Americans for Truth

New law ‘mainstreams sexual deviance among children’

Feb 7, 2008 

Contact: E. Ray Moore, Jr., Chaplain (Lt. Col.) USAR Ret, Director of Exodus Mandate or Dr. Bruce Shortt, 803-714-1744. California Exodus contacts: www.Californiaexodus.org, press@californiaexodus.org

COLUMBIA, South Carolina, Feb. 7 /Christian Newswire/ — California Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation mandating that public school children be indoctrinated to accept as normal the homosexual lifestyle and other forms of sexual deviancy. In the wake of the failed effort to obtain a referendum to repeal this legislation, a broad coalition of Christian grassroots organizations have endorsed the Campaign for Children and Families’ call for California families and churches to rescue their children from California’s public schools.

Read the rest of this article »

Appeals Judge issues outrageous ruling embracing homosexual ‘tolerance’ lessons, ignoring Constitutional religious guarantees; links ’same-sex marriage’ to homosexual instruction

 Judge Sandra Lynch

Folks, it is astonishing how far the “gay agenda” (which some homosexual activists say doesn’t exist!) has come in the last 30 years. From defending homosexual bars to opposing parents who merely want to be informed about pro-homosexuality lessons in their young child’s class, the agenda moves on.  Massachusetts and California are the states to watch to see where the homosexual youth- and school agenda is headed. 

We recommend carefully studying the MassResistance website, and other sites like Linda Harvey’s TruthatSchool.org to get engaged on this issue. 

____________________________ 

The following is MassResistance.org’s report on Judge Lynch’s decision, which the Parkers and Wirthlins are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court:  

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of David Parker Case

Judge issues outrageous ruling embracing homosexual “tolerance” lessons; uses notorious “1999 Curriculum Frameworks” in argument; Parker’s lawyers already preparing to appeal case to US Supreme Court

Federal Appeals Judge Sandra L. Lynch, a Clinton appointee, wrote the opinion 
 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS (JAN. 31, 2008) www.massresistance.org — A three-judge federal appeals panel issued a bizarre and horrific ruling today denying the recent appeal  by David Parker, his wife Tonia, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin in their federal Civil Rights case against the Lexington school system. The ruling, written Judge Sandra L. Lynch, upholds the dismissal of the case by Federal Judge Mark Wolf, agrees with his reasoning (with some minor exceptions) and even goes a bit further.

BACKGROUND RESOURCES:

• Full text of ruling by First Circuit Court of Appeals (44 pages, Adobe Acrobat format)
• MassResistance’s comprehensive report on the Parker case;
• MassResistance article: “David Parker lawsuit having chilling effect on schools’ homosexual programs”;.
• Reaction by New England’s leading homosexual activist group GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) to Judge Lynch’s decision;
• Click HERE for MassResistance’s article about Judge Wolf’s ruling, which Lynch upheld

Strange legal reasoning
Judge Lynch shows little interest in the major point made by Parker attorney Rob Sinsheimer that the basic Constitutional protections of religious belief are being trampled on by the school. Instead, she attempts to show how Massachusetts law makes it necessary. She digs pretty deep to do that. In her ruling references 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act as mandating that standards “be designed to inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the commonwealth.” 

Lynch then uses the extremely controversial Massachusetts 1999 Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework to justify homosexual-oriented “tolerance” lessons in the lower grades. She quotes from its “measurable goals” in the lower grades, such as “define sexual orientation using the correct terminology.”  But Lynch completely ignores the fact that that document was clearly intended as a non-mandatory, informal set of guidelines.  That is why Planned Parenthood has filed bill H597 this year to make that document a legal guideline, not informal. (Even the resources listed in the document are from the radical fringe.)

Lynch also presents an interesting analysis of the state Parental Notification Law (Ch. 71, Sec. 32A) which succinctly explains that it is so watered down — and is particularly compromised by the Department of Education’s “advisory rulings” — that it is essentially useless in this situation.

Lynch then observes that the 2003 Goodridge decision held “that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage” and therefore, she implies, the schools must recognize it also.

Most of the rest of Lynch’s reasoning consists of a merry-go-round of excerpts from various “case law” decisions going back several years. That is always suspicious, as we’ve seen throughout this case, because one can cherry-pick language from past decisions (often out of context) almost forever.

Click HERE for the full article on Judge Lynch’s ruling by MassResistance

This is an oldie but a goodie from the brilliant, politically incorrect (lesbian) feminist Camille Paglia, from her 1998 online Salon Q&A column “Ask Camille.” Now, before you think we’ve sold our conservative souls and are ready to join the Wayne Besen Homosexual Hysteria Club so we can start smearing ex-gays, ridiculing common sense, and destroying traditional marriage – no, we are not sanctioning lesbianism by posting this piece. (Personally, my hope would be that Paglia would outgrow lesbianism, but that’s another essay.) She just makes some refreshing observations that, frankly, we wish more traditionalists would make. (And Paglia has always opposed the Gay Left’s totalitarian impulse by defending the free speech righs of opponents of homosexuality.) 

Of course, the problem Paglia addresses below has only grown exponentially worse in the decade since she wrote this.– Peter LaBarbera

Emphasis is added below:

Dear Camille:

I am a black, conservative female. I am proud to say that you are one of my heroes. I would like your opinion of the following press release, which I am forwarding to you. It’s regarding the Gay Youth Pride Day. Now, according to some, I may have no right to have an opinion about this, because of my heterosexuality. However, I think some in the so-called “gay community” take this pride thing a bit too far. As a 19-year-old, openly straight female, I really don’t understand the need for the self-anointed leaders of the gay rights movement to draw gay youngsters into their self-indulgent politics. Am I misguided or insensitive in my approach to the “young gay dilemma”?

Your conservative admirer in Va.
Dear Conservative:

The psychological turmoil of adolescents at sexual awakening cannot be underestimated. Everything is in flux — impulses, fears, dreams, with simultaneous longings for independence and for protection by adults. What I dislike about the push of organized gay activism into high schools is that it imposes a rigid political paradigm on a stage of life that is in rapid, painful transition for everyone, gay or straight.

As an equity feminist, as well as an open lesbian, I oppose special protections for any group, including my own. Teachers and administrators should obviously not permit physical harassment of any kind on school property, but verbal epithets, however offensive or hurtful, have First Amendment protection. The PC thought police, having been defeated on college campuses after the court-ordered banning of the fascist speech codes, are now oozing their way into high schools. “Hate” cannot be stopped by authoritarian manipulation but by slow social change, which may take generations.

The Internet has been a boon to lonely gay teens in geographically remote areas — but, of course, computers still remain largely a white middle-class luxury. I find very suspicious the statistics about teen suicides with which gay activists badger the media. If gay teens are indeed attempting suicide at a higher rate than straight teens, perhaps more questions need to be asked about the genesis of homosexuality. The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa.

I have written repeatedly about my theory that homosexuality is an adaptation, rather than an innate trait, and that it is reinforced by habit. With its cant terms of “oppression” and “bigotry,” gay activism, encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness. We need more art and history and less politics in primary education. Art gives the young the psychological and spiritual tools for authentic self-discovery. And art is where sexual dissenters have contributed the most to the human record.

In short, I agree with your concern about the Trojan Horse of gay activism, which is being dragged into high schools under the false flag of compassion. Young people who oppose homosexuality for any reason have a constitutional right to express their views, in or out of the classroom. Whatever they may privately believe as individuals, educators have a professional obligation to remain ideologically neutral in their treatment of students.

Charlene Cothran/David Parker AFTAH BANQUET VIDEO Is Finally Available!

Excellent teaching tool for young people who are being brainwashed to accept homosexuality!
 
The AFTAH Banquet Videos are finally available and will be shipped ASAP!  To order a complete DVD (or CD) set of both ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran’s and parental rights hero David Parker’s outstanding talks, make an online donation of at least $25 postpaid to Americans For Truth (http://americansfortruth.com/donate/). Please use the online form at https://americansfortruth.nozonenet.com/donate/cc.php to specify your order.  You can substitute an audio CD but you must request this specifically. To order by regular mail, send your check or money order specifying “2007 Banquet DVD” (or CD) to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Bulk Orders available: 2 for $40; 3 for $55; 4 for $70; add $10 for each additional DVD or contact us at americansfortruth@comcast.net (or 630-717-7631) for large bulk order pricing.

Conservapedia, a new online encyclopedia seeking to become a conservative alternative to the very liberal-biased Wikipedia, takes a politically incorrect look at the medical phenomenon known as ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’ — a term that homosexual activists are trying to purge from scientific and popular usage. Gay Bowel Syndrome describes a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients,” according to Conservapedia, which cites mainstream medical sources such as Johns Hopkins’ ‘HIV Guide’ in its article with 93 footnotes. An illness associated with Gay Bowel Syndrome significantly increases the risk of HIV Infection.

Homosexual activists like San Francisco researcher Michael Scarce resent it and cry “homophobia!” when the obvious health risks linked to male homosexual behavior are brought up in debate, much less studied by scientists. After all, that’s “discrimination” since everything is “equal,” right? Tragically, the loud protests of “gay” militants have succeeded in politicizing HIV/AIDS and discouraging objective research on the maladies associated with perversions popular among “gay” men, especially anal sex.

We at Americans For Truth believe that it is long past time for federal and state governments (and academia) to study the serious health risks associated with male homosexual sex and promiscuity, just as federally-sponsored studies helped educate the public on the significant dangers of smoking. Allowing homosexual activists a “protester’s veto” over legitimate medical inquiry and research will only cost more men’s lives, as larger society and especially young men are denied clear information on the special health risks of “gay” sex viz a viz normal, natural straight sex.

And the fact that some straights engage in deviant practices like anal sex is hardly a reason to downplay or cover up the real dangers associated with popular ”gay” male sex acts like sodomy and “rimming” (oral-anal “sex”) – which are already being promoted to “gay youth” (read AFTAH’s story, “Graphic Youth Flier Guides ‘Queer’ ‘Boyz’ on How to Engage in Homosexual Sodomies.”) As you can read below, homosexual male promiscuity only exacerbates those dangers.

The politically correct silence keeps potentially life-saving information from children: many schools shy away from teaching students that male homosexual behavior carries a disproportionate risk even for contracting H.I.V. That would undermine the “gay equality” thesis favored by many liberals. (Click HERE to read a about the dramatic rise in HIV cases among young homosexual men in New York City.)

Below is an excerpt from Conservapedia’s article on “Gay Bowel Syndrome.” Note the last section cited below in which a researcher who agrees with Scarce that use of “Gay Bowel Syndrome” is “homophobic” nevertheless feels the need to warn healthcare professionals about Scarce’s “use of vulgar language, ribald poetry, and [his own] personal sexual details” in his book. 

After you read the GBS piece, take a look at Conservapedia’s well-researched article on Homosexuality. — Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Excerpted from “Gay Bowel Syndrome” (emphasis added)

Conservapedia.com

Gay bowel syndrome, which has also been described as gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the journal Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science and in 2004 Medscape stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards HIV infection. (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape.) Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).

Read the rest of this article »

Americans For Truth Speaker (Friday, Oct. 5) David Parker of Lexington, Massachusetts, in hand-cuffs after being arrested in 2005 at his son’s elementary school – after refusing to budge in his demand for parental rights. At right is the last page of “King & King,” a ”children’s” picture book that was read to first-graders at the school. Those are the two princes kissing, the culmination of a story line in which the prince rejects princesses in favor of another man as his true love. The two princes get “married” and the caption for the “same-sex marriage” page reads: “The wedding was very special. The queen even shed a tear or two.” The principal at Esterbrook Elementary School in Lexington defended the “King & King” lesson and denied parents the right to be informed about it and to opt their kids out.

Dear Americans For Truth Reader,

There is a battle to preserve right and wrong in this country — and a campaign to teach children that “human wrongs” are actually “human rights.” David Parker, who comes to the Chicago area in a week (Friday, October 5) for Americans For Truth’s first annual banquet, is on the front lines of that battle.

David and his wife Tonia are concerned Massachusetts parents who simply didn’t want their son to be brainwashed by a politically correct education establishment that has lost its way.

We are honored and delighted to have David as one of two dynamic speakers at our Americans For Truth banquet next week – Friday, October 5 in Lombard (registration is extended until Monday; click HERE for information). If you live in the Midwest, and can drive (or even fly) in, I’d strongly encourage you to come see this man who is a hero for truth and represents all that is great about this nation.

Here’s my guarantee: your “freedom fighting” batteries will be charged for years to come by this exciting evening.

Our other featured speaker, Charlene Cothran, a former lesbian-activist-turned-Christian and founder of VENUS Magazine, is equally compelling. You won’t want to miss her God-honoring testimony of being delivered from homosexuality; click HERE to sign up by Monday using your VISA or MasterCard.

Get off the sidelines

Let’s face it: most people sit on the sidelines in this ongoing societal “war” over which values will be ascendant in our culture. David and Tonia Parker got off the sidelines. When faced with a school bureaucracy in Lexington, Mass., that asserted it had the right and duty in the nation’s only homosexual-”marriage” state to teach the acceptance of homosexuality to young elementary school children without even informing parents, they fought back. In 2005, the Parker’s five-year-old son Jacob came home with a “Diversity Book Bag,” which contained the book Who’s in a Family promoting the acceptance of “same-sex” families.

The rest is history, as David Parker was famously arrested at Jacob’s school, Esterbrook Elementary, for demanding his parental right to be informed before teachings that violate his and Tonia’s religious beliefs were foisted on their impressionable son.

The controversy grew in 2006 when the Joseph and Robin Wirthlin learned that their seven-year-old son Joey’s first-grade teacher at Esterbrook Elementary had read King & King, a homosexual romance kids book (who would think we’d ever be using those words together?), shown above, aloud to her young students without even notifying their parents.

Read the rest of this article »

Tony Kushner’s anti-Reagan, pro-homosexuality propaganda play, “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes,” is simply not appropriate for schools.

Even people without children or grandchildren in schools will find Laurie Higgins’ excellent arguments below compelling. Also, click HERE to read her take on “Angels in America,” which was studied in Deerfield High School, north of Chicago.– Peter LaBarbera 

By Laurie Higgins 

As a new school year begins, here are some of the arguments that parents may encounter when they challenge books (e.g. The Chocolate War, Fat Kid Rules the World, The Laramie Project, or Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes) for their problematic ideological messages, the nature and extent of profanity and obscenity, or the nature and extent of depictions of sexuality, followed by brief responses.

Parents who challenge a book because of language need to bear in mind that many of the parents and teachers who approve of these objectionable texts use the same obscene and profane language commonly and casually in their personal lives, even with their children, though they will not likely admit it. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will concede that profanity and obscenity are objectionable, for conceding that would constitute a personal indictment:

1. Parents are taking words out of context, and it is the context that justifies the language.
 
Response: There is no context that renders frequent and excessively obscene language acceptable in texts selected by public school teachers for minor children. In other words, the extreme nature and pervasiveness of obscenity renders the entire text unsuitable for public schools whose mission is to cultivate the best behavior in students.
 
2. Profane and obscene language is justified because it represents authentic adolescent language.
 
Response: If the author is justified in using this language to portray authentically adolescent culture and the emotional experiences of adolescents, then surely students are justified in using this language in school in order to be authentic and to express adequately and accurately their emotional truths. Teachers too should be allowed to use this language because it also represents authentic adult language and experience. In fact, society often erroneously and euphemistically refers to profanity and obscenity as “adult language.”
 
3. Counting numbers of swear words constitutes an immature or silly evaluative mechanism.
 
Response: Taking into account the extent of foul language is neither silly nor juvenile. There is a substantive difference between one incident of “f**k” and one hundred. The incessant drumbeat of obscenities desensitizes readers to their offensiveness and normalizes their use. Moreover, although adults may distinguish between literary use and endorsement, many adolescents do not.

First, the prevalence of foul language should be taken into account. Second, the nature of the obscenity or profanity should be taken into account. Third, who is using the offensive language should be taken into account. Is it the hero or the antagonist? Fourth, parents and educators should realize that books with profuse obscenity and the willingness of educators’ to teach them convey the message that there are justifiable reasons and contexts for using extremely foul language.
 
4. Since students mature at different rates, some students are mature enough for these texts. Parents, therefore, should decide what is appropriate for their child.

Response: Whoever makes this argument should be asked to define maturity. If they are referring to intellectual development, then it is irrelevant to the discussion in that parents who challenge texts because of language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages, are not doing so because they find the material intellectually inaccessible.
If educators are referring to emotional maturity, meaning that students are emotionally stable enough to read and discuss emotionally difficult material without being traumatized, that too is likely irrelevant, for few parents who object to language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages are concerned that their children will be emotionally traumatized.

The concern conservative parents have is with moral development. They recognize that all adolescents, including even mature high school seniors, are not yet adults. They are still constructing a moral compass. They are impressionable, malleable, and much more vulnerable to external influences than are adults whose moral compass is likely fixed and stable. For a teacher to contend that there is any 12-18 year-old whose moral compass is fully developed, mature, and fixed represents an ignorant and hubristic assertion.

Every parent should be able to send their child to school confident that their beliefs regarding decency and morality will not be challenged by educators or curricula, especially since this confidence can be secured without compromising the academic enterprise. It is even more important today in a culture in which profanity, obscenity, and sexual imagery relentlessly bombard our youth that schools stand as one of the last bastions of integrity, civility, and temperance.

5. A small minority group is trying to impose their morality or religious beliefs on the whole community.
 
Response: Since schools are ostensibly committed to honoring the voices of all in the community, there is no justifiable reason to ignore the concerns of even minority voices. Schools should respect the values of people of faith, especially when doing so does not compromise student learning. In addition, objections to obscenity, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages can be either religious or secular in nature. If objections to, for example, the use of obscenity represented the imposition of religious belief, then why do virtually all school districts have policies against its use by students in school?  It is the mark of a civilized society to honor the concerns and values of people of diverse faiths and to aspire to decency.

6. There are other options for those who object to particular texts.
 
Response: First, opting out of reading an assigned class text results in a diminished, isolated academic experience for students. But equally important is the issue of whether taxpayers, even those who have no children in school, should be required to fund the teaching of offensive material. A text like Angels in America contributes to the debasement of an already vulgar culture, and schools should never in any way contribute to the baser aspects of culture. This does not mean that texts must avoid looking at the flaws and evil that afflict man. Rather, it means that we should choose texts that look at the presence of ignobility and evil but do so in ways that inspire, edify, chasten, and point us in the direction of truth, beauty and righteousness. Texts like Angels in America do none of this.

 7. Refusing to offer this book will lead ineluctably to the world of book-burning à la Fahrenheit 451.
 
Response: This is an irrational, alarmist, specious canard. There is simply no evidence that including in selection criteria the nature and extent of obscene language or sexuality, or a consideration of highly controversial political messages will result in wholesale book banning. There is, however, ample evidence, that a steadfast refusal to ever take into account these elements will result in a slippery slide down the other slope to the use of corrosively vulgar and polemical texts.

8. This book has won prestigious literary awards or has been approved by the American Library Association (ALA).

Response:  This justification begs the question: Who serves on committees that award prizes or review texts? And this argument calls for a serious, open, and honest examination of the ideological monopoly that controls academia and the elite world of the arts that for decades has engaged in censorship of conservative scholarship. To offer as justification for teaching a text the garnering of literary prizes or ALA approval without acknowledging that those who award the prizes and belong to the ALA are generally of the same ideological bent is an exercise in sophistry.

What school committees, departments, administrations, school boards, the ALA, the National Education Association (NEA), and organizations that award literary prizes desperately need is the one form of diversity about which they are least concerned and to which they are least committed: ideological diversity.

9. Kids relate to this book and, therefore, it captures and holds their interest.

Response: If this criterion has assumed a dominant place in the selection process, then teachers have abandoned their proper role as educators. Appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents should not be the goal of educators. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it is called pandering. Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. We should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. We should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

10. To remove this text constitutes censorship.

Response: Parents who object to the inclusion of texts on recommended or required reading lists due to obscene language, sexuality, or highly controversial messages are not engaging in some kind of inappropriate censorship. All educators evaluate curricular materials for objectionable content, including language, sexuality, and controversial themes. The irony is that when teachers decide not to select a text due to these elements, the choice constitutes an exercise in legitimate decision-making, but when parents engage in it, they are tarred with the label of “censor.”

 Furthermore, virtually no parents advocate prior restraint and only rarely are they asking for the removal of a text from a school library. Rather, parents are suggesting that it is reasonable to include the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality when selecting texts to be recommended and/or taught to minors in public schools.

Are those teachers, administrators, and school board members who disagree with that suggestion saying that they will never take into account the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality? If they are claiming that they will never take into account these elements, then parents should reconsider their fitness for teaching.

In all four years of high school English, students read approximately 28-32 books. From the dozens and dozens of texts available, it seems unlikely that any student’s education would be compromised by teachers, in the service of respect for parental values, comity, and modesty, avoiding the most controversial texts.

Laurie Higgins is a writer and public school teacher in the Chicago area.

From MassResistance.org:  

Yes, it’s already affecting the legal system. . .

We recently met with a mother who was preparing to take her local school system to court over a particular homosexual-related activity that she felt was going to affect her child in a destructive way. But when she discussed it with her lawyer (who specializes in dealing with public schools) the lawyer told her that the recent ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf in the David Parker case would make it difficult for her to win!

As you can imagine, the mother was shocked and very upset. But this is how important the David Parker lawsuit has become, not only here but around the country. And the national homosexual movement knows that - and is prepared to pull out all the stops to make sure that this lawsuit does not get to an appeal.

This also demonstrates that the current Parental Notification Law (Ch. 71, Sec. 32A) is now effectively useless, and a STRONG replacement is desperately needed! (Call your state reps & senators to let them know how important their support for the NEW Parents’ rights bill S321 is!)