“Porno-Pete” LaBarbera has resigned his position as Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute to:
…pursue his goal of creating a national organization dedicated to confronting the homosexual activist agenda.
[snip]LaBarbera’s group, Americans for Truth, will be based in Naperville, Illinois.
In other words, Peter will be able to obsess over gay people full-time, whereas that pesky Illinois Family Institute sometimes required he deal with other issues.
Now contrary to the IFI’s press release, Pete doesn’t have to “create” his new organization, since Americans For Truth was formed in August of 2000 by disgraced ex-gay and spreader of HIV Michael Johnson.
Hat tip (and happy birthday) Scott H.
Dan, while we may not agree with our adversaries, there is no reason to call them names. We fight against name calling, yet you only fuel the fire. I ask that you remove the word porno from your post. You can make your statement without being hateful or childish. Let’s act with civility. Isn’t that what this site is about or have the rules changed?
Dan, It’s a bit confusing but I think the article about HIV-spreading Michael Johnston indicated that LaBarbera actually did start Americans for Truth but that it became at least partly a project of Johnston.
I wonder what really happened. I can’t imagine that LaBarbera suddenly decided that he’d rather leave the affluent organization that gave him prestige and a name and go work in a defunct adjunct of Johnston’s “ministry”. Maybe he just got too nutty and extreme even for IFI.
And speaking of Johnston, I wonder what ever happened to him. I hope he’s gotten some counseling and is no longer endangering others.
Anonymous, have you read that man’s stuff?!?!
As for ol’ Porno Pete, well, bless his heart. Maybe he’ll eventually have to do something that will actually serve humanity for a living, like flip burgers or something.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 16, 2006 04:38 PM
If you would like to post, please include your working email address and select a consistent nickname. While the email address will not be published, it is required (which is why we ask for it in the first place). Posts that do not meet these basic criteria in the future may be removed without further notice. Thank you for your cooperation.
David Roberts
My personal opinion is that Porno Pete was forced out. He’s a complete lightning rod, he comes off as nuts and obsessed and I think embarassing fraud that the marriage amendment petitions turned out to be was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
It all doesn’t add up to me. I think the IFA’s board of directors finally had had enough and made Porno Pete leave. They’re just giving him a graceful exit. American’s for Truth is an easy place for him to run to and look respectable since it’s something he started years ago with Johnston.
Calling him “Porno Pete” to me is not sacrificing any civility. It is a satirical, witty way to highlight the man’s obsession with gay subcultural activities. I am all for civility but there is a difference between civility and trying too hard to be on the “proper” side of every argument.
Sometimes, a little bite and spice is exactly what we need.
I agree with Scott. I might also add that letters to the editor in the papers have been favorable to IFI of late. (Sorry, I can’t paste links, the Chicago Tribune only keeps letters online for 7 days.)
The petitions for the referendum was a complete debacle. It was not handled by people with experience in this field.
Not only were there a lot of bogus signatures, but the slightest discrepancy can invalidate a signature.
It’s a rarity that I agree with anything IFI says, but in this one case, it’s true – if you have someone sign a petition twice (say a few months apart), it doesn’t just invalidate one signature, it invalidates both.
If the petition is not circulated by a registered voter in that jurisdiction, all the signatures are invalid, etc.
It’s an incredibly high hurdle to overcome, but it’s that way by design. The writers of the Illinois Constitution in their wisdom back in the early 1960’s did not want populism to supplant justice and due process. You have to keep in mind that the civil rights movement was beginning to have some successes at this time and they did not want to see that undone.
As for Mr. LaBarbera, I think IFI’s board quietly showed him the door, just as CWFA did a few years ago. His writings, rhetoric, and tactics have become more and more inflammatory over the past few years and it doesn’t reflect favorably in a blue state.
Correction: letters to the editor have been unfavorable. This person of a certain age needs new bifocals!
LaBarbera is about to restart The Lambda Report? I heard Paul Cameron is looking for an outlet for his “research”, and it would be just great to see these two guys working together again.
And — as those of you who followed the unfolding story — during those days LaBarbera was also responsible for the media circus about (claimed, but not for long) exgay Wade Richards; who was “just a kid” at the time. Alas, for LaBarbera, Wade finally found his own voice and renounced the whole thing as a complete fraud.
Wade has made some welcome comments here at XGW in the past. Perhaps it would be good to get a “pre-emptive” comment from him — and hand that out at every press conference that LaBarbera attempts to hold!
As someone who has worked on door to door or phone banking campaigns and signed petitions myself, I have to wonder what this group had to say to the public to persuade them to sign?
My activity for the No on Prop. 22 campaign involved telling the public that this amendment set up gay couples to be unable to care for their significant other.
It involved this couple, but also kept the state from having to intervene on their behalf for intimate family decisions and support.
The state being the rest of us.
Our campaign involved telling the public that marriage enabled the gay couple, rather than compromised what others decided for THEIR families.
This was not only reasoned, but truthful for persuasion.
The opposition, on the other hand often used words like, ‘destructive’, ‘perverse’, ‘opening a slippery slope to marriage between humans and animals.’ ‘dangerous to children.’.
I’m not exaggerating at all.
We didn’t have to use scare words or scare tactics to illustrate social impact.
Sad that fear wins out more than reason.
And fear is most dangerous to everyone.