Archive for the ‘Homosexual Special Rights?’ Category
Homosexual ‘Mix It Up’ day – Is your child’s school on the list?
Radical Southern Poverty Law Center behind gay indoctrination program
October 1, 2012
On, Tuesday, October 30, over two thousand schools across the nation will be observing "Mix It Up" (MIT) day. MIT is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. A strong focus is directed specifically to elementary and junior high grades.
MIT is a project of the fanatical pro-homosexual group, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This is the same organization that launched hateful and malicious rhetoric toward the Family Research Council just prior to the August shooting of a security guard by a SPLC sympathizer.
AFA is joining other family-oriented groups in urging parents to keep their children at home that day if their local school is sponsoring the "Mix It Up" project.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is using this project to bully-push its gay agenda, and at the same time, intimidate and silence students who have a Biblical view of homosexuality.
See if your school is on the list. If it is, a simple phone call or letter to school administrators telling them your child will not attend school on October 30 may be enough to cause some participating schools to change their plans to sponsor, endorse, or promote "Mix It Up" day.
Note: If your school is listed, it may be without the knowledge or permission of school administrators. If so, ask them to send an email to www.tolerance.org/contact-form and instruct the SPLC to remove their school from the list immediately.
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
The Day of Silencing
On April 20, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20 will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as "a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools." As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.
Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.
But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.
But there’s more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.
Just ask PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays), which announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. According to PFOX president Greg Quinlan, "PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change."
How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, "the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is."
How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and most recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, "Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students." Ah yes, the voice of tolerance speaks once again.
What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, and scheduled this year for April 19, the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages "student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality …. [Jesus'] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says."
Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a professing Christian woman with a self-described "hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth," the Day of Dialogue has something "very rotten" at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com): "Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake." To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings: "There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students."
Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the Day of Silence. (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the overt homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools — remember, we’re talking about elementary schools — for fear of losing their jobs.)
Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American also did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation, he was told, should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.
Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing — unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.
Consumers contributing to sex-change operations?
Pink Bibles recalled; project labeled ‘mistake’
Perspective: Romney embraces gays in military
Beck with left on tea party’s ‘racism’
Don’t cross this Tennessee town
Another Macy’s store lets men to use women’s dressing rooms (company’s policy endangers women and girls)
Another Macy’s store lets men to use women’s dressing rooms
"…a pervasive problem within the Macy’s store system."
December 15, 2011
After firing an employee for refusing to let a man use a women’s dressing room in a Texas Macy’s store, another employee has come forward to expose the company’s policy that endangers women and girls.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, told OneNewsNow that an employee of another store has told him she has persistent problems keeping men out of the women’s fitting room.
"She says that mothers of young daughters come up to her periodically and ask her to keep the men from going into the women’s fitting rooms," the attorney reports. "So this apparently is a pervasive problem within the Macy’s store system."
Macy’s has a dangerous homosexual-friendly policy that allows men to use women’s rooms, essentially opening women’s dressing rooms to every man.
Email Macy’s President Terry Lundgren and urge him to immediately put safeguards in place to protect women customers from men who would enter their dressing areas.
IMPORTANT! Personally call Macy’s headquarters at 513-579-7000 and express your outrage at this injustice to female employees and customers.
Other numbers to call:
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
Study: U.S. has 4M ‘gay’ adults; 1.7% of populace
SAN FRANCISCO – A California demographer has released a best guess of how many homosexual adults are in the U.S.
Gary Gates puts the figure at 4 million adults, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population. That’s much lower than the 3 to 5 percent that has been the conventional wisdom in the last two decades, based on other isolated studies. It’s also a fraction of the figure put out by Alfred Kinsey, who said in the 1940s that 10 percent of the men he surveyed were "predominantly homosexual."
Gates has advised the Census Bureau. He’s a demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
He derived his results [PDF] from five studies that asked subjects about their sexual orientations.
Dissenters Will Be Punished!
Homosexual activists are no longer content to try to end "discrimination" against homosexuals–they are now trying to impose discrimination on anyone who dissents from their views. The most recent evidence comes from Georgia, where Augusta State University counseling student Jennifer Keeton has had to file a federal lawsuit, with the help of our friends at Alliance Defense Fund, to defend her rights. When Jen expressed her Christian view that homosexual conduct is morally wrong in class and in private conversation with other students, the faculty responded by insisting that she participate in a "remediation plan"–essentially, a year-long program of intensive pro-homosexual indoctrination that would only be considered successful if she abandoned her moral values.
Unfortunately, this is not the first such story of political correctness in the counseling profession reaching totalitarian levels. ADF is representing a student who was already kicked out of a similar program at Eastern Michigan University, and another woman who was fired as a counselor for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, her story appears on our video "ENDA: The End of Religious Freedom in America?." This radical agenda–not just to officially affirm homosexuality, but to forcefully crush any dissent–is exactly what Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has endorsed. When will they learn that we have no intention of forfeiting our constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion?
Defense Authorization Bill: Question of the Day
If the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy is revoked, what would the medical implications be? Dr. Robert Labutta (U.S. Army, Colonel, Ret.) addresses those concerns in today’s video clip.
Q: "What are the health implications if the law is changed to allow open homosexuality in the military?"
Homosexuals are identified by the U.S. government as a cohort at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. At the National HIV Prevention Conference in August 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that AIDS is 50 times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations. HIV is already a threat to military readiness–although HIV-positive recruits are excluded from the military, those who become HIV-positive while serving cannot be discharged, but they also cannot be deployed overseas. However, this is far from the only health risk to homosexuals. One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ronald Stall, has declared, "It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today. There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse. This is called a syndemic." The "four other epidemics" are "substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse."
Pruning "Marriage" Rights in the Garden State
New Jersey is enjoying something of a conservative Renaissance. Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) strong defense of fiscal and social conservatism is being augmented by the work of New Jersey’s Supreme Court, which has now stated it will not review litigation that threatens to make homosexual "marriage" legal. The decision in the Garden State’s highest court was 3-3, in itself a tie, but for a motion to proceed four affirmative votes are required.
As noted by the Philadelphia Enquirer, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and two colleagues stated that the case "cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record," and denied the plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. This means, in essence, that proponents of "gay marriage" will have to begin in a lower court before their case reaches the state’s highest bench.
This follows legislative action earlier this year in which the New Jersey State Senate voted down a bill to legalize homosexual "marriage." Gov. Christie has said he would support an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution, as 30 states have already done, prohibiting same-sex "marriage." Although New Jersey recognizes "civil unions," it is clear that the state’s governor, elected representatives, and leading judges are not willing to be bullied by the activist homosexual lobby into circumventing the processes by which the ridiculous notion of homosexual "marriage" can even be considered. For that, they deserve the gratitude of those of us who believe not just in marriage as it was designed by God but who also respect the rule of law.
Obama’s Two Dads
In the 100 years of Father’s Days, not one President had ever used the occasion to push a political agenda. Until now. In what has been a traditionally non-newsworthy event, the White House issued a proclamation yesterday honoring U.S. dads. Proving that nothing is sacred–not even fatherhood–the President couldn’t resist a shout-out to his homosexual base, marring what should have been a powerful acknowledgement of the family’s importance in American life. Recognizing that "nurturing families come in many forms," President Obama intentionally included "two fathers" in that list, an obvious overture to the rich homosexual donors who have been driving much of his legislative agenda lately. This is not only a departure from the societies norm, but a radical shift even from the White House’s 2009 statement, which singled out "surrogate fathers" who help "raise, mentor, or care for someone else’s child." In an age when 24 million children are growing up without a father at ho me, the President’s focus should be on the relationship of fathers to their children, not to their partners. This detour to promote homosexuality injects division into an issue that demands the attention of every community and political party. If there’s to be any relief from this rising trend of absentee dads, the promotion of fatherhood will have to come before the promotion of the President’s extreme social agenda. Instead, this administration is chipping away at the family with laser-like precision. It made the same overture to homosexuals last month on Mother’s Day, but no one picked up on the President’s nod in all of the media frenzy over Elena Kagan’s nomination. Sadly, the real victims of his agenda are the children, who, social science shows, do best with a married mother and father. Kids need the influence of both genders, and no two people–however loving they may be- -can fill the void that’s created when you intentionally deprive them of a mom or dad. Unfortunately, there’s a vacuum in our culture that’s allowing the President to push this agenda. The breakdown of the family has created an opening for the Left to barge in and seize on those weaknesses. That’s why it’s so important for America–and churches, in particular–to renew their commitment to strengthening and upholding marriage. This kind of change isn’t up to Congress or the White House. It’s up to each one of us to take responsibility for our families.
Kagan Lacks Wisdom of Solomon
Last week Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) took to the Senate floor to defend President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s role in kicking military recruiters off of Harvard’s campus while she was the law school dean. He might have wanted to wait to read the new documents released this weekend that show that not only was Elena Kagan key in kicking military recruiters off campus, directly violating U.S. law, she did so more or less independently–not even consulting the dean of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers. The law she violated was the Solomon amendment that insists that if your university accepts federal funds it should also accept military recruiters. She called the current policy of "Don’t A sk Don’t Tell," which was created by her future boss President Bill Clinton and supported by the Democratic Congress at the time, "a moral injustice of the first order." She was so outraged that she did not work with the Pentagon to find a solution, instead leaving that work to others, which was fine to Military leaders at the time who found her hostility to them prevalent. If Ms. Kagan has such disdain for passed legislation she disagrees with that she is willing to violate the law instead of seeking a solution, does she really have the temperament to have a permanent seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Obama’s Selective Hearing on Military Concerns
Defense Secretary Robert Gates had an interesting take on what is wrong with the Defense Authorization over the weekend. He reiterated a veto threat of the legislation over a dispute on funding for some jet engines that the military is saying they don’t want, but members of Congress are funding anyway. Citizens Against Government Waste Tom Schatz has highlighted the problems with the spending on the jet engines, "Two presidents, two secretaries of defense, a phalanx of top military officials, and a majority of the Senate have all agreed that this program should be terminated." I agree with Tom and the President that if the military doesn’t want the engines, there is no reason that taxpayers should be funding them; however, it is curious how the President seems to pick and choose when he listens to what our fighting men and women are saying. Also included in the House and Sen ate versions of the Defense Authorizations is language that would change the current policy on not allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, despite the top four of the service chiefs asking Congress to wait till they have completed their review and gotten feedback from the troops. Additionally the Senate version includes language that would effectively turn our military hospitals into abortion facilities, which in the past was opposed by a majority of military doctors and nurses. The President rightfully doesn’t believe that the military should be used as a cash cow by Congress however he has no problem using them as lab rats for his social agenda.
** "This Father’s Day will be a celebration for dads all over the country…but for many men, the memory of involvement in a past abortion, of ‘cards they will not receive,’ will be painful and palpable." In a brand new column by Jerry DeBin and FRC’s Jeanne Monahan, we learn about the other silent victims of abortion: would-be fathers, who feel the grief and trauma of abortion just as powerfully as their female partners. How the loss of a baby affects men is rarely discussed in the mainstream press, but research shows how profoundly abortion affects them. To understand more about their experience, please take a few minutes to read "A Woman’s ‘Choice’ That Affects Men: Post-Abortion Trauma." **
"Homosexuality Is Not ‘A Civil Right’"
The California Orange County Board of Education voted unanimously (5-0) to oppose the creation of Harvey Milk Day. Gov. Schwarzenegger is ordering it to be observed.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama was given a hero’s welcome last night as he addressed the nation’s most powerful homosexual group.WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama was given a hero’s welcome last night as he addressed the nation’s most powerful homosexual group….
Homosexual Activists Go GaGa for Obama
On Saturday night, billing himself as the opening act for singer Lady GaGa, President Obama mustered all of his rhetorical skills to deliver a rousing speech to the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, America ‘s largest pro-homosexual organization. It was an effort to pander to (and to some extent placate) one of the most radical parts of his liberal base — people who, despite Obama’s endorsement of 99% of their far-left agenda, are impatient with the pace of social and political change.
The speech was interrupted often by applause, but punctuated mostly by ironies — beginning with his praise for "progress sought by those with little influence or power" while speaking at a $250-a-plate black-tie dinner attended by federal office-holders and the Hollywood glitterati. He complained that "some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity" — yet it is "GLBT" activists themselves who do that. We consider them human beings, who like all human beings must be held accountable for the consequences of their chosen behaviors.
He celebrated an impending victory for the homosexual political agenda, the expected passage of a federal "hate crimes" measure this week, by paying tribute to the parents of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming. Yet the best evidence suggests this was not an "anti-gay" hate crime at all — and in any case, the murderers were vigorously punished even in the absence of a "hate crimes" law.
Media reports on the speech focused on the President’s pledge, "I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Obama declared, "We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need" — while failing to recognize that allowing homosexuality in the ranks is what would devastate recruiting and reenlistment rates. The roughly two percent of the population that is homosexual will never replace the ten percent of current military personnel who have said they would not re-enlist if homosexuals are allowed in the military.
President Obama continued his two-step on the issue of marriage, stopping short of endorsing same-sex civil "marriage," but calling homosexual partners "spouses" and declaring that "I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple." He said we should "recognize relationships between two men and two women as just as real and admirable" as heterosexual ones. Yet there are a lot of relationships — between parents and children, between siblings, between close friends and neighbors, between members of a high school football team — that are "real and admirable," but that are never referred to as "marriage."
Perhaps in a veiled allusion to his controversial "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings, Obama said, "[I]f any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support." Yet Jennings is being attacked precisely for what he believes and what he has said and done, not for "who he is." (Perhaps the statement actually paves the way for Jennings ‘ departure.)
One thing was clear from Obama’s speech — his goal (like that of homosexual activists) is not simply equal legal rights. It is, rather, to overturn millennia of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. He dismissed those values as "outworn arguments and old attitudes," while decrying the grassroots campaigns to defend marriage as "divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain."
In other words, if you hold to traditional values, the ultimate goal is simple — to silence you. President Obama told HRC, "[D]o not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach." That’s a warning the American people should heed.
Change They Believe in — But Won’t Pay for
Kimberly Strassel may have figured out why Senator Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) health care plan is so popular with his liberal colleagues. In a shocking column called "State of Personal Privilege ," the Wall Street Journal columnist uncovered the real story behind Baucus’s proposal. According to Strassel, the bottom line is that these Senators are "all for imposing ‘reform’ on the nation, so long as it doesn’t disadvantage their constituents."
Under the Finance Committee’s "compromise," the state’s Medicaid programs would be the main vehicle for covering the majority of uninsured Americans. But the biggest problem with this idea is the states, many of which are struggling to make their own budgets, would bear the brunt of the expansion with an extra $37 billion in costs. But here’s the kicker: not every state would share in the burden. At least 17 would get a special break on the tax threshold and four would be exempt from footing the bill all together! Can you guess what these areas have in common? Most have Senators on the Finance Committee or in leadership roles. Nevada, Oregon, and Michigan have somehow managed to cut a deal so that the federal government covers their portion of the new Medicaid expenses over the next five years. Not surprisingly, they’re represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Finance Committee Members Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, California, and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more in taxes so that [Harry Reid's state] can pay less…" said Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R), whose state wouldn’t enjoy these perks.
Of course, this isn’t the first time liberals have passed the buck on their own reform. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee made a point of excluding members of Congress from ObamaCare in its bill. This is especially interesting since President Obama made a point of telling voters, "If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves." That is, until Congress decided that government-run health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org