From our good friends at Culture Campaign and North Shore Student Advocacy (Illinois), originally published Feb 24, 2007:

Deerfield High School: Required Class for Freshmen Advocates Liberal and Pro-Gay Propaganda

As Culture Campaign reported last week, a letter to the editor in the Thursday, Feb. 15, issue of Deerfield Review has prompted some scrutiny of the curriculum being used in a freshman class called Freshman Advisory in District 113 (Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools).

According to Lora Sue Hauser, School Issues Advisor from Illinois Family Institute and parent in the Deerfield High School District, Freshman Advisory is a required class for freshmen in which a vast amount of time is devoted to exposing students to pro-homosexual propaganda:

This is a whole class designed for the “gay” agenda during the second semester as well as other liberal causes. In addition to the “gay” panel, last year’s curricula included movies (Common Threads, Bloodlines, Philadelphia), displaying the AIDS quilt, promoting Day of Silence, etc.

And even worse, this year parents cannot get even this much information. We have no idea what is actually being taught about sexual orientation. The teachers are not required to give full disclosure as to the content in their lesson plans.

How does this happen? It’s a simple formula: “gay” activist teachers = liberal curricula. In Deerfield, and other schools around the country, “gay” activists are in a position to choose curricula and they have no intention of staying neutral on these highly debated topics. They do not present alternative viewpoints even though they claim to welcome diverse views. We have repeatedly asked for a panel to speak on the subject of homosexuality from a moral and medical view but have been denied.

We are trying to get a copy of the 2007 Freshman Advisory Diversity curriculum, with specifics as to what is being taught but we’re hitting a brick wall.

Last year, there was a whole Diversity Packet including a Heterosexism Unit that was ghastly. It included playing a card game with all the sexually deviant terms (Genderqueer, Intersexual, MSM, Transgender, Transsexual, Sex Reassignment Surgery, Transphobia, Down-Low, Cross Dressers, etc.) and students had to match the definitions.

It was followed by discussions asking such questions as “What questions or confusion do you have around language describing lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people?” or “In your experience, has LGBT terminology been understood and used properly at Deerfield High School.” Of course, all this material comes from GLSEN.

The curriculum also included a Social Justice Education Unit teaching “Power Over & Power Under ” ideologies with Whites, Males, Heterosexuals, Christians/Gentiles, and the Rich being those with “Power Over.” During the lesson plan, they change the wording to be “Non-target” and “Target” stating that the “Power Over” group target people for mistreatment. This kind of teaching sets the ideological stage for anyone who tries to question the curriculum. We are the ones who “Target.”

This is nothing short of propaganda to the youngest students in a high school.

According to the North Shore Student Advocacy Group (NSSA):

1. District 113 Superintendent, George Fornero, and school board members have been unwilling to meet with parents and concerned taxpayers. Dr. Fornero, new to District 113, was acting superintendent in Ann Arbor, MI where his school district, Ann Arbor Public Schools, was sued for not allowing a student to present an alternate viewpoint on a panel of those supporting homosexual behavior. The district lost the suit.
2. Last year, adult gay author Alex Sanchez was brought in by the Straight and Gay Alliance (SAGA) to speak to students after school. He promoted his sexually graphic books and website (which links to forty-five gay bars, fetish groups and even a ‘leather’ group — ie, sado-masochism).

It is a violation of state law and school policy for teachers to promote sexual behavior. It is also a violation of the Equal Access Act for SAGA advisors to be in anything other than a custodial role for non-curriculum extracurricular groups.

Deerfield High School has some explaining to do…

On Feb 12, 2007, the Desert Dispatch reported that Barstow High School now has a “GSA” (“gay”-straight alliance). The article notes that initially no teacher was willing to sponsor the group until English teacher Rebekah Michelson unfortunately agreed to serve. Richard Reeb, former Barstow College professor and blogger for The Claremont Institute, penned the following response to the story…

——————————–

Excerpted from Barstow High School Needs to Think Twice About Gay Club, by Richard Reeb, published Wed Feb 14, 2007, in Desert Dispatch:

…This week we learn that advocates of homosexuality, under the guise of protecting students with real or imagined inclinations in that direction against school yard bullies and “intolerance” generally, are forming a gay club at Barstow High.

Notwithstanding the purported popularity of these groups on California’s high school campuses, it is a mistake to permit those pushing sexual perversion on our state to exploit the innocence of high school students and the misguided “tolerance” of Barstow High School teachers and administrators.

…The new club’s prospective faculty advisor made a remarkable statement that captures the ambiguity – and the dangers – of introducing young persons in the throes of raging hormones to an unnatural way of life.

“They’re unformed clay, and they’re trying to figure out who they are and how they want to live,” she said. “My goal is to provide a safe environment where kids can be social.”

Now if these Barstow teenagers are “unformed clay,” what sense does it make to encourage them to reject the example and the precepts of their parents and their society, and to experiment with ideas and (inevitably) practices which can confuse them pretty thoroughly? We are constantly told that our teenaged children are “sexually active,” whether their parents know or approve or not, so steering them toward same-sex intimacy in theory means encouraging it in practice.

Also noteworthy is the guiding hand of Carolyn Laub, founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, a California-based nonprofit umbrella group for GSAs around the state. This puts the lie to the claim that the students themselves were somehow the instigators of club formation. Ms. Laub says she has formed 600 clubs at more than 40 percent of California high schools. Barstow finally got “discovered.”

We know that advocates or enablers of sexual perversion, which they euphemistically refer to as “diversity,” mean for their fellow citizens not merely to “tolerate” it but to “celebrate” it. After all, from their point of view, they have nothing to apologize for. Indeed, critics of their “lifestyle” are the ones who have some explaining to do. Nothing but bigotry or religious fanaticism could possibly explain opposition to our public schools sanctioning “gayness.”

It is amazing that Laud and other professional advocates cite the federal Equal Access Act in support of their right to form gay clubs on high school campuses. But we should remind ourselves that the actual origin of that act, signed by President Clinton, was to protect the rights of religious organizations to meet on campus after gay clubs had already formed.

…In plain words, gay clubs are part of a movement which is not only pushing homosexuality on vulnerable teenagers but openly hostile to Christian groups that still follow the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is an “abomination.” Their object is not to strike a blow for free speech but to eradicate from public discourse the viewpoint that homosexuality is morally wrong.

That is the “ball game.” …Today’s “uncloseted” homosexual advocates and practitioners will not rest until all of us agree that denying the distinctive sexual wellsprings of our nature is right and maintenance of traditional marriage and family is wrong.

It is too bad that Barstow Unified School District trustees have given sanction to this “gay” club. Parents should register their protests and take advantage of what moral virtue still remains in this community to stop the club in its tracks.

Dr. Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999).

Excerpted from ADF Helps Protect Three Children from Demands of Unfaithful Military Father Who Left Wife for Boyfriend, published Mar 2, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Court denies father’s appeal for boyfriend to stay overnight while children visiting and for permission to show affection with boyfriend in children’s presence

An active duty military officer who left his wife to pursue sexual relationships with other men failed in his appeal to have certain visitation restrictions to his three children dropped Tuesday.

The mother, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Alexandria law firm Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., the lead attorneys in the case, opposed the father’s request to be allowed overnight stays with his three children while his boyfriend is present. She also objected to her former husband’s request that he be allowed to openly display affection with his boyfriend in front of the children.

“The interests of children far outweigh a man’s desire to be selfish,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “We are talking about a man who repeatedly cheated on his wife to engage in sexual acts with other men and then left her for one of those men. This father and his attorneys with Lambda Legal then decided to take it a step further and demand that very minimal and common visitation restrictions designed to protect the children be dropped. There’s no doubt the Court of Appeal did the right thing in refusing this demand.”

Newsletter from Indiana Voice for the Family published Feb 28, 2007:

Today I am able to bring you good news! In a previous email last week I alerted you to a very dangerous bill that the Representative Greg Porter drafted. HB 1459 the Indiana Hate Crimes bill flew out of committee with a vote of 9:1. House Bill 1459 would have made it a worse crime to assault a gay man walking out of a bar than attacking a grandma walking down the street. It would have created 2 classes of victims, and punished someone more because of their thoughts. This bill represents an attempt to give special protection to homosexuals and cross dressers by stating that a crime against them is to be treated with more severity than a crime against a senior citizen, a child or a pregnant mom. It was a step in the wrong direction for the freedom of speech. I believe a crime is a crime, and needs to be punished to the full extent of the law! One would wonder, would the next step have been to prohibit speech that someone views as hateful? For example, will legislation be introduced to prohibit pastors from speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle? This legislation has already been introduced in the US congress (HR 254), and stands with the votes aligned ready to pass. Already, we have people who are being arrested under the “Hate Crimes” laws. Ask these 2 grandmothers in Pennsylvania who have received a 40 year jail sentence for passing out what Pennsylvania described as hate speech. (The Bible!!!) Read their story.

The pro family leaders united, and you acted! Thousands of emails were received by the Indiana Legislators. Then Indiana House Republican Jackie Walorski (pictured left) did the unexpected — She killed the controversial hate crimes bill by offering a pro-life amendment. Representative Walorski asked the House to give the same special protections to unborn babies as homosexuals and cross-dressers in the hate crimes bill. Democrats didn’t want to deal with that controversy and failed to allow a vote on it. Representative Walorski needs to be commended for her courageous action to stop this dangerous legislation (call or select “contact us” to send an e-mail).

This is what we are able to accomplish when we unite and say enough is enough! Thank you for acting so quickly in this matter! The Indiana Voice for the Family, American Family Association of Indiana, Advance America, Indiana Right to Life, Focus on the Family, and the Indiana Family institute are working together to bring these issues to the forefront! There are several key issues we will be watching this week.

1. SJR7 has made it to the house. Speaker Bauer has said that he will let this be heard. We need to hold him to his word! Call his office today, and ask him to follow his word. Let SJR7 be heard!
2. SB327, which is the HPV bill, is now ready for the House. We will be there to makesure this is not a mandatory vaccine for the girls of Indiana. We will soon need your help in letting our Representatives know that this is not a public health issue. This is a behavioral issue. It should not be forced on our girls. We do not want Indiana girls used as guinea pigs for a vaccine that has only been studied for 4.5 years.

We will continue to keep you up to date on the Issues at the statehouse. Thank you for your prayers and your support!

Monica Boyer
Indiana Voice for the Family

From Top Law Firms Undergo a Rainbow Revolution, by Vivia Chen, The American Lawyer, March 2, 2007, as re-published in Law.com:

In his famous dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s same-sex sodomy law, Antonin Scalia railed against the legal profession for embracing the “anti-antihomosexual culture.” Well, Scalia got that right.

Not only are the nation’s elite law firms not anti-gay, they are putting out the lavender welcome mat. Perks that seemed radical just 10 years ago are now standard fare at Am Law 200 firms: health care benefits for domestic partners, nondiscrimination pledges and sponsorship of gay organizations. Firms are also stampeding to recruit candidates at gay job fairs. And according to a survey by gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, the legal profession ranks high in gay-friendliness when compared to other industries.

Continue reading at Law.com

From HIV-Positive Rep Seeks Homosexual ‘Marriage’ in IL, by Jim Brown and Jody Brown, published Feb 28, 2007, by One News Now:

An Illinois pro-family group is voicing opposition to what it calls a “counterfeit” marriage bill in the state legislature that seeks to make Illinois “the Massachusetts of the Midwest.”

Illinois’ only openly homosexual representative, Democrat Greg Harris, has introduced HB 1615, which would repeal Illinois’ ban on same-sex “marriages.” Pete LaBarbera of the Chicago-based group Americans for Truth says Harris and other homosexual activists are hoping to wear down Illinois voters, and over time pass what he describes as “radical” legislation.

“Greg Harris is the new homosexual rep representing ‘Boystown,’ which is the homosexual neighborhood in Chicago. He replaces another homosexual,” says LaBarbera. “He is HIV positive and even put … on his resume, publicly, that he has AIDS.” The Americans for Truth spokesman says he finds that both sad and ironic. “He’s bearing a disease that is caused by this lifestyle,” he notes, “and now he wants to take this lifestyle and say that it merits being called ‘marriage.'”

According to LaBarbera, the bill introduced by Harris is “sneakily” called the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” And homosexual activists like Harris, he notes, play long-term politics, whereas many in the pro-family movement play short-term politics.

“The long-term goal of the homosexual activists is to make Illinois ‘the Massachusetts of the Midwest,'” says the pro-family leader. “[T]hey would desperately love to get a state in the Midwest to go for so-called ‘homosexual marriage.'”

For that reason, LaBarbera is encouraging conservatives and people of faith likewise 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,” he says on his group’s website. “And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.”

Toward that end, LaBarbera says Americans for Truth will be working with other Illinois pro-family groups to push for another referendum calling on the state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual “marriage.” One pro-traditional marriage referendum, HJRCA 1, he explains, has “languished” in the General Assembly for years. LaBarbera blames what he calls “Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful ‘gay’ lobby.”

Our culture is increasingly coarse and vulgar. Recent television commercials include one for a new show where the main character talks about a “tiny v*****” (female anatomy) and one for “Interactive Male” (which advertises their service as “the best place for gay and bi-curious guys to meet and hook up for sex, dating or friendships”). Lifetime TV (the channel for women?) is airing another new show called Gay, Straight, or Taken? where single women test their guy-dar (or gay-dar?). If she picks the available straight man, she wins a “luxurious dream getaway” with the bachelor, practically a stranger; if not, the guy she picks wins the trip with his female or male “partner.” Not so long ago, the public would have been outraged at such filth.

Now the cultural sewage spills into our state legislatures which will be debating: Toilets for “Transgenders.” The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition has created a “resource” crudely entitled Peeing in Peace.

“Gender neutral” public toilets are part of the homosexual/”transgender” activist vision of the future — which means women and children will be forced to share restroom facilities with cross-dressing men or with “femme” homosexual men or even potentially with predators who decide to frequent women’s public restrooms. The purpose for exposing the heterosexual majority to mixed gender bathrooms is allegedly to protect the sexually confused from attack or harrassment in men’s public bathrooms. AFTAH categorically condemns violence against any practicing homosexual or cross-dressing person…but we also oppose this radical change to public toilet policy, as well as the waste of taxpayer resources in debating it. — Sonja Dalton

Read more at MassResistance…

Kudos to Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness for uncovering the latest media “spin” scam — this one involving a Zogby poll whose results were distorted to promote a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. Turns out in another poll that only 30 percent of active servicemen polled favored — and 59 percent opposed — the idea of letting open homosexuals to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) is introducing a bill in the House today — mischievously called the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act” — to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators today (202-224-3121) and tell them to leave the ban alone, especially during this time of war.

While you’re at it, tell them you oppose creating a federal “Hate Crimes” law including “sexual orientation” and the radical pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” bill ENDA (Employment Non-Discriimination Act) — both of which soon will be pushed in the Democrat-led Congress.

——————————-

From Zogby Poll Spins Push for Gays in Military, published Feb 28, 2007, by Center for Military Readiness (and reprinted in full with permission):

Manufactured “Momentum” for Meehan Bill

In 1993 Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) failed in his attempt to help President Bill Clinton lift the military’s ban on homosexuals in the military. An amendment to strike Senate-passed legislation to codify pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations banning gays from the military, which Meehan sponsored together with liberal Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated overwhelmingly on a 264-169 bi-partisan vote. (Sept. 28, 1993)

Now Meehan is back with similar legislation to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law, a statute that has been upheld as constitutional several times. This time Meehan and his supporters are claiming that the military is on their side, pointing to a poll by Zogby International, released in December 2006.

Using classic P.R. strategy, the Zogby news release highlighted the meaningless “comfort” question, “Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?” Of those responding, 73% said they were. But this is an innocuous question, about as relevant to the controversy as an inquiry about daytime talk shows: “Would you rather watch Ellen DeGeneres’ show or Rosie O’Donnell on The View?”

The key question asked of survey respondents was, “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”

On that question, 26% of respondents agreed, but 37% disagreed. The poll also found that 32% of respondents were “Neutral,” and only 5% said they were “Not sure.”

The 26% of respondents who want the law repealed cannot compete with the combined 69% of people who are opposed or neutral on repeal. This is hardly a mandate for radical change.

Military Knows Best

Polling organizations recognize that respondents who believe a policy is already in place are more likely to favor that policy, while those who know otherwise are less likely.[1] Constant but incorrect assertions that “homosexuals can serve in the military provided that they do not say they are gay” are probably skewing polls of civilians, who mistakenly believe that homosexuals are eligible to serve. People in the military, however, are more likely to understand what the homosexual exclusion law actually says. [See text HERE]

In the most recent poll announced by the Military Times newspapers, in answer to the question “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” 30% of the active duty military subscriber respondents said Yes, but 59% said No, 10% having No Opinion. The same percentage, 59% in opposition, was reported by the Military Times survey in 2006 (Army Times, Jan. 8, 2007).

A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized in news reports:

• This is the latest in a string of media events orchestrated in a failed public relations campaign announced by gay activist groups four years ago. The Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed “in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center,” formerly the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (Dec. 18, 2006). This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years—usually by releasing or promoting various faux “studies” that cannot withstand close scrutiny.

• The poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel.” But the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11, personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel are highly restricted.

• Apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll, even though the news release makes the inflated claim, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.”

• Activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law. If that were the case, all referenda banning same-sex “marriage” would have been soundly defeated. On the contrary, the voters of several states have approved 27 of 28 such referenda, often with comfortable majorities.[2]

Support the Law – Scrap “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell”

Ideologues who want to repeal the homosexual conduct law are determined to impose the gay agenda on the military. This would include the full range of benefits and “sensitivity training” programs to promote acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and conduct. (Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1993)

President George W. Bush is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to enforce all laws, but he is not required to retain administrative regulations written by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. This includes policy regulations known by the catch phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which were found by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be inconsistent with the law in 1996. [See related article here]

Problematic inconsistencies between Clinton’s enforcement regulations and the 1993 homosexual conduct law have contributed to years of confusion, and an advantage for activists who want to repeal both. To ensure that the intent of Congress in passing the law is respected, understood, and followed, the Secretary of Defense should:

• Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration’s policy/regulations, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which are inconsistent with the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. (P.L. 103-160, 10 US Code, Section 654)

• Oppose any legislative attempt to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law in Congress.

• Ensure that the 1993 statute is vigorously defended every time it is challenged in the federal courts.

• Prepare and distribute accurate instructional materials that include the text and legislative history of the 1993 law.

In doing these things the President and Secretary of Defense should not apologize or be intimidated by civil rights analogies and pejorative accusations. The law deserves support because it respects the human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters, to the greatest extent possible, in the interest of encouraging good order and discipline.

As columnist Thomas Sowell wrote in 1993, “Military morale is an intangible, but it is one of those intangibles without which the tangibles do not work.”

For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, homosexual activists should not be allowed to impose their agenda on the armed forces. All Americans can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to serve in the military.

ENDNOTES

1. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Commissioner Generated Finding 14, p. C-135, referencing civilian and military surveys done by the Roper Organization, Inc., for the Commission, September 1992.

2. David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute, Nov. 8, 2006.