Columnist: Triangle Foundation’s Kosofsky says business owners should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

Detroit homosexual activist Sean Kosovsky (left) says media who criticize homosexual “marriages” as illegitimate should be sued for libel and “slapped around publicly.” Kosovsky has also recklessly and falsely accused Gary Glenn’s American Family Association of Michigan of supporting the murder of homosexuals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

By Gary Glenn, President, AFA-Michigan

LOS ANGELES — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Pro-family attorney Jan LaRue offered the following analysis for Americans For Truth readers on the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of “same-sex marriage” (click HERE for a PDF of the court’s decision):

Californians must pass the marriage amendment in November in order to preserve traditional marriage. However, the amendment will not necessarily undo the consequences of the court’s holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class, akin to race, sex and religion, and, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This is the first court in the nation to do that.

The lower courts will apply the ruling and rationale, knowing that the Supremes will uphold their rulings. It means that any restriction on “sexual orientation” will be presumed by courts to be unconstitutional unless the court is convinced that there is a compelling governmental interest that justifies the restriction.

It will be devastating for schools, businesses, religious organizations, individuals, the state national guard, freedom of speech and religion, association, etc. It can hardly be overstated.

Jan LaRue is a member of the California and U.S. Supreme Court bars and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Culture and Media Institute. She served as Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for America, Director of Legal Studies at Family Research Council, and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

Concerned Women for America writes: “An altercation on a college campus leads to federal hate crimes charges against student Brett VanAsdlen despite the fact that all other charges stemming from the event were dropped. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues discusses this incident with Pete LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth and Bob Knight, Director of the Culture and Media Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center.”

Click HERE to listen online to the CWA broadcast, and HERE to download it. Click here for AFTAH’s original story on the case: “Illinois Teen Faces Three Years Jail Sentence for Potentially Fraudulent ‘Hate Crime.’”

In the interview, Knight calls Champaign TV station WCIA-3’s initial story on the incident — in which reporter Amanda Evans interviewed only one side of the dispute — a “classic case” of media bias. More from Knight:

The message here is that there’s a special class of victim. If a homosexual is involved in this equation at all, the media and the legal system are supposed to presumably come to the aid of the homosexual every time. And it’s that selective victimization that you’re talking about, Matt, that’s so frightening.

There is a yawning chasm between the values and priorities we piously claim as our national heritage and those we have chosen to live by.

Our survival as a democracy is in our hands. We too must come out of the closet of cloistered Christianity and come to the rescue of our constitutional rights.

By Lee Taylor

Gay pride was not born in a vacuum. Timing and social upheaval formed the vortex in which it was born and bred. Hanging from the shirttails of the Civil Rights, women’s liberation, and anti-war movements, it exploited the vulnerability of a nation in turmoil. Fueling its fraudulent claims and outrageous demands from our national guilt complex and introspective conflict of values, the Gay Liberation Front exploded onto the American scene. The soul-searching ‘60’s exposed a nation fraught with self-doubt, self-recrimination, anxiety, addiction and ideological conflict, a nation at odds with itself. The sexual revolution accelerated the erosion of both marriage and the family as we struggled with the values and priorities of our national identity.

We were still recovering from the Viet Nam War and had only begun to realize the implications of racial integration when homosexual opportunists executed a strategically timed and targeted blitzkrieg on American society. We were caught napping, and the initial homosexual coup was a resounding success. Adopting the Civil Rights, anti-war and women’s liberation movements as its own, forming its political platform by drawing heavily from each, the Gay Liberation Front took aim at our Christian values and democratic institutions.

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

 Cal Lutheran’s gym: the high school was sued for expelling two alleged lesbians. Their attorney argues that the Christian school should be treated like a business, and adhere to the state’s homosexual “nondiscrimination” laws.  

Note below how the alleged lesbians’ attorney calls the Lutheran school a “business” that must adhere to California’s pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. It is foolhardy to argue that such laws do not war against religious freedom — the litigious evidence is all around us. So it now becomes a battle over priorities: many “gay” activists believe their homosexuality-based “rights” — a trendy legal concept dating back a few decades, based on supposedly innate and unchangeable “orientation” — take precedence even over religious schools’ faith creeds. However, religious freedom dates back to the founding of this nation. Certainly, preserving America’s “first freedom” must take priority (the lesbians are free to form their own school if they wish).

Also, consider how a federal ENDA law (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) would open schools in states without “sexual orientation” laws to similar lawsuits in federal courts. — Peter LaBarbera 

WorldNetDaily.com, which is to be commended for its vigilance in covering these matters, reports (emphasis added):

Lesbian suit against Christian school tossed
‘No triable issues’: Academy’s right to expel 2 girls in ‘relationship’ confirmed

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com, Jan. 25, 2008

A California judge has ruled that Christian schools can set standards for behavior for their students, and impose penalties if they are not met.

The decision comes from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask, who found ‘no triable issues’ on claims that a Christian school discriminated against two girls because of their perceived sexual orientation, according to a report in the North County Times.

Trask recently dismissed the claims made against California Lutheran High School in Wildomar by the two girls and their parents.

The case developed in 2005 when the girls, members of the junior class, were expelled after school officials noticed behavior by the two that may have indicated a lesbian relationship.

 ACLU’s homosexual Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Read the ACLU’s outrageous, pro-bathroom-sex legal brief here: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf.
  
By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, could any of us on the Right make up something this nutty, this extreme? The ACLU is defending DEVIANT SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS as a “privacy right.” This was too much even for lefty MSNBC “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, who makes a living slamming conservatives. Here’s a paragraph from their amicus brief in the Larry Craig case (emphasis added):

Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. … Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. … [cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down Texas’ sodomy law].  The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. … It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. … This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.

Activists courts are the tool that the Left has used to advance what pro-family attorney Jan LaRue calls America’s “unholy trinity”: abortion-on-demand, pornography, and homosexuality.  If killing one’s unborn child (with his or her own, separate DNA) can be justified as a “privacy” right; if owning or buying even child pornography can be defended as a First Amendment “right,” then hey, why not homosexual perversion in bathroom stalls?
  
We know enough about the ACLU to assert that even if a homosexual activist (Anthony Romero) were not running the organization, it would have joined this case.  “Sexual freedom” is the Libertine Left’s new clarion call to legalize and expand the “rights” of even the most outlandish perversions: sadomasochistic house parties; the hetero “swingers community”; the “right” of sex businesses to set up shop in your neighborhood; “polyamory” (multiple-partner “marriage,” anyone?); and, yes, even public bathroom sex.

Can you picture the liberal protesters chanting: “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!! “FREE LARRY CRAIG”!!

Wackiness aside, if America’s modern history has taught us anything, it is to take the Left’s legal gambits and cultural aggression seriously.  Using the courts, the ACLU lawyers and their comrades in the Homosexual, Radical Feminist (Abortion) and Porn Lobbies are destroying America, in the name of freedom.

Think about that later this year when you vote for our next U.S. President, who will pick the nation’s highest-level judges. God help us.  

P.S. Click HERE for a great piece on the ACLU’s folly by Brenda Zurita of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

CWA Release, November 8, 2007

[Call your senators at 202-224-3121 or go to www.congress.org; call President Bush and urge him to veto ENDA if it passes at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111, or www.whitehouse.gov/contact.]

Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday, lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives passed — largely along party lines —  H.R. 3685, the so-called Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA), by a vote of 235–184. [Click HERE for the Roll Call and HERE to see which Congressmen voted against their party’s majority.] 

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, “By passing this Orwellian piece of legislation, the Democrat-controlled House has displayed exceptional arrogance.  Congress apparently believes it has carte blanche authority to nullify any constitutional provision which it finds bothersome.  In this case, they’ve drawn a black line through the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.”  

ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption which might partially protect some religious organizations but would leave many others — such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools — entirely unprotected.  It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.