Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda
Two Boy Scouts’ Rallies in Arizona Today
Today, OnMyHonor.Net, a coalition of concerned Boy Scouts of America (BSA) parents, scoutmasters, Eagle Scouts and other scouting leaders who affirm scouting’s timeless values, announced the Rally for Scouting, a nationwide series of rallies to support the current membership policy of the BSA to take place on Friday, May 17, 2013 from noon to 1:30 pm local time. A full list of over 40 rally locations is available at: http://www.OnMyHonor.net/map.
As delegates consider a proposed change to BSA membership standards, many people with an interest in scouting are raising concerns about the risks and effects that change would have on scouting programs. The proposed resolution, to be voted on by the national council on May 23 in Grapevine, Texas, would change the membership policy to require all chartered scouting units to allow open homosexuality among boys in the organization but not adults.
Recently, OnMyHonor.Net published an open letter providing a legal and ethical analysis of the BSA resolution, giving council members 10 reasons to vote “No” in May.
Rallies will be held today in Tucson and Phoenix:
2969 North Greenfield Road, Phoenix,
Contact: Kimberly Eliot (520) 282-0390
5049 East Broadway, Suite 200, Tucson
Contact: Roy Lamb (734) 634-2102
Read the letter
Obama Regime Endorses Hateful, Anti-Christian Extremism
“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
“We MUST vigorously support the continuing efforts to expose pathologically anti-gay, Islamaphobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators for what they are: die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution. Monsters, one and all. To do anything less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.”
– Mikey Weinstein, hateful, anti-Christian extremist, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which inspired Floyd Corkins to try to murder the staff at Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
Let these words sink in.
These are some of the angriest, most vulgar and vile, and certainly some of the most hateful remarks ever directed at American Christians. American Christians serving in the military, risking their lives for liberty, by the way.
These are among the most hateful, disgusting, incendiary remarks we’ve ever seen. And Barack Obama’s military leaders agree with them. Breitbart.com reported this week that Weinstein will be a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.
That created such an uproar that the government backtracked and toned down its anti-Christian threat.
But do not let down your guard. The times are ominous and the hour is late. The persecution of the Church is in a full sprint. And President Obama — the most radical and antagonistic president ever, against religious freedom — is encouraging it.
This latest outrage is not surfacing in a vacuum. Recently it was learned that a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief identified “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of “religious extremism” like al-Qaida, Hamas, and the Klu Klux Klan.
Col. (Ret.) Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said: “Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States. It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization. It also appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”
These troubling developments are reminders that the so-called “progressive movement” represents anything but progress. Progressivism — as Democrats define it — is taking America backward, coursening the culture, spreading hate and fascism. They have no intention of competing fairly in the marketplace of ideas, preferring instead to lie, demonize, and destroy their opponents as “enemies.” It’s part of the politics of destruction, a hideous practice all too characteristic of the Clinton and Obama administrationws.
A Misplaced Celebration
Two marginal professional athletes – both without a team to call home — dominated the nation’s news cycle today – and for radically different reasons. Both were first-round draft picks in their respective leagues.
Athlete A
A young pro struggling to get his career going was released today. He’d been given one chance to shine in his brief pro career, and he enjoyed spectacular success. But after being traded to another team, he mostly rode the bench last fall, before his release today.
He spent much of his early life sacrificially working with his family to help better the lives of poverty-stricken people in Africa. In a time devoid of heroes, he’s a role model for young men. And he’s destined to become a great husband, father, and mentor. He’s already in demand as a religious and motivational speaker in the Christian community. Yet he’s been scorned and attacked by fascists and the Left-stream media for his faith. The sheep in the Left-stream media’s echo chamber repeatedly say he’s the most polarizing athlete in America.
He lives a clean and healthy lifestyle, but people complain he’s “too Christian.” Recently he’s been working out at a feverish pace in MaricopaCounty to fine-tune his game. He is hoping to sign on with another team and prove he belongs in the National Football League. His coaches marvel at his integrity, his work ethic and how much he has improved his skills and fundamentals in the past three months.
No one of note praised him today.
Athlete B
This aging journeyman center has bounced around the NBA for a dozen years. He has had low visibility from his seat on the bench of six pro teams, and he has not been recognized for anything of note in his communities. Averaging just 3.6 points per game in his career, he has not registered on anyone’s radar. Until today — for something that has nothing to do with his profession.
He has a personality disorder of a type that is often caused by neglect or, at worst, traumatic experiences including abuse. But current and former presidents and the commissioners of the National Basketball Association and the National Football League are tripping over each other to congratulate him. Along with former coaches. They’re hoping many more of their athletes will go through whatever it is he’s been through – and often times it isn’t something you’d wish on anyone – so they can gush how wonderful it is.
“We are proud he has assumed the leadership mantle on this very important issue,” said NBA Commissioner David Stern. A former president, the scandal-ridden Bill Clinton, said the “announcement today is an important moment for professional sports.” One of this journeyman center’s former coaches, who just traded him away, said he is “extremely happy and proud” of this player, whose career is nearing its end. “I am extremely happy and proud” of him, said Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner. ESPN is ready to declare him athlete of the century. The Democrats are probably booking him as keynote speaker for their 2016 national convention. Stanford University would gladly name this alum president. And with his newfound fame, he could easily win an election in practically any left-wing state. Neil Armstrong didn’t get this many accolades for walking on the moon.
You probably know Athlete A is Tim Tebow, released today by the New York Jets of the NFL, and Athlete B is Jason Collins, released by the Washington Wizards at the end of the season, and who announced he is homosexual. Collins could not be more highly exalted if he’d just won the Super Bowl and permanently established world peace. He wrote a lengthy story in Sports Illustrated to announce he prefers having sex with men, which biologically speaking, can’t be very much fun.
But the left-wingers are exhilarated. Some to push the radical homosexual agenda. Others just going with the flow to say the right things and sound enlightened, rather than to stand apart and look at what’s really going on.
Until years ago, the American Psychiatric Association’s official position on homosexual behavior was that it’s a personality disorder. But homosexual fascists caused such a ruckus that they intimidated the APA into discontinuing that. Their decision had nothing to do with science and everything to do with activist threats, pressure and political correctness.
The truth is that homosexuality is most often caused by negative events in a person’s life, including sexual abuse and parental disconnection. Collins said his family life is good, intact. But maybe some day after this clamor dies down, a TV or print reporter will interview him and the truth will come out. This man deserves sympathy for what he’s experienced. But the accolades may only serve to the detriment of younger boys who might think the abuse they’ve suffered is normal and acceptable. Many are being deluded, and what is being celebrated today is not compassion.
Three-fourths of homosexual men studied by the CDC did not even know they have HIV. Male homosexuals live 20-30 years less than heterosexual men, because of AIDs, cancer, drug and alcohol abuse, and more. These men suffer high rates of anal cancer. In one study, 41 percent of homosexual males reported having been forcibly raped as children. Do you still consider yourself compassionate, Coach Doc Rivers, Bill Clinton, Roger Goodell, David Stern, Barack Obama, and all you who glorify damaging and destructive life events? Your praises for Collins may have a devastating impact on countless young people listening to you and who look up to pro athletes. You would have multitudes risk severe health hazards in exchange for political correctness. We have an epidemic in this country and around the world … and you on the Left are celebrating its cause.
The political correctness will have a devastating fall-out, as Rush Limbaugh and a caller noted today:
CALLER: My question, let’s say player A comes out and says he’s gay, and he’s a quarterback, running back, something like that. Player B on the opposing team sacks him a few times over a season or in a game, is that gonna be considered a hate tackle? And will Obama come out and say, “My son’s not gonna play because there’s too much hate in football”?
RUSH: I have to tell you something. I haven’t even pondered this. You have a gay quarterback or a gay running back, and there’s a vicious penalty that requires the referees to throw a flag, will the people on TV in the sports media say, “I wonder if they hit the guy hard because he’s gay, I wonder if there’s payback? I wonder if that was a hate hit?” Given, Dan, that we’re talking about liberals in the media, that wouldn’t surprise me. I hadn’t even considered that. I can totally see that happening. I can see the allegation that a particularly egregious hit could be alleged to be a hate hit. And then, ladies and gentlemen, might we start hearing whispers, whispers, whispers of perhaps a bounty on gay players on certain teams? That kind of thing could be reported even if it wasn’t happening. If some reporter thinks it might happen, all he’s gotta do is raise the possibility. Are there bounties in the NFL against the gay players? I hadn’t even thought of that.
The Left certainly has its priorities out of whack. No wonder our country is so confused and in such moral chaos. What’s up is down; what’s down is up. God forgive us.
The Dark Side of Homosexual Parenting
Dawn C. Stefanowicz Public Hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Marriage Amendment Boston, Massachusetts
Thank you for permitting me to speak.
I am supporting this marriage amendment.
My mother was very seriously ill. From infancy I grew up with a homosexual father. I loved my Dad, but my father exposed me to diverse sexual subcultures. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures did not have boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy. Rather it was experimentation, pansexuality, many sexual partners, and self-indulgent lifestyles. Gender and sexual orientation were blurred. Unisex dressing, transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common. My father and his associates were not limited by gender nor age. They frequented public areas. By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park. My father had partners in the home from my infancy. All our vacations were to key GLBT areas where cruising was available.
I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment. My father would leave us alone for days to be with his partners. At eight, two of my father’s partners committed suicide. My father intimidated me into silence, making me fearful for my life, and unable to talk about my father’s lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, gay bars and parties were part of the scene. Youthfulness, beauty, art, fashion, and travel were prized. However, the painful losses my father’s friends experienced were devastating. My father and his partners were involved in domestic violence and he dropped them like commodities. Males who were minors were at risk in my home of being preyed upon sexually.
Dad had encouraged me to be more open sexually, while teaching me by example that sex was gratuitous. I could not look to my father as a moral agent in my life. This left me confused about my sexual identity, and my feelings and roles as a girl and woman. My father could not show affection or affirmation to females, making me believe it was better to be a boy. He doted on his male partners – time, communication, affection and sex – travelling and buying them gifts, leaving me feeling worthless. If particular judges had their way, I would have had at least three “psychological” parents – men I would not have wanted to be named my parents.
I felt worthless and began seeking other boys’ affections by age twelve. Long-term, I became depressed, anxious, and suicidal. I was in and out of counselling between the ages of sixteen and thirty. All my family members were severely impacted.
My father left his associations within the subcultures in the late eighties, succumbing to death by AIDS in 1991 at the age of fifty-one. Many of his partners have died of AIDS, some in their early forties.
Children have no voice when they grow up in a homosexual household. Children are unwillingly forced to tolerate their parent’s sexual choices and living arrangements. If I spoke about what happened around my father, I would risk being sent to the streets or a group home. I was silenced for over forty years, afraid to share the reality of what I had lived through. I waited until both my parents had died before speaking publicly. Most other adult children feel that they cannot speak about their experiences until their parents have passed away. By the way, I know of 14 children who grew up with a homosexual parent, including myself. All of us have been negatively impacted long term. This includes adult children who have not been able to cope with their difficulties growing up – Some have tried to numb the pain with drug and alcohol addictions and sexual promiscuity.
My first thirty years around my father and his partners showed me how not to live my life. Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is the best environment for children. Children need to see gender as male or female. Children need firm moral boundaries around sexuality. As a child, I could not comprehend the emphasis on being gender-neutral, unisex dressing, and pansexual practices. Group sex, bathhouse sex, cruising, and other expressions of diverse sexuality broke down the barriers between private and public sex.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has stated, “Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of virtually all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country,” according to Lifesite News.
Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the person tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. On the other hand, the person making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint. All television, radio and print media are monitored. May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?
An Interview with The Arizona Conservative
Isn’t the Conservative movement all about legislating morality?
In a word – no. All legislation, all lawmaking is someone’s morality. Those who say we’re imposing our morality on them are trying to impose their morality on us.
The Conservative movement is about advocating commonsense principles which have stood the test of time and which offer society the greatest opportunities of health and well-being.
Americans have the freedom to do a lot of things which were once considered harmful to the person, to others – and immoral. Rather than ask themselves “Can I do xyz,” people should ask themselves “Should I do xyz,” and “what are the consequences?” They don’t need government to decide that or ask for them. If everyone did this more often, we’d have fewer social problems, less crime, fewer divorces, less gambling addiction, less drug and alcohol addiction, less crime, and fewer socially transmitted diseases. And the bottom line is that we would then see healthier families, neighborhoods and communities, and far less government spending on trying to pick up the broken pieces. It’s a matter of personal accountability.
Aren’t we as a nation progressing by doing away with so-called “archaic” morality laws?
We are not progressing as a nation, period. American society is in a tailspin. We are going in reverse; progressives just aren’t willing to admit it. It is not possible to progress given the current direction and worldview of those shaping the culture.
C.S. Lewis wrote: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.”
We have removed the Judeo-Christian morality as the source of morality and decision making at the highest levels of state and federal government. But we act shocked when someone commits a horrible crime. We’ve said “no more of that old morality, we’ll take it from here.” But they’re taking it all in the wrong direction.
Sign of violence seen at a Mesa movie theater
So we’re teaching children – through government and the influence of the mass media culture – that it’s not only okay, but preferential, to kill the defenseless and treat people with incivility. Look at the titles of movies and TV shows: Everybody Hates Chris, Kill Bill, The Weakest Link. And we’re surprised children are killing children? You can’t expect a high level of civility when the foremost messages presented to the public are negative and destructive.
And then there are the special interest pressure groups raising huge sums of money to buy politicians and demand judges fabricate special privileges radically altering society. Anyone who opposes them, no matter how civil the opposition, is demonized and called “hater.” Many of them are threatened. The radicals are demanding opponents lose their jobs just for having a different viewpoint. This is disturbing. And it’s not the recipe for a civil society.
The real story of “progressivism” can best be described as man’s inhumanity to man.
Should Conservatives support influential Republicans who are supporting amnesty and same-sex “marriage”? They don’t have anywhere else to go, do they?
No, no and yes they do.
We as a nation should never abandon the rule of law. If we do, we get chaos – everyone just doing their own thing. It will be a nation in great conflict. Every self-respecting, orderly nation must control its borders. Mexico certainly does, though it criticizes those in the U.S. who demand we control ours.
It is not fair to legal immigrants for people to walk across the border illegally, going around the U.S. points of entry, and then demanding legal recognition and taxpayer benefits. Most people who immigrated here oppose illegal entry. Democrats only want to use these people’s votes: let them in, legal recognition and control over them and then demand their votes at election time.
Only about 2 percent of the population struggles with same-sex attraction, less than that in Arizona. Why should a tiny segment of the population be allowed to re-define marriage and subject more children to fatherlessness or motherlessness? The kids are not all right with this. In states where same-sex “marriage” is legal, very, very few homosexuals get married. For the most radical of the homosexual activists, it’s not really about marriage. It’s about destroying the traditional notion of family and marriage. We re-define marriage only at our own peril and a monumental loss of freedom. We opt for adult happiness over the well-being of children at our own peril and reap the social whirlwind. Homosexuality is not genetic, and same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right. That’s offensive to the people who truly suffered the indignation of slavery and denial of civil and human rights.
Republican leaders who want to join others by walking over the social cliff and into the moral abyss are absolutely undiscerning of what the end results will be. Conservatives must never acquiesce, must never join them or approve of this. There are more than enough conservative Republicans, independents and members of the Constitution Party to uphold principles and policies that will point this nation in the right direction.
Senator Harry Reid, other Democrats and many media and educational elites claim Conservatives are polarizing the nation. Is this accurate, and did conservatives create the culture war?
This is pure propaganda intended to direct attention away from those pushing for the most radical departure from U.S. history and tradition. The biblical explanation for this is calling evil good and good evil.
For most of America’s history, Judeo-Christian morality was the dominant worldview. But when those disagreeing with that worldview – John Dewey, Roger Baldwin, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and others – moved the nation in a different direction, Christians and Conservatives were slow to defend the nation’s traditional ideals. By the time Dr. James Dobson, President Ronald Reagan and many others began to respond, the moral center had collapsed. Christians had been lulled to sleep by how things had always been; they were the frogs in the pot who were boiled before they what hit them.
Now the Conservative movement is organized and defending the worldview that enabled America’s greatness and freedom. But the recent decades of indoctrination by educators and the mass media culture, along with the government’s shift to the secular humanist religion and animosity toward Judeo-Christian morality have taken a terrible toll on the country. It will be a long, hard climb to get out of this mess. It will not happen through politics. It will take a cultural shift. Everything else flows through the culture, and our culture is weak, decadent and in turmoil. We cannot allow leftists to steal our children’s hearts and minds and turn them against us. Every year millions of our kids are graduating from indoctrination in school and college and moving us further away as a nation from where we need to be. Our focus needs to be on salvaging our youth and saving this nation from the policies and worldviews that are poisoning our culture. We must change the direction our young people are being led into following. It’s that simple. If we do not accomplish this, our culture will only continue to deteriorate.
Fortunate Son
To borrow an analogy from Credence Clearwater Revival’s song “Fortunate Son,” Will Portman is a fortunate son. He’s a senator’s son.
When he told his father, U.S. Senator Rob Portmann (R-Ohio), he is homosexual, the elder Portmann came out in support of same-sex “marriage.” He’s the same Sen. Portmann who was under consideration for a vice-presidential running mate by Mitt Romney.
The son’s struggle with same-sex attraction is certainly unfortunate.
But the father’s response is troubling. Instead of offering to help his son, he selfishly does an about face and wants to impose same-sex “marriage” on the nation. He selfishly wants to take away the religious freedom of people who will be punished for opposing same-sex “marriage.” Just because of his own son.
I have no doubt the senator loves his son. But the way he shows it is misguided, and his personal family situation should not adversely impact the entire nation. He’s imposing his personal family situation on the country, and this is selfish and wrong.
The same thing happened in San Diego a few years ago. The mayor decided to support same-sex “marriage” after learning his daughter gave in to same-sex attraction. So he and the city council passed a resolution to impose their will on the city.
It’s time for selfish politicians to realize their personal family situations do not justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on their constituents. Especially when the majority of Americans support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Queue up Credence on Youtube:
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son
SHOCKING MUST READ: Don’t Let Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Institute Cultural Madness and Turn America on its Head
Sky Fall: Gender Ideology Comes to the Schoolhouse
In our discussions with advocates of redefining marriage, we often hear that defenders of marriage and sexual difference are overreacting to cultural and legal changes. “You run around yelling that the sky is falling,” we’re told. “We’ve had same-sex marriage for a decade now in Massachusetts, and guess what: The sky is not falling.”
This is not an argument, of course, but an attempt to end any discussion of what it would mean to remove sexual distinctions from the law. As it did to James Bond’s psychiatric evaluation in the recent hit movie, the mention of the phrase “sky fall” is supposed to terminate the proceedings.
No serious participants in the current marriage discussion are running around like Chicken Little. Defenders of marriage are concerned primarily about the long-term implications of redefining the institution. We might not expect the redefinition of marriage to alter cultural practices dramatically right away. After all, it took nearly two generations to realize the full effects of the divorce revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. But strange things are nevertheless happening in Massachusetts, where sexual difference was eliminated from marriage laws in 2003.
Two years ago, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a statute prohibiting, among other things, discrimination in public schools on the basis of “gender identity.” The law defines gender identity as “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior,” which is not determined by “the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.”
On the basis of that statute, the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE) has now eradicated sexual distinctions from public schools. MDOE’s new directive requires schools to let children use bathrooms and play on sports teams according to the gender they personally identify as theirs, not their anatomical sex. The directive also admonishes schools to eliminate sex and gender distinctions in graduation garb, physical education, and other practices.
Under Massachusetts law, the connection between gender identity and sexual distinction is now considered a historical accident, the result of arbitrary (at best) or mistaken documentation at birth. MDOE’s directive explains:
One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.
Because the child is solely responsible for identifying his or her own gender, the regulations require school officials to seek the student’s permission before disclosing the student’s gender identity to his or her parents.
That’s not all. The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.”
MDOE justifies these regulations on pedagogical grounds: “All students need a safe and supportive school environment to progress academically and developmentally.” By “all students” MDOE must mean all students who share MDOE’s conception of sex and gender as an individual choice.
It is not difficult to imagine who will embrace MDOE’s conception. The regulations state, “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl” (emphasis ours). The caveat that the student might want to be treated like a boy for some purposes seems an implicit admission that gender identity is not, in fact, an inflexible characteristic, as MDOE insists, but rather can adjust over time. And the directive states that the law “does not require consistent and uniform assertion of gender identity” (emphasis original).
While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the provenance of gender personality, it’s not a stretch to suppose that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activity.
Perhaps this is why many parents in Massachusetts find these regulations shocking. We must confess that we are not so surprised. Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts.
Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic doesn’t automatically commit a state to forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a logical connection. One of the premises justifying the redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations, that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the practice of marriage.
But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice.
To be sure, there are prudential implications of eradicating sexual distinction from education laws. But if letting people identify their own gender is a matter of justice, then it’s the job of law to solve the practical problems of implementation. (That is a key lesson of civil rights legislation.)
Though future practical problems might seem obvious, the law makes it far from clear that there are any. If a boy who identifies as a girl really is a girl, as the law declaims, then any perceived harms resulting from his presence in a girls’ locker room are illusory. No wonder the Commonwealth exhorts school officials to discipline students who object to the arrangement.
There are other indications that those who perceive inherent differences between men and women will increasingly be marginalized from public life in Massachusetts. A few months ago, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the United States Constitution requires the Commonwealth’s Department of Corrections to pay for a sex-change surgery requested by an inmate who is serving time for murder. It is cruel and unusual punishment, the court reasoned, to force the prisoner to keep his anatomy intact while he is incarcerated.
This ruling might seem unrelated to removing sexual distinctions from law, but for the court’s reasoning. The court discredited the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses, who expressed doubt that a sex-change surgery is medically necessary, and who recommended treating the prisoner’s psychological and emotional disorders instead.
The court ruled that these recommendations are “not within the range that would be acceptable by prudent professionals.” In other words, the court decided that no prudent professional would deny sex-change surgery to a male prisoner who identifies himself as a woman.
The lesson is clear. If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth. A view of human nature that until very recently was understood to be obvious is becoming a source of disqualification from participating in public life.
As lawyers, we perceive the logic of this latest regulatory innovation. But as fathers, we think that those who are dismayed by MDOE’s regulations are the only Massachusetts residents who can plausibly claim to be in their right minds. If the sky is not falling then it is at least showing ominous fissures.
Adam MacLeod is an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and a 2012-2013 Visiting Fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Andrew Beckwith is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
On the Front Burner Today: Boy Scouts Re-Consider Dangerous Policy Change
Well the Boy Scouts of America have heard you. They are backtracking on their plan to allow children to be exposed to the risk of homosexual Scout masters. The homosexual agenda has been trying for years to capture BSA, and nearly succeeded last month when the board governing the Scouts announced it would remove its ban on homosexual leaders. After an enormous backlash from scouting families and the general public, the Scouts now say:
“After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy.”
Furthermore, the board is forming a task force to examine the issue.
It’s good that the BSA is stopping its immediate plans to put Scouts at risk of more of what happened in the past when thousands were molested by male leaders. It’s regrettable that the BSA is stubbornly digging in its heels and not closing the door completely to a very bad and dangerous idea to expose yet more children to the horrors of sexual abuse.
Some of the BSA board members may be hoping the clamor against this will die down in the next four months. Arizonans and others must keep up the pressure. Stay on the attack. Keep telling them “no!” This is not over, and they can’t change our minds just by stalling the decision until May.
* * *
Remember the homosexual activist who shot a guard at the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. last summer? World Net Daily reports …
Evidence obtained from the computer of the man who pleaded guilty today to the armed attack on the Family Research Council headquarters shows he identified his target through the website of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, according to the District of Columbia prosecutor on the case.
FRC President Tony Perkins said today the evidence and admissions in a District of Columbia court justify his charge last summer that SPLC “gave license” to Floyd Lee Corkins II to attack the Christian organization’s headquarters Aug. 15.
Corkins, 28, has confessed he was motivated by FRC’s stance against homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” He pleaded guilty today to three charges stemming from the shooting in the nation’s capital, including committing an act of terrorism.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center can no longer say that it is not a source for those bent on committing acts of violence,” Perkins said.
* * *
Robert Graham, newly elected chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, is forming a committee of to plan for Arizona’s next redistricting process in 2020. “Arizona’s political landscape today reflects a flawed process where election districts were drawn up based on a one-sided political agenda and too much secrecy, and I’m taking action now to make sure that doesn’t happen again,” said Graham. “We are looking for an honest and open process that doesn’t favor one group of voters over another — one that is truly bipartisan and treats voters equally while putting an end to the discrimination against Republicans.” Good luck, Robert. The Department of Justice has saddled the re-districting process with ridiculous requirements like “communities of interest” and racial profiling.
* * *
Phoenix Channel 5 News reports: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s exercise Saturday at a closed school site in suburban Fountain Hills will simulate scenarios for posse members who volunteered for patrols that the sheriff launched last month just outside schools to guard against shootings. Action-film star and posse member Steven Seagal will serve as an instructor at the event. The sheriff hopes to have as many as 400 posse members and another 100 volunteers known as reserve deputies participate in the patrols.
* * *
We’ve been saying for years that Fox News isn’t as conservative as radical left-wingers think they are. Megyn Kelly and Shepherd Smith are all for the destruction of the family and for same-sex “marriage.” Geraldo lives on Fox. Bill O’Reilly is all over the map on issues. Kirsten Powers? Lefty.
And now here’s more proof. Dick Morris and Sarah Palin are out as Fox News analysts. Karl Rove is being retained after years of embarrassing election miscalculations.
And coming on board? Former Ohio congressman, Dennis Kucinich … a communist. Surely he’ll get Fox News’ Kremlin beat.
Will Blacklisted Arizona Scout Leaders be Free to Abuse Boys again?
With this week’s news that the Boy Scouts of America are capitulating to the homosexual agenda, it’s time for Arizona parents to ask whether or not currently blacklisted Boy Scout leaders in Arizona will be allowed to molest boys again.
The Boy Scouts of America are planning to withdraw their long ban on homosexual leaders, even though they have compiled records of nearly 10,000 cases of child molestation by Scouting leaders. Those found guilty are now blacklisted from Scout leadership. The Los Angeles Times acquired a list of banned leaders and published it January 3rd of this year. Many names on the greater U.S. list have molested in one or more Scout troops and moved on to repeat their crimes in different troops and cities. Records go all the way back to the 1960s, and it is unlikely that all the offenders are still living.
Among those from Arizona on the list, and the Scouting troops in which they molested boys, are:
Larry Wright Judd, Mesa, Troop 430
Larry Wright Judd, Mesa, Troop 255
Larry Wright Judd, Mesa, Troop 152
Jon Michael Blum, Phoenix, Troop 206
David James Borg, Sierra Vista, Troop 435
William Challberg, Phoenix, Troop 522
William Reese Edwards, PrescottValley, Troop 330
David Joseph Ellington, Phoenix, Troop 226
Herbert Henry Falk, Phoenix, Troop 721
Ralph R. Harper, Tucson, Troop 215
Kenneth R. LaBelle, Payson, Troop 354
Joseph R. Lopardo, Yacca Council
Ralph A. McKinney, Scottsdale, Troop 640
Dennis King McMacken, Flagstaff, Troops 2360 and 3034
Les Paul, Tucson, Troop 337
David W. Peabody, Phoenix, Troop 3
Wayne Sells, Woodruff, Troop 64
Ronald A. St. Laurent, Phoenix, Troop 13
Miles S. Vaughn, Tucson, Troop 700
Harvey Dee Wright, Flagstaff, Venturing 6129
Eric Bruce Webb, Tucson, Troops 96 and 213
Lee Frederick, Phoenix, Explorer 522
Wylie Jonathan Taylor, Phoenix, Pack 321
Thomas George Sargent, Phoenix, Pack 167
Gilbert M. Gonzales, Tempe, Troop 72
Barney A. Perdue, Lake Havasu City, Troop 25
Some people may argue that not all those on the blacklist are homosexual. But though homosexuals make up just 2-3 percent of the American population, they commit 33 percent of the cases of pedophilia in the United States. That’s nearly 50 times the rate of heterosexual pedophilia, by comparison. At any rate, this disturbing decision by BSA is a fast turn downstream in the flow of cultural decline.
