Posted on 11/21/2003 9:50:23 AM PST by scripter
Concerned Women for America - Multimedia Center
Thursday 4/24/2003 & Friday 4/25/2003
New Book "The Death of Right and Wrong" Pt.1 & Pt.2
with Tammy Bruce & Sandy Rios
"She’s a former leader within the National Organization for Women. She’s a lesbian and she is pro-choice. But she also believes there is a right and wrong. Sounds intriguing? Tune in for our discussion with Tammy Bruce in this edition of Concerned Women Today..."
You can listen to the interview via the following links (you'll need RealOne Player to be able to listen to the links):
New Book "The Death of Right and Wrong" Pt.1 with Tammy Bruce
New Book "The Death of Right and Wrong" Pt.2 with Tammy Bruce
"A different sort of educational experience for a group of fourth- through sixth-graders in Northampton, Massachusetts.
The students from the Solomon Schechter Day School went to Town Hall today to witness the first day of legal gay and lesbian marriages in Massachusetts.
The students have been studying the civil rights movement. One of their teachers said today's proceedings offered a chance to see a bit of history in the making..."
An excerpt from "The Danger of 'Safe Schools'" by Scott Lively
"Like a page torn from George Orwell's 1984, America's newest social experiment is called "Safe Schools." Evoking soothing images of responsible officials taking special precautions to prevent school shootings and violence, "Safe Schools" is really Orwellian newspeak for a complex scheme to legitimize homosexuality to schoolchildren.
Planned and implemented by "gay" political activists within the educational bureaucracy of numerous states, "safe schools" is one of the most devious and dangerous social engineering programs ever to be foisted on public school children and their inattentive parents. It's purpose is to indoctrinate impressionable children with pro-homosexual beliefs and values as part of a cynical scheme by the "gay" movement to gain political power. Homosexual activists hope to produce a pro-"gay" voting majority by winning a high percentage of young people to the homosexual "cause" during their formative years. This strategy appears to be working. As reported by Reuters, a recent Zogby poll of high school students nationwide found that 85 percent of seniors thought that homosexuality "should be accepted by society."1
"Safe Schools" is the brainchild of Kevin Jennings, a "gay" political strategist who formed the Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN) in Massachusetts in the mid-1990s as a Trojan horse to get homosexual activism into the public schools. The name was afterwards changed to Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a strategic correction designed to soften its image and obscure what it had at first advertised: that it is a group of activist homsexual teachers.
Jennings bragged in a 1995 speech to the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference that "[T]he effective reframing of this issue was the key to...success. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card -- safety -- and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one."
GLSEN's deception has been enormously successful. As of this date, it has more than 70 chapters strategically placed in key cities across the nation, each of which works to force its agenda into the schools within its jurisdiction. Literally hundreds of public high schools have been transformed, to a greater or lesser degree, into training grounds for pro-"gay" militancy. It's Spring 2001 financial report boasted a budget of over $2.5 million. This is of course, above the amount now designated by state governments for GLSEN-inspired programs. In Massachusetts, for example, pro-homosexual programs now receive more than $1.5 million per year.
One of GLSEN's primary recruitment vehicles is the Gay/Straight Alliance student clubs. The right of students to form non-curricular student clubs under the First Amendment was specifically affirmed in the federal Equal Access Act. Exploiting the broad language of the Act, GLSEN recruits and trains self-declared "gay" teens to form student clubs on high school campuses. These clubs then serve as peer-based centers of "gay" prosthletyzing and propaganda. (To be fair, Christian and pro-family clubs have the same opportunities under Equal Access, but pervasive "political correctness" at schools, combined with widespread apathy in the church today, works to limit the influence and involvement of Christian and pro-family students)...
While many people in California and across the nation have stepped forward to oppose the "Safe Schools" agenda, their efforts have been complicated by some very clever sophistry on the part of "gay" strategists. What follows is an analysis and refutation of the argument that underlies the "Safe Schools" program..."
From Chapter Four:
"The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you're really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws." (Pg.88)
"I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite repesents the most serious problem facing our culture today." (Pg.94)
"Between GLSEN, the Happy Penis, Phil, and now Kami, I'd say the Gay Elite have your children as a captive audience. Whether you like it or not, they have appointed themselves your children's moral tutor." (pg.119)
See also:
Targeting Children - How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children - Part three: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children - Part four: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation
"Are children raised by gay parents worse off than other children? As same sex couples line up for marriage licenses in Massachusetts, the question achieves greater urgency.
Two researchers answered when they reviewed the available scholarly literature in the American Sociological Review three years ago. What makes their essay intriguing is that both professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz are emphatically in favor of gay marriage and child-rearing. Being honest scholars, though, they could not accept the tendentious spin that others in their field have put on the available research. They deny that the studies show "no difference" between children raised in gay and lesbian homes and those raised in heterosexual homes...
Biblarz and Stacey examined 21 studies of "lesbigay" couples' children compared with heterosexual parents' children. While all of the researchers had claimed to find "no difference" in outcomes between the two groups, Biblarz and Stacey disagree. There are statistically significant differences in gender identity, sexual experimentation and promiscuity...
"Just so Americans understand what we're in for with the creation of legal homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, here is some perspective.
Marriage, as a civic institution in Massachusetts, has been destroyed, not "expanded."
The very first homosexual couple "married" in the "gay" Mecca of Provincetown told the Boston Herald about their new "commitment":
[Jonathan Yarbrough] says the concept of forever is "overrated" and that he, as a bisexual, and [his partner Cody] Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. "I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense," he said. "In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage."
"Marriage" in Massachusetts not only fails to require the presence of a wife, or a husband, but is not even tied to monogamy anymore...
Homosexual activists say that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is "discriminatory," and that we no longer need a wife in a marriage, or a husband in a marriage. Also, it no longer matters in the least that children need both a mother and a father.
In a free country, deluded people can believe all sorts of things, and act accordingly on their own. But when the law imposes this understanding on everyone, government is creating lies and eventually will use force to promote acceptance of the lies...
The government of Massachusetts is telling its citizens that a union without a wife or a husband is a marriage. This bizarre lie will be imposed, through government force, on all institutions – from businesses to public schools – and it will result in immediate legal action in many other states, as activists try to use the Bay State's betrayal of marriage as a lever to destroy it elsewhere...
It's no use offering "civil unions" as a compromise. Appeasement doesn't work. If the state officially sanctions and promotes homosexuality, there are no longer any grounds to make distinctions in family law. Children, like the hapless baby girl in Boston, will be placed routinely in fatherless or motherless households. Who could object?
And once the moral distinction between marriage and homosexuality is lost, there is no stopping point for further redefinitions of the institution. Why not bless three or more who say they feel they are "married"? And why should churches which refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies continue to enjoy tax-exempt status? Why, indeed, should the Boy Scouts not welcome homosexual men to take boys into the woods, if we cannot make any moral distinctions whatever or face charges of bigotry?
During the Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scout case in 2000, pro-life pastor Rev. Rob Shenk was sitting in the audience next to the White House liaison for "gay" issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots..."
IFI Defends Boy Scouts Against 'Gay' Bigotry, Calls on United Way to Reinstate Funding [Chicago]
Critical Differences: Marriage, Gender, and Role Models
Newly Married Lesbian Couple Files Suit
Conservative Episcopalians protest 'wedding'
GAYS RUSH TO THE ALTAR, AT LEAST THOSE FROM IN-STATE
Gay Marriage and the Left - The liberal rejection of democracy is a play that never closes
"If a lie is repeated often enough, those who hear it will begin to believe that lie is the truth. Such has become the fate of fair and balanced legal academics. Some have heard for so long that homosexuality and marriage ought to be united, that many refuse to believe anything else, even when biology refutes it, the law negates it, and that statement is exposed as a lie. Many academics and other communicators have indeed closed their minds to both sides of this debate, determining there is no debate. That debate, however, is alive and well in the minds of open-minded legal academics. Although Stanford’s Law and Policy Review solicited the other articles contained in this journal issue, its refusal to publish them has allowed Regent to inherit a fabulous law review edition.
This article will introduce these well-written pieces. They are not legal research articles, but their publication is equally important. If Stanford will not publish them, Regent will gladly do so. Due to the nature of these articles, it is quite possible that the readership of this issue will be much wider than legal academia. With that readership in mind, this article, in order to more adequately introduce these pieces, will first discuss some of the fundamental concerns in discussions about homosexuality, such as what sexual orientation actually is and what it means to integrate one’s experiences of same-sex attraction into a "gay" identity in contemporary culture, as well as what it means to dis-identify with experiences of same-sex attraction. We then turn to the two most significant legal issues surrounding the debate on what it means for two persons who have integrated their experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay identity to pursue same-sex "marriage."
The purposes of this article are to understand the context of the arguments about homosexuality with respect to what it means to have integrated experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, set out the two main arguments pertaining to same-sex marriage, and to follow that discussion with an introduction of each of the other articles appearing in this journal issue.
Section I will introduce the reader to a debate about what sexual orientation actually is as well as a model of sexual identity development that takes seriously one’s personal creed or valuative framework and how that may impact subsequent identity synthesis. This will serve as a foundation for a proper understanding of what it means to then consider marriage between two persons who have integrated their experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. Section II will discuss the arguments surrounding the contention that marriage is a fundamental right and ought to be available to all citizens. Reviewing and clarifying the constitutional arguments and politically charged rhetoric is the goal of this section. Section III will discuss the sanctity of marriage argument. Postmodern legal academics purport to dismiss this argument as based purely on tradition. This section, however, will demonstrate the reasoning behind this argument, to help the general reader determine the place of the sanctity of marriage in our law today. Finally, Section IV will introduce each of the other articles contained in this issue, and state the relevance of each in this vital debate.
The objective is to clarify misconceptions and stimulate proper thinking on this crucial matter, and simply to be fair. As you read, may you approach these pieces with an open mind, and be educated in the contours of this debate as you strive for the truth..."
Related replies in this thread: 123, 143, 160, and 212.
Related links posted in the following replies in this thread: 62, 119, 124, and 275.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.