Excerpted from Ex-Hub Councilor Nabbed in Bid to Have Sex with Minor (now archived), by Laura Crimaldi, published Oct 11, 2006, by Boston Herald:

Former Boston City Councilor David Scondras (mugshot shown left) faces sex charges after he was busted in a Lawrence school parking lot with lubricant and booze while allegedly seeking a tryst in the woods with a 15-year-old boy he’d trolled for online.

Police say the “boy” that Scondras, 60, of Cambridge drove some 30 miles to meet for sex turned out to be a 20-year-old Lawrence General Hospital security guard.

The guard said he’d received a series of lurid instant messages and graphic pictures from the former five-term councilor, who used the screen name “Toppdadd,” seeking sex with a minor, and approached a cop for help in dealing with the messages, court and police records indicate.

“You know a lot of people have prejudices against guys who like to have sex with children,” Scondras allegedly told the security guard, identified in court papers as Michael W. Fornesi, during a cell phone conversation after the illicit underage rendezvous was set up.

…According to Shafer’s police report, Scondras, Boston’s first openly gay councilor, initially exchanged sexually explicit IM’s with the guard, and after being told he was communicating with a willing 15-year-old, who used the screen name “Cubscout4mastr86,” sent along his cell phone number and began soliciting sex.At Shafer’s direction, the guard called Scondras to offer directions to the school lot. Scondras told the guard, who used the pseudonym Josh, that he wanted to have unprotected sex with him “in the woods” and would bring marijuana, a police report states.

After Scondras arrived at the lot and identified himself to “Josh,” Shafer moved in for the arrest. In his report, he said Scondras resisted arrest and tried to flee.

…In Scondras’ car, Shafer said, were four blue packages of “Wet” lubricant, an open bottle containing a “red alcohol substance” and a printout of the instant messages.Scondras lost his council seat in 1993 after details of a series of obscenity-laced and slurred calls he made to a 911-dispatch operator. In 1996, he was charged with groping a 16-year-old boy in a movie theater, but the case was dropped when the teen refused to testify.

Continue reading at Boston Herald…

Excerpted from Former City Councilor Is Arrested on Sex Charge (Charged with trying to entice a minor), by Brian R. Ballou and Michael Levenson, published Oct 11, 2006, by Boston Globe:

David Scondras swept onto the City Council in 1983, a Harvard-educated tenant activist from the Fenway who wanted to fight for the less fortunate. He was reelected five times, serving as the city’s first openly gay councilor when few politicians spoke about their sexuality.

But a series of problems hastened Scondras’s fall from office. He was caught making rambling calls to police and acknowledged that he was an alcoholic, had been taking pain medication, and that his partner had been diagnosed with AIDS. In 1993, he was voted out of office.

Yesterday, Scondras faced new allegations when he was charged in Lawrence District Court with trying to entice a minor into having sex.

Police alleged that Scondras, 60, used the screen name Topdadd to send pornographic images and messages to someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. Police arrested Scondras at 1:15 a.m. in the parking lot of Day Charter School in Lawrence, where authorities say he had arranged to meet for sex. Scondras allegedly tussled with an officer and tried to run away, before being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed.

…Many recalled another episode in 1997, when Scondras was accused of trying to fondle a 16-year-old boy in a Back Bay movie theater. That charge was dropped when the youth refused to testify in court.

The following study was published by the American College of Pediatricians Jan 22, 2004:

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations¹, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.^2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. ^5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. ^{10,11,12,13,14} Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. ^15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” ^{18,19,20,21,22} Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,^23,24,25 substance abuse,²⁶ suicidal tendencies,^27,28 and shortened life spans.²⁹ Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.³⁰ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. ^{31,32,33,34,35} Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.³⁶

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”

The following letter appeared in the Centre Daily Times, State College, PA Feb 22, 2007:

Evidence contradicts conclusion

In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.

He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.

Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.

In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.

Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.

The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

Lisa Stevenson
State College

A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:

Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”

This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.

In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

The ACP said the following.

“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”

Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:

• The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components

• Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.

From ‘Rhode’ Rage: Ocean State Recognizes Mass. Gay Marriages, published Feb 23, 2007, by Family Research Council:

Based on the political preference of one man, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (pictured left), the state will now recognize same-sex unions performed in Massachusetts. In a letter this week, Lynch argued that because Rhode Island has not banned gay marriage, there is “no reason to deny recognition” of gay unions. Although his opinion is not binding, many of the state’s agencies are expected to follow his advice. Although he says his family situation had “zero impact” on the decision, many speculate that Lynch had personal reasons for his opinion. A week before he issued his report, Lynch attended the same-sex “wedding” of his own sister in the Bay State. This abuse of power should sound the alarm for Rhode Island’s pro-family voters and spark a movement to introduce a marriage protection amendment so that the state’s position on marriage is no longer in doubt.
Additional Resources: R.I. May Recognize Gay Unions From Mass.

From our friends at MassResistance on Feb 23, 2007:

Outrageous 38-page ruling goes further — Reinforces right of schools to teach homosexuality without parents’ knowledge or consent — US Constitution trumped by “case” law and “rational” need to teach “diversity”

Friday morning, federal judge Mark Wolf issued an outrageous and horrific 38-page ruling dismissing David Parker’s federal civil rights lawsuit against Lexington, MA school officials.  David Parker had filed the lawsuit, along with his wife and Rob and Robin Wirthlin, last April after the schools refused to notify parents when teaching about homosexuality and transgenderism in the elementary school. School officials, aided by national pro-homosexual groups, had filed a motion to dismiss the case which was argued before Judge Wolf on Feb. 7.

Wolf’s ruling is every parent’s nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the “right” (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children.

In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” According to Wolf, this means teaching “diversity” which includes “differences in sexual orientation.”

In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing — that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the US Constitution?

Wolf’s reasoning uses the Goodridge ruling on same-sex marriage as well as Mass. Dept. of Education “Frameworks” and a flawed interpretation of the state Parental Notification Law — to effectively trump the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

He bolsters his decision with a patchwork of statements from other court decisions – some going back over a decade – and declares that these past decagons are “law” which much be enforced when making his own ruling on this case.

What’s next?

The Parkers’ lawyers have already announced that they will appeal the decision in Federal Appeals Court. They continue to be upbeat, passionate about this case, and confident they will prevail.

What does this mean?

Although we had anticipated the possibility of this motion to dismiss being allowed, we had no idea that it would be done with such vehemence and blatant unconstitutional militancy. This is extremely serious.  This ruling could be considered as “legally binding” in future civil cases, and reflects the extreme degree to which our judiciary has become. disconnected from our constitutional democracy.

Where does that leave parents and citizens? Do we depend on the generosity of an “appeals court” or do we take action? More on this in the next MassResistance e-mail, Monday evening…

By Peter LaBarbera

Homosexual Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) pushes counterfeit “marriage.”

Well, we’ve been warning you that the homosexual movement wants to make Illinois the “Massachusetts of the Midwest.” Now it’s official. The state’s only “openly gay” representative, Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has submitted a bill to legalize “same-sex marriage” in the Land of Lincoln. Harris sneakily calls his bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” –– despite evidence from Massachusetts that legal “gay marriage” leads to stepped-up discrimination against religious institutions opposed to homosexuality.

TAKE ACTION: If you are an Illinois resident, call your state representative and state senator and politely urge them to:

• OPPOSE HB 1615, the radical redefinition of marriage proposed by new homosexual State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago); click HERE to find your legislators (the page works best if you know your 9-digit zip), and click HERE to view the bill, which would strip out the common-sense prohibition in Illinois law against marriages “between two individuals of the same sex.” You can call the Illinois Capitol Switchboard at 217-782-2000.
• SUPPORT HJRCA 1, the pro-traditional-marriage constitutional amendment offered by State Rep. Dave Reis (R) –– which has languished in the IL General Assembly for years due to the Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful “gay” lobby. (In Illinois, a constitutional amendment requires a three-fifths vote by the legislature, followed by a three-fifths popular vote.)

Also, please consider making a financial gift to Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI). We don’t normally solicit funds for other organizations, but PMI urgently needs your help as it gears up for another petition drive to place a pro-traditional marriage advisory question on the 2008 Illinois ballot. PMI’s ballot measure would enable Illinois voters to call on the General Assembly to pass a constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment (like Reis’ amendment above). Make your check out to Protect Marriage Illinois and send it to: PMI, PO Box 419, Wheaton, IL 60189; or go to PMI’s website and click the “Make a Donation” button. (Gifts to PMI are not tax-deductible.)

Background
Homosexual activists, being mostly on the Left, know how politics works: they will strive to gradually build support for legalizing “gay marriage” in Illinois even if it takes decades. This is what they did before finally passing a pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” bill (which also covers the gender-confused) in Illinois in 2005.

Conservatives and people of faith, too, have to learn to think long-term. We must retain the goal of repealing all “sexual orientation” laws –– in Illinois and across the nation –– since they are incompatible with the basic American freedoms of religion, conscience and association. And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.

In his odd legislative biography, Rep. Harris –– who replaced another homosexual Chicago Democrat –– states, almost proudly, that he is the “only openly gay member of the Legislature and openly a person with AIDS.” (Please read this interesting first-hand testimonial about Harris’ sad life and pray for him if you are so moved.)

Indeed, behavior that runs contrary to nature carries a heavy physical price. When “gay” activists talk about “marriage equality,” we should answer: same-sex relationships do not deserve to be treated as “equal” to marriage because they are not — far from it. True marriage serves society and mankind by ordering the sexes and producing future generations and providing stable, mother-father homes for children.

Conversely, society has no stake in legalizing “gay marriage,” which would reward unhealthy and changeable behavior and have such ill side-effects as facilitating intentionally fatherless or motherless homosexual adoptions.

Giving immoral homosexual relationships all the rights and benefits of marriage also sends a terrible message to young people, and certainly will lead to Christians and religious people being punished for “anti-gay” discrimination. A homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” law would be a huge stepping stone toward forcing small businesses –– even religiously-owned ones such as day care centers –– to provide marital-type benefits to homosexual employees even if they oppose subsidizing that lifestyle.

And how long will it be before a church or pastor is sued for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple — HB 1615’s title notwithstanding?

We must do all we can to shore up real marriage by encouraging citizens to value it more and by making divorces tougher to get. Radically redefining marriage to include homosexuality would only erode this great institution further.

Neutral Unisex Bathroom Created for Cross-dressing Student

News Advisory:  February 23, 2007
Contact:  Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX); 703-360-2255  PFOX@pfox.org   www.pfox.org

Montgomery County, Maryland –  Three parent organizations are asking the Maryland State Board of Education to halt the new sex ed curriculum approved by the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education (BOE).  Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), and Family Leader Network have filed an appeal requesting Maryland to stay Montgomery County Public School’s sex ed plans. 

The newly approved curriculum, entitled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” promotes cross-dressers, homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, the intersexed, and other non-heterosexuals.  It teaches children about “coming out” as gay, “gender identity” for men who think they’re women and vice-versa, and “homophobia” as a label for anyone who disagrees.

In one lesson, a boy begins to wear dresses to school, calls himself “Portia,” and wants to be known as a girl.  The principal gives him a key to a private restroom and a new student ID identifying him as a girl.  “Although transgenderism is considered a gender identity disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, the lesson plan fails to recommend counseling for students with gender confusion,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX Executive Director.  “Instead, it implies that schools should create new unisex bathrooms for cross-dressing students.” 

The lesson also refers to “Portia” as a ‘she’ when the law and biology classify ‘her’ as a “he.”  “This gender bending forces students to acknowledge ‘Portia’ as a female when he is not and creates gender confusion for children,” said Griggs.  “This flawed educational policy is not based on medical or scientific facts.” 

Despite repeated appearances by former homosexuals and a former transgender before the BOE, the Board voted to exclude ex-gays from the lesson plans although gays, transgenders, and the intersexed are included and taught to students. “Why do the lesson plans censor ex-gays when every other sexual orientation is discussed and supported?” asked Griggs.   “The BOE violates its own sexual orientation non-discrimination policy by choosing which sexual orientations it favors based on politics and not science.  Its discriminatory actions contribute to the intolerance and open hostility faced by the ex-gay community.” 

PFOX was a member of the curriculum committee representing the ex-gay community, yet the BOE voted to teach students that it is normal to change your sex (transgender) but not normal to change your unwanted same-sex attractions (former homosexual).  “The lesson plans instruct students that homosexual orientation is innate and inborn, despite testimony by former homosexuals before the BOE and all contrary scientific research,” explained Griggs.  

“The lesson plans are entitled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” yet the ex-gay community receives no respect and is deliberately left out of the curriculum,” Griggs said.  “The actions of the Montgomery County Board of Education are discriminatory, endanger children, and are politically motivated.”

“What happens in Montgomery County will happen to the rest of Maryland, so it is imperative to stop this ‘sex ed’ program now before it is fully implemented,” said Griggs.  Concerned Maryland  residents can take action at http://www.mcpscurriculum.org/take_action.shtml

###

A copy of this news advisory is available online at:  http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=155#155
 

From The New York Times and the Gospel Truth, by Robert Knight, published Feb 22, 2007, by Culture and Media Institute:

The New York Times has been in the forefront of the conservative Christian-bashing, running voluminous pieces that accuse churches of avoiding taxes and warning darkly that the Christian Right is on the verge of turning the United States into a Talibanesque theocracy.

As liberal politicians pose at churches, salt their speeches with Scripture, and insist that their aggressive drive for more government is pious obedience to the Almighty, they are getting powerful cover from the mainstream media.

The biggest help they are getting, apart from credulous acceptance of their sudden spiritual enthusiasm, is the media’s demonizing of conservative Christians. Religion’s okay only if it mirrors liberal opinion.

The New York Times has been in the forefront of the conservative Christian-bashing, running voluminous pieces that accuse churches of avoiding taxes and warning darkly that the Christian Right is on the verge of turning the United States into a Talibanesque theocracy.

Maintaining this false image takes a lot of repetition and misrepresentation. A perfect example is an article in The New York Times Sunday Magazine (Feb. 18) in which Concerned Women for America’s position on spiritual outreach is so grossly distorted as to constitute a lie.

I had the privilege of directing CWA’s Culture & Family Institute for nearly six years. At no time did I see any CWA representative say or do anything to support the vicious mischaracterization in this Times article.

Here’s the passage, from “Narrowing the Religion Gap” by Gary Rosen, who is identified as managing editor of Commentary magazine:

“On the right, the culprits are familiar, having become stock characters in our politics. In his unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination in 2000, [an Arizona senator and current Presidential candidate] called them ‘the agents of intolerance,’ singling out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. For a taste of their views, you can visit the Web site of Concerned Women for America (C.W.A.), which bills itself as the ‘nation’s largest public-policy women’s organization.’ Its mission is ‘to protect and promote biblical values among all citizens,’ the Bible being ‘the inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.’ As for dissenters from C.W.A.’s stand on issues like the ‘sanctity of human life,’ a handy link to Bible passages explains ‘why you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell.'”

Rosen’s reference comes from CWA’s Gospel page, which begins by reminding us that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Nowhere does CWA state or imply that people will be sent to hell because of their views on public policy.

The reference that Rosen pulls out of context continues this way:

“God, however, has made a way for you to join Him in Heaven instead. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

This goes for everybody, regardless of background – liberals, conservatives, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, Republicans, Democrats, atheists, it does not matter. It has nothing to do with policy or dissenters of any policy.

Are there any editors at The New York Times who still insist on checking facts? Rosen should apologize not only to Concerned Women for America but to the Times editors who trusted him enough to run his piece.

My guess is that most Times editors wouldn’t think of challenging Rosen’s assertion because they share his prejudices. It probably made perfect sense to them. Conservative Christians did not become “stock characters” because of balanced coverage.

Rosen’s main thesis is that everybody should run to the center, and stop worrying so much about nasty issues like abortion and gay rights. He cites several conservatives that he says “have performed a service lately by denouncing the GOP’s pact with such authoritarian bullies.”

Those sweet CWA ladies sure are scary. By the way, one of those “observers on the right” that Rosen names is Andrew Sullivan, the blogger/activist who insists that God approves of promiscuous homosexual behavior, all evidence aside.

Rosen takes some leftists to task for insisting on their own orthodoxies, but in his list of “luminaries” he includes Peter Singer of Princeton, who argues that parents should have a week to decide whether they want to kill a baby after it is born. Singer is also floating the idea that it’s perfectly moral for humans to have sex with animals.

Remember, it isn’t the Singers of this world we’re supposed to fear, it’s the CWA ladies. We know because we saw it in The New York Times.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.