So, this is going to be a little bit different.  You see, I’ve had this tab open in my browser since this morning, of a GRRRR so angry post from Peter LaBarbera, where he goes after his supposed allies at the National Organization for Marriage over their lack of concern over DADT repeal.  NOM’s position is that they only care about keeping marriage from the gays, whereas Peter LaBarbera is committed to hating all gays in all places.

But here’s the thing:  Peter’s post has disappeared!  The top post at AFTAH is now his interview with somebody named Colonel Dick Black, and believe me, I’ve already made fifty jokes about that in my head.  Did he have second thoughts about going after people who are more powerful in his own movement?  Regardless, screen caps are magic, so you can see it and stuff.  Here’s the picture, then we’ll talk about what he said below that:

aftah Peter LaBarbera is Very Upset with NOM for Supporting DADT Repeal!

Okay, let’s see what silliness the disappearing post contains:

I doubt that NOM would support tradition-minded, Christian soldiers and sailors from Small Town America being subjected to radical, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but that’s what’s coming if NOM’s regrettable tweet comes to pass.

Maybe Peter realized that his already shrinking influence in his movement would go all the way down the tubes if he pissed NOM off.

Can’t NOM see that it is undercutting its own cause (and the truth) by pandering to the ”Gay” Lobby’s goal of homosexuality as a state-backed “civil right”? Long before “gay marriage” became a major issue, “sexual orientation” laws created the legal basis for punishing moral critics of sodomy. And let’s be clear: when pro-family marriage advocates talk up “equal rights for gays and lesbians” (as the Prop 8 appeal brief does here), they are engaged in a dangerous double-game — because so many homosexual ideologues believe their “right” to be approved as a homosexual supersedes YOUR right to disagree with their lifestyle. It’s a zero-sum game between “gay rights” and religious/moral rights, as lesbian lawyer and Obama EEOC appointee Chai Feldblum puts it; of course, she thinks “gays” should win and Christians should lose in most cases. In that sense, GLBT activists are pro-discrimination, even as they tout ”equality.”

Yes, Peter, our right to equality does supersede your right to keep that from happening. You’re free to bitch, as usual. First Amendment, etc.

Our constitutional rights come ultimately from God. Homosexuality, like all sin, is against God’s will, as is Therefore, it cannot be the basis for “constitutional” rights.

Bull-honkey, etc., as the United States is a secular nation.

To be sure, the NOM tweet is part of a larger, too-cute-by-half trend in the pro-traditional-marriage movement of gradually promoting the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships as part of a new, ”moderate” strategy to head off “gay marriage.” (We mustn’t appear “anti-gay” in an increasingly pro-gay culture, goes the thinking ….) This deeply flawed gambit could pave the way for a crippling of the noble movement to resist the normalization of homosexuality (the “gay” agenda), since a house divided against itself cannot stand.

This is why you’re labeled as a hate website and NOM isn’t.

In the end, NOM-type strategic capitulations help mainstream homosexual behavior and relationships in the culture – and they assist liberals in castigating the more principled fighters against the homosexual agenda as somehow “bigoted” and extreme. If you’re a truth-telling kind of person and hence committed to opposing the entire homosexual political/cultural agenda, be prepared to be thrown – like Randy Thomasson – under the New & Improved, ‘Gay-Tolerant’ Pro-Family Movement’s bus.

The pro-life movement doesn’t sell out its most core principles, and neither does the pro-homosexual crowd, for that matter, misguided as its goals are. In fact, most GLBT activists fight aggressively and tenaciously for full acceptance of homosexuality in all areas of society, even teaching it to young children. Why on earth would we compromise our principles when they are based not on lies but timeless truths and divinely-created nature itself?

So many euphemisms for “bigot,” he uses. “Timeless truths.” “Divinely-created nature.”

Anyway. So those are the words Peter doesn’t want the NOM folks to see.  Not his best work, if you ask me.