"The school board says its about harassment, its about tolerance. Well, what does GLSEN say?" she asks. "The executive director, Kevin Jennings, says that it is about promoting homosexuality. Thats what he said is his mission. Let me read you his quote. He said, Promoting homosexuality -- we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. "
Folger describes the prospects as "frightening." "We had people that went into the GLSEN meetings. And make no mistake, this is not about tolerance in meeting with teachers -- it's about getting to the children," she says. "In fact, it was in that GLSEN meeting, locally held, that they said, 'We need this agreement to get to the children.' "
A speech by a homosexual activist in 1995 revealed that he had used "safety" to delude Gov. Weld and the state legislature into adopting the homosexual agenda for the schools of Massachusetts. The speech was titled Winning the Culture War and was given by Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of the "Gay and Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network," at the "Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference" on March 5, 1995.
"If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language promoting homosexuality is one example is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids. We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term pro-life allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.
"In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governors Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponents 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.
"Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common.
"In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves: this allowed us to set the terms for the debate.
"In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real-live stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More importantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result..."