COMMENT:  So much for 'tolerance'.  Same-sex marriage supporters will not be satisfied until these relationships are legal and the sexual behavior is protected, supported and validated through public policy.  Now it is being reported that the judge hearing the court case on Prop 8 in California is homosexual.  No wonder I have been receiving emails about how that case is being handled. I encourage you to pray about the case and the people involved in passing Prop 8 as they are harassed.  The outcome could impact the whole country!!

The Elephant in the Room: No way to preach tolerance

Opponents of same- sex marriage have faced persecution in California.

The reaction of some Prop 8 opponents - the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance - was swift and fierce. They moved to harass and persecute Prop 8 supporters.

Groups such as the misnamed "Californians Against Hate" published blacklists of Prop 8 backers that included supporters' names and addresses. Prop 8 advocates became the target of harassing protests, phone calls, e-mails, and mailings.

A flier distributed in one town featured a photo of one Prop 8 backer, his name, the amount of his donation, and the name of his (Catholic) church. Next to his photo was the word "Bigot."

Some Prop 8 campaign donors had to resign from their jobs or take leaves of absence to protect their employers and colleagues. Top officials of California Musical Theatre and the Los Angeles Film Festival were forced to resign just because they had donated in support of Prop 8.

That wasn't all. These warriors for the oppressed also made a point of going after pro-Prop 8 Mormons and their church.

While this ugliness was exploding across California, the anti-Prop 8 forces also ran to the state courts to overturn the people's will. They claimed - get this - that the amendment to the state constitution violated the state constitution.

But not even a state Supreme Court with a habit of rewriting the constitution would accept this illogical absurdity. It upheld Prop 8.

If the reliably progressive activists on the state Supreme Court couldn't be counted on, where to go? How about going before a sympathetic federal district court judge in San Francisco to challenge Prop 8 as violating the U.S. Constitution?

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has accepted the Prop 8 opponents' assertion that constitutionality hinges on the attitudes of voters, not legal arguments and precedents. So he has consistently ruled in their favor, turning this trial into another instance of harassment of Prop 8 supporters.

Consider Walker's precedent-breaking rulings in the trial, which began last month:

He decided that Prop 8 proponents should be subjected to questioning about their personal beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

He ordered Prop 8 proponents to disclose private communications about never-used campaign messages.

He directed the Prop 8 campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages on campaign strategy.

He refused not only to demand any of these things of the proposition's opponents, but also to so much as rule on a motion related to that issue.

He subjected one proponent to humiliation for his concerns about homosexuality, as written in private e-mails to friends - in Chinese.

He allowed witnesses for opponents of the proposition to air their "expert" opinions that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel bad when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 echoed historical bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.
Read more here.

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment   [Ed Whelan]

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions: 

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality. Read more here.

'Gay' judge asked to quit Prop. 8 case
Attorney challenges claim Walker's lifestyle 'nonissue' in California court challenge

An activist attorney is challenging the claim that the reported homosexual lifestyle of the judge deciding the constitutionality of California's limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is a "nonissue."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported politicians and lawyers in the city who have dealt with U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker confirmed Walker has never tried to promote or hide his orientation.

The newspaper said a state senator, Mark Leno, who has proposed several times the authorization of same-sex "marriage," described the judge's background as a nonissue.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, disagrees.

"This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case," he said today, "or a frequent user of medical marijuana deciding the legality of medical marijuana."

"Even his fellow judges on the notoriously liberal 9th circuit have been forced to step in and overturn more than one of his inexplicable rulings relative to this case. Based on his demonstrated misbehavior, there's no reason to believe anything will change," Barber said.

As WND has reported, the dispute over the constitutional definition of marriage adopted by voters in the state has implications across the nation.

The case is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

The law is being defended by private attorneys, because California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, both of whom are named as defendants in the suit, have refused to defend the amendment.Read more here.

Defense Calls First Witness at ‘Gay Marriage’ Trial
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
By Lisa Leff, Associated Press
San Francisco (AP) - The federal laws that prevent gays from serving openly in the military and the government from recognizing same-sex relationships are examples of "legally enforced discrimination," a political scientist testified in a federal trial challenging California's ban on gay marriages.
 
The assertion by Claremont McKenna College professor Kenneth Miller came as he was being cross-examined Monday on his testimony that gays in California enjoy substantial political power as a result of nearly unanimous support from high-ranking elected officials, labor unions, newspapers, corporations and progressive religious groups.
 
"Is there any other minority you can identify that is discharged from the military when they are doing a perfectly good job just because somebody discovers their status?" asked David Boies, a lawyer for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the state's gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
 
"I'm not aware of any," Miller answered.
 
But Miller resisted Boies' persistent attempts to get him to put Proposition 8 in the same category as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Boies asked Miller if he agreed with another political scientist with whom he had co-authored a book chapter that Proposition 8 is inherently discriminatory.
 
"It's differential treatment. Whether it's legally discriminatory, I don't know," Miller said.
 
The question of whether the gay rights movement constitutes a potent political force is central to efforts by lawyers seeking to challenge the state's same-sex marriage ban on grounds that it unlawfully targeted a disadvantaged group.
 
Miller said one indication of the gay rights movement's clout in California was that neither Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor any other statewide office holders endorsed Proposition 8. But perhaps the best measure of the movement's strength was the $43 million amassed to defeat the gay marriage ban in 2008, he said. That was $3.4 million more than initiative backers raised. Read more here.

Air Force Retracted Invitation for Conservative Leader to Speak at Prayer Luncheon After He Criticized Obama's Position on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Friday, February 26, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (FRC photo)

COMMENT:  It is about military readiness and effectiveness, not "civil rights'.  There is no constitutional right to serve in the military and the military is no place for social experimentation.  Opporutnity for military service is limited in a number of ways. Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way. Making these changes could result in resistance in the ranks, hurt morale, damage trust and unit cohesion, affect recruitment and one study showed it would impact re-enlistments. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”


1.  DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops
2. Iraq Veteran Leads 'Don't Ask' Push

Go HERE to send your Tennessee Congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go HERE to find your congressman.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued a statement.
[Elaine is a personal friend and has been working in this field for many years.]

1. DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops

 In response to a plan that an AP report said would be presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10).  The testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

“Such a plan would create an incentive for “third parties” to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay.  Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else.  This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of ‘consistency,’ weakens discipline across the board.

“Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: ‘The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.’  Finding #10 reads, ‘Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.’ 

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: ‘The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”  There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.”

Donnelly continued, “The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not.  Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.”

 Background:

This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates peculiar comment about more “humane” ways to enforce the 1993 law:
Defining Discipline Down

The idea of finding a more “humane” way to enforce “DADT” began when Air Force Lt. Victor Fehrenbach was “outed” by a “third party,” who turned out to be a young man that Fehrenbach had solicited for sexual activity on a gay website.  The two shared a hot tub, but the younger man accused Fehrenbach of sexual assault in a late-night call to the police.  Fehrenbach cleared himself of the charge—the encounter was consensual—but the process revealed that he was a homosexual and therefore not eligible to be in the service.  (Fehrenbach has allowed himself to be described as an F-15 pilot, but he is actually a weapons systems officer or WSO.)

 Fehrenbach told only part of his story on national television, to the applause of gay activist groups pushing for repeal of the 1993 law.  He was also a guest at the White House during President Obama’s June 2009 “LGBT Equality” month promoting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered cause.  Although Secretary Gates did not mention Fehrenbach by name at the time he was in the news, the aviator’s carefully air-brushed personal story apparently led to the “more humane” comment from Gates.

Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Statesman published a detailed report that told the rest of the story.  CMR requested a copy of the police report and quoted it in the article above.

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged.  If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable “presumption” of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable.  Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces. 

President Obama is promoting a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces.  A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”  If passed, the law would be retroactive—allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged.  The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.”  Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military.  CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

The Obama administration's staunchest ally in the uphill fight to allow gays to openly serve in the nation's military is a little-known Democratic congressman named Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran who has written the only legislation that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions.

Mr. Murphy, a two-term Democrat from Pennsylvania, served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress. His bill has 187 co-sponsors, leaving it just 31 votes short of the 218 needed to ensure passage.

"The momentum is clearly on our side," he said in an interview. "It's time for Congress to have the guts to stop turning its back on talented and professional soldiers just because they're gay."

With Defense Secretary Robert Gates heading to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lay out the Pentagon's preparations for a possible repeal of the 16-year-old ban, the long-dormant political battle over the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions is heating up.

But it is far from clear that enough Democrats from moderate or conservative states will want to risk casting a politically sensitive vote in favor of repealing the ban.

Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposes repealing the ban and has said his full committee won't hold a hearing on Rep. Murphy's bill, complicating its path to a vote.

Mr. Skelton's Senate counterpart, Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, supports eliminating the ban, but some lawmakers have said they are waiting to hear the Pentagon's full recommendations before introducing a bill. Such a step could be months away.

Mr. Gates's appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will mark the first time that senior Pentagon officials lay out their thinking for how the ban could be repealed.

Defense officials and congressional aides said that Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen would announce an internal Pentagon review into the thorny legal and logistical questions that would need to be confronted if Congress repealed the ban, including whether the military would extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay service members.

Mr. Gates has made clear in the past that he thinks Congress should move slowly on the issue and give the Defense Department adequate time to prepare for the changes.

Some of the Pentagon's top military officers also oppose lifting the restrictions, at least in the short term.

A senior military official said that Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, believes the ban shouldn't be lifted until the U.S. completes its withdrawal from Iraq.

A second member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, also believes eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions would harm military readiness, according to military officials familiar with his thinking.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an advocacy group that favors the ban, echoed the concerns of many Republicans, saying that allowing gays to serve openly would threaten the military's ability to recruit and retain talented soldiers.

"Nothing can or should be done that could harm military readiness in wartime," she said. Read more here.

COMMENT: President Obama was the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Commission held its dinner in Washington DC on Saturday evening [text of speech here] and the National Equality March was held on Sunday.   They even had special events for young people.





1. Obama's 'Gay' Speech

President Obama renewed his pledge to end the military’s ban on homosexuals at a fund-raising dinner in Washington Saturday night.  His speech was designed to buy more time from the impatient gay community that aggressively supported his bid for the presidency.

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Obama promised 3,000 supporters of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a far-left group that promotes forcing Americans to embrace homosexual behavior.  The commander-in-chief said “That’s my commitment to you” but he offered no timetable.

He assured the cheering audience “I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight.”  Then Obama said “Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach” and “my commitment to you is unwavering.”

He reviewed his campaign pledge to be “a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans” and then outlined evidence of his pro-homosexual accomplishments and the way-ahead.

Obama reminded those at the $250-a-plate black tie event that his administration has extended benefits to the spouses of homosexual federal employees, hosted a “Gay Pride” month celebration and distributed tickets to gay “families” to attend the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.  He also appointed John Berry to serve as Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the highest-ranking openly homosexual official in U.S. history. Read more here.

3. Gay rights advocates march on DC, divided on Obama

Rainbow flags and homemade signs dotted the crowds filling Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House as people chanted "Hey, Obama, let mama marry mama" and "We're out, we're proud, we won't back down." Many children were also among the protesters. A few counter-protesters had also joined the crowd, which stretched several blocks by the afternoon..........

Keynote speaker Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, firmly linked the gay rights struggle to the Civil Rights movement, saying gays and lesbians should be free from discrimination.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said. "We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them. Good things don't come to those who wait, but they come to those who agitate."

Some participants in the National Equality March woke up energized by Obama's blunt pledge to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military during a speech to the nation's largest gay rights group Saturday night. Read more here.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
 
Peter LaBarbera, who heads 

COMMENT:  If the 'Hate Crimes' bill passes these situations will only become much worse . That bill is on the move in Washington.  If you haven't contacted your congressman urging their opposition to HR 1913,  please go HERE to do so.
Remember what the late Everett Dirksen said:  "When they feel the heat, they will see the light." 
Our job it to 'apply the heat'!!

Out-of-State subscribers, go HERE to find your Congressman.


1.  Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights
2.  Death threats target opponents of 'gay' promotion

 
By Robert Knight

COMMENT:  The march against morality and common sense continues ignoring safety and modesty concerns to say nothing of religious convictions.  Where will it stop??

Coming Soon to a Bathroom Near You...

FRC, May 30, 2008

Congress may be adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, but a series of misguided state bills aren't providing any relief for pro-family groups. Just ask the residents of Colorado, where locals are bracing themselves for an "anti-bias" law that is actually changing where people use the restroom. Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation. Focus on the Family launched a statewide awareness campaign, but in the end, even Colorado's largest Christian ministry couldn't compete with Ritter's desire to pay off liberal financier Tim Gill, who sank serious dollars into the governor's election campaign in 2006. >From here all eyes will turn to Montgomery County, where a November ballot initiative will determine the fate of its bathroom bill.

To read more about Tim Gill, go here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guv strikes state's gender-specific restrooms
'Who would have believed it would be legal for men to enter women's locker rooms?'

With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," according to a critic.

The state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.

Ritter signed the Expanded Discrimination Prohibitions, approved by the legislature, with this definition:

"'Sexual orientation' means a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."

"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast ministry in Colorado Springs.
 

"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence," Dobson said. "The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and 'public facilities of any kind.' Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.

"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!" Dobson said.

"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse,” Dobson said.

According to the bill, business owners and managers of restaurants, gyms, barber shops, massage parlors and managers of public facilities "of any kind whether indoor or outdoor" cannot deny a person employment or access to a facility based on gender identity or that "perception."

The bill also makes it illegal to discriminate based on "sexual orientation" when renting, selling or leasing housing or when selecting members for jury duty." Penalties for those who discriminate against others based on gender identity include fines and/or time in jail.

The same issue, on which WND has reported, already has created a mess in Montgomery County, Md., where a lawsuit is pending seeking to deprive residents of the right to vote on whether they want their restrooms and locker rooms opened to men who believe they're women.

WND reported the Montgomery County Board of Elections certified a petition assembled by Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government that would be placed on the November election ballot.
 

To continue reading, go here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

Friday, May 30, 2008

HRC hails Colorado Non-Discrimination Law

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today recognized the signing by Gov. Bill Ritter of legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, public accommodations, credit transactions, juror service, and other areas. The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Jennifer Veiga and state Rep. Joel Judd, expands existing laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, and other characteristics.

“HRC congratulates Gov. Ritter, Sen. Veiga, and Rep. Judd on taking this important step to advance equality for Coloradans. We also thank and congratulate Equal Rights Colorado and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado for their hard work. As Gov. Ritter has said, this law is about basic fairness and treating people equally,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Opponents of equality did their best to scare and divide Coloradans, but it’s heartening to see that their tactics were rejected. This is a positive step forward for Colorado, coming on the heels of two pro-equality laws enacted in 2007.”

In 2007, Colorado enacted laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and providing for second parent adoption. The new law takes effect immediately.

Read More.

COMMENT:  Children are being exposed to all kinds of information that will affective their lives in a negative way forever.  This is not just happening 'out there' somewhere -- parents of public school students here in Tennessee must be alert to what is happening in their student's classroom and school!!

Class for kids: How to be homosexual
'Social change' organization says 'masculinity' too narrowly defined

COMMENT:  Are we paying attention yet to the loss of our religious freedom? Just glance at the list of incidents following article -- less than three percent of the population is driving the "Overhauling of Straight America".   Keep in mind that this "Overhauling" article was written in 1987 -- the homosexual community has 'planned a work and worked a plan' with astonishing success.


Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

By John Jalsevac

New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.

"On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."

In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.

"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court "Hurley" Case.  "In the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech.  We are making a similar kind of argument in this case."

Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a "tremendous threat" facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.

"I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, 'We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people's right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'"

But, in practice, says Lorence, "Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.
 

To continue reading: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticizing Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121306.html

Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112706.html

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html

Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal for Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html

U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html

Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html

Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html

Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06073106.html

CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html

McDonalds + Unmasking The 'Gay' Agenda

COMMENT:  I want to encourage you to read every word of this important article. Right now a friend of my in Oklahoma, Rep. Sally Kern, is the object of homosexual wrath for stating at a Republican women's club luncheon (someone secretly recorded and posted part of it on YouTube) her concerns about the homosexual agenda.  She has received over 30,000 emails, some threatening to the point that she has to have a body guard now.  See how successful they have been?

In addition beginning on Mother's Day weekend and continuing Father's Day, the radical, San Francisco--based Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) and three allies will launch a major protest against some of our nation's most prominent mega-churches.

Each week they'll target a different congregation in Texas, California, Illinois, Georgia, and Maryland. Their goals are simple and insidious: to intimidate these large churches and, by extension, the wider population of conservative Christians.  To confuse Christians and the population at large about what the Bible says about homosexuality.  To substantially silence the voice of Christians in the culture--and eliminate our opposition to same-sex "marriage"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ronald McDonald Cozies Up To Homosexual Movement

Restaurant chain puts executive on board of US homosexual chamber of commerce.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) has announced that Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald's USA, has been appointed to its board of directors.

A press release earlier this month (http://www.nglcc.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/15486/pid/5...) confirmed that this organization, which promotes homosexual business ventures, has received an endorsement from McDonald's and has the VP of communications for the world's biggest fast-food chain on its board.
*********For remainder, go to ********

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08033105.html
 

COMMENT:  My recommendation is to take the above press release to your local McDonald's and speak to the manager and of course you can email or call the president.

Andrew J. McKenna, President
McDonald's
McDonald's Plaza
Oak Brook, IL  60523
Phone: 1-800-244-6227
or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004
E-Mail: Andrew J. McKenna, McDonald's
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unmasking The “Gay” Agenda
 2/13/2008
By J. Matt Barber
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm

Balance of Power

Americans who self-identify as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.

Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.

The Goal

As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

Plan of Attack

Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned “same-sex marriage.” All such government mandates grant special protected “minority” status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible.

In Their Own Words

What you are about to read is just a quick, though disturbing, glance behind the homosexual lobby’s lavender curtain.

Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:

• “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children “consented” to having sex.)

• “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.” (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable “marriage” combination, including polygamous “marriages.” By watering down marriage, “gay” activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)

Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”:

• “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon — under penalty of law — sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)

• “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.” (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)

• “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.” (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)

• “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.” (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)

The push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists. For example, in 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with a “hate crime” for merely preaching the Bible at a public homosexual street festival. They could have served up to 47 years in prison.

More recently, a Christian photographer was dragged before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for a lesbian couple because lesbian behavior is inconsistent with Christianity.

Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:

• On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

• On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

• On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

• On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

• On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

Desensitization

“Desensitization,” wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.

With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.

Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death.”)

And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.

The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.

As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the “Everyman.” “In no time,” they said, “a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.”

Prophetic words from two very smart men.

Jamming

“Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda. “Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”

Not even churches are safe.

“Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

And, oh, how it has.

Conversion

“Conversion” means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

“In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!”

So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of “hide the ball.” In order to achieve widespread acceptance of “gayness,” they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of “gay civil rights.”

In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to “consummate” a so-called “gay marriage.” Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for “civil rights.” Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.

Therein lies the deception.

But There’s Hope

There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.

But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. “Gayness” is not an “immutable” or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.

There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the “gay” agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.

With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.

(For more information about Concerned Women for America and to learn how you can be part of unmasking the “gay” agenda, please call us at (202) 488-7000 or visit CWA’s website at www.cwfa.org.)

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

Study says change possible & New APA Pamphlet

COMMENT:  Could it be that the truth is finally making at least some impact in the psychiatric community?  One can only hope and pray.


1. Study suggests gays can change -- but truth faces tough opposition

2.  APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument

A new study concerning the possibility of homosexuals leaving that lifestyle is roiling the waters of debate, challenging the dogma of mental health organizations who insist that homosexuality is immutable.

 
Organizations like the influential American Psychiatric Association have steadfastly refused to admit the possibility that attempts to change sexual orientation through religious and/or psychological methods can work. In 1999, for example, then-APA President Rodrigo Muñoz, M.D., said: "There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation." He added that "there is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive."

A new study, however, claims to prove just the opposite. Conducted by psychology professors Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University, the study, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, was published in book form and scheduled for an October release.

The authors examined individuals who were attempting to change their sexual orientation by participating in a program run by the religious ministry Exodus International. They said the study was "the most scientifically rigorous study of the possibility of sexual orientation change to date ...."

The results were impressive: 38 percent of the participants in the Exodus program had either embraced "chastity with a reduction in prominence of homosexual desire" or experienced "a diminishing of homosexual attraction and an increase in heterosexual attraction with a resulting satisfactory heterosexual adjustment." According to press reports, another 29 percent had had only partial success in leaving the homosexual lifestyle but were committed to continuing their efforts.

Jones and Yarhouse did not candy coat the struggle of those trying to extricate themselves from homosexuality. "Sexual orientation change is clearly difficult and requires a serious commitment on the part of the person attempting change," they said. "It is likely impossible for some, but clearly seems possible for others."

Perhaps just as importantly, the researchers said they found "little evidence of harm" to those who participated in the process.

Public views shifting

Studies such as that by Jones and Yarhouse are critical for the pro-family movement because it is becoming clear that U.S. public opinion on the matter has been shifting toward a view that embraces homosexuality.

For example, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released in June found that a majority of Americans (56 percent) do not believe that sexual orientation can change. According to CNN.com, it was the first time a CNN poll had found that a majority felt this way. In fact, in a 2001 poll only 45 percent believed sexual orientation was immutable, and in 1998 the percentage was even lower: 36 percent.

Related to this question was whether or not Americans believed homosexuals were born with that orientation. In the recent CNN poll, 42 percent of respondents said they thought homosexuality was caused by environmental factors (like family and upbringing), while 39 percent said gays and lesbians were born that way.

Even those results, however, have seen dramatic change over the last several decades. CNN.com said polls in the 1980s revealed that less than 20 percent of Americans thought homosexuals were born with that orientation, and a poll in 1977 found that only 13 percent held that view.

Mental health groups influencing public?

Not surprisingly, groups like the American Psychological Association have seen a hardening in their own position. An article in the NARTH Bulletin, a publication of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, revealed this very thing.

A survey of APA psychologists in 2005, conducted by H. Kilgore et al. and published in the journal Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice and Training, found that since the early 1990s "[t]here has been an increase in the number of psychologists with a gay-affirmative view and approach" with homosexual and bisexual clients.

For example, the Kilgore survey found that 58 percent of psychologists described their approach to counseling as "gay-affirmative," compared to only 5 percent in a 1991 survey. Even more telling: 95 percent of psychologists surveyed by Kilgore said they viewed homosexuality as "acceptable" or "somewhat acceptable." Ten years earlier a similar survey found that only 83 percent answered that way.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, said the shift in opinion among mental health professionals is probably helping to lead the large shift in public opinion toward acceptance of homosexuality. "When ordinary people continually see and hear and read what many mental health professionals believe -- that gays and lesbians were born that way and that homosexuality cannot be changed -- it's bound to influence the opinion of the average man on the street," he said.

TV changing public opinion

Wildmon said the role of television in changing the public's views should also be recognized. "The pro-homosexual sympathies of the entertainment industry have been well-documented," he said, "and I think the efforts of gay activists to force the acceptance of homosexuality through TV programming has been extremely successful.
 

***********for remainder, go to**********
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=48300
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client's Right to Self-Determination

The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.

A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document:

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to "prove" that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data.

On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.

Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:

"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one."

The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study.

Furthermore, one might ask, does the APA plan to conduct studies on the effectiveness of other therapies in use? Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy.

The Right to Self-Determination is Finally Recognized

In APA's new document, there is a greater emphasis on ethicality. The pamphlet includes this key statement:

"Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person's [client's] right to self-determination."

Certainly, client self-determination is one of the cornerstones of any form of psychological care. And any attempt to ban psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions would be a direct violation of enormous magnitude of APA's own Code of Ethics -- one which neither the federal/state governments nor the American public would respond to favorably.

Imagine a media headline, "APA Declares That Homosexuals Are Not Competent To Determine Whether Or Not They Can Seek Psychological Care to Change" or "APA Bans Choice of Psychological Care for Homosexuals."

Additions to the new APA brochure also include sections on adolescents, homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples.

Interestingly enough, the section on adolescents contains fairly good information regarding the differences between homosexual attractions, homosexual orientation and homosexual identity (though the terms are not used). There is an admission of the sexual fluidity of adolescence, with different ultimate outcomes for different sexually confused adolescents.

The section on marriage is simply an advocacy statement suggesting that marriage might enhance the stability of homosexual couples.

The discussion on parenting by homosexual couples was noteworthy for its internal contradictions. There is an admission that there is a dearth of scientific data on children raised by same-sex couples, but the authors conclude that there are "few differences." How can the dearth of scientific studies allow anyone to offer such a conclusion?

Finally and most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups.

The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

A significant portion of the new brochure was devoted to the role that prejudice and discrimination plays in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This theme seemed pervasive throughout the document. Homosexual relationships are viewed as no different from heterosexual relationships. There is no acknowledgement of the substantial research that clearly demonstrates that homosexuals are at greater risks for some forms of mental illness (Herrell, Ferguson, Sandfort).

It's unfortunate that APA does not move beyond its single-minded focus on "discrimination and prejudice" to allow honest and open study of GLBT issues. In areas such as homosexuality, political correctness seems to have gone amok. On this front in particular, APA seems to have surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness.

Some Say That Truth Doesn't Matter

Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"

Where are the guardians of our professional ethics? Will they really allow such Machiavellian statements to go uncritically examined? Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?

Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
*********for remainder, go to***********
http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
 

Infused LGBTQ curriculum

COMMENT: This is not happening only in California.  What are your children and grandchildren being taught here in Tennessee?


Stripped bare: 'Gay' school plot unveiled
'Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes'

Posted: December 11, 2007
9:05 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com