Role of Congress Stuns
News3 days ago‘Sick’: Dems Slam Johnson’s Refusal to Negotiate as Government Hurls Toward Shutdown
- News3 hours ago
House Could Be Heading For Another Speaker Battle As Dems Refuse to Help Mike Johnson
News2 hours agoBiden Ignores Military Death Row In Commutation Spree
News53 mins agoMatt Gaetz Suggests He Could ‘Go After Former Colleagues’ in House as Special Counsel