By Peter LaBarbera

Strange, very strange. You might even say queer. Obviously, in the minds of some homosexual activists, the gap between how much actual (violent) “hate” exists and what they BELIEVE exists is so great that they feel the need to manufacture “antigay hate crimes” against themselves. Now, you say, sure, there are fringy “gay” zealots who do this sort of thing, just like there are nutjobs in every movement. Agreed. But these phony “hate crimes” keep surfacing, again and again and again — to the point where they are no longer freak occurrences but rather a symptom of a bankrupt ideology built upon a counterfeit foundation of “gay” victimhood.

The serious side of this, as we’re debating federal “hate crimes” legislation, is that activists on the Left know they can get scads of police and media attention by crying “hate,” and blaming their manufactured “crimes” on — you guessed it — religious conservatives. In Detroit, a homosexual man allegedly claimed (before his death) that he was attacked by someone yelling anti-gay slogans — and immediately Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued a vicious statement blaming pro-family Michigan advocate Gary Glenn for the “murder.” As it turned out, there was no “hate crime”; an autopsy revealed that the man, who had mental health problems, died of natural causes. (We’re still waiting for the Task Force to apologize to Glenn. Ditto for the homosexual groups that years ago tried to blame Matthew Shepard’s murder on pro-family groups that were running an ad campaign featuring “ex-gays.”)

The Left — engulfed in its own brand of hatred toward wholesome, pro-family positions on abortion and homosexuality — may be going overboard in its crude attempts to manipulate the politics of “hate.” Too bad that it will probably take a few dozen more phone “hate crimes” for the liberal media to catch on that most of this “antigay” victimization is manufactured hype.

Here’s the AP story on the fake “hate crime” at Minnesota State-Moorhead:

Gay rights march canceled after police say attack wasn’t hate crime
 

MOORHEAD, Minn. (AP) — A gay rights group is canceling a planned rally on the Minnesota State University Moorhead campus.

 

This after police say a previously reported assault was not a hate crime.

 

The Fargo-Moorhead Ten Percent Society says it supports the decision of Moorhead police and it will be canceling it’s march planned for Thursday night.

 

Edina native Paul Marquardt had reported that he was taunted for his sexual orientation and attacked by four men last week.

 

But Moorhead Deputy Police Chief Bob Larson says investigators heard a conflicting story.

 

So they interviewed Marquardt again and he said he didn’t hear any anti-gay remarks and believes he was pushed down and injured by unknown assailants.

The “gay” lobby has pried open a legal Pandora’s Box, that’s for sure. Once you “mainstream” one particular deviance, it’s very hard to keep the rest from asserting their “rights.” For years, homosexuality advocates mocked “slippery slope” arguments — hey, whatever it takes to achieve the Sexual Revolution, right? Now it turns out the pro-family conservatives were right. When even Time magazine concedes we’re in trouble, you know it’s bad.–Peter LaBarbera

LAWFUL INCEST MAY BE ON THE WAY
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 2, 2007

(Link to article on Boston Globe website)

When the BBC invited me onto one of its talk shows recently to discuss the day’s hot topic — legalizing adult incest — I thought of Rick Santorum.

Back in 2003, as the Supreme Court was preparing to rule in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy, then-Senator Santorum caught holy hell for warning that if the law were struck down, there would be no avoiding the slippery slope.

“If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home,” he told a reporter, “then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

It was a commonsensical observation, though you wouldn’t have known it from the nail-spitting it triggered in some quarters. When the justices, voting 6-3, did in fact declare it unconstitutional for any state to punish consensual gay sex, the dissenters echoed Santorum’s point. “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today’s decision,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the minority. That opinion too was scorned by the politically correct. But now Time magazine acknowledges: “It turns out the critics were right.”

Time’s attention, like the BBC’s, has been caught by the legal battles underway to decriminalize incest between consenting adults. An article last month by Time reporter Michael Lindenberger titled “Should Incest Be Legal?” highlights the case of Paul Lowe, an Ohio man convicted of incest for having sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter. Lowe has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, making Lawrence the basis of his argument. In Lawrence , the court had ruled that people “are entitled to respect for their private lives” and that under the 14th Amendment, “the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” If that was true for the adult homosexual behavior in Lawrence , why not for the adult incestuous behavior in the Ohio case?

The BBC program focused on the case of Patrick and Susan Stubing, a German brother and sister who live as a couple and have had four children together. Incest is a criminal offense in Germany , and Patrick has already spent more than two years in prison for having sex with his sister. The two of them are asking Germany ‘s highest court to abolish the law that makes incest illegal.

“Many people see it as a crime, but we’ve done nothing wrong,” Patrick told the BBC. “We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family.” They dismiss the conventional argument that incest should be banned because the children of close relatives have a higher risk of genetic defects. After all, they point out, other couples with known genetic risks aren’t punished for having sex. In any event, Patrick has had himself sterilized so that he cannot father any more children.

Some years back, I’d written about a similar case in Wisconsin — that of Allen and Patricia Muth, a brother and sister who fell in love as adults, had several children together, and were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned as a result. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence , they appealed their conviction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where they lost. Lowe will probably lose too.

But the next Lowe or Muth to come along, or the one after that, may not lose. In Lawrence , it is worth remembering, the Supreme Court didn’t just invalidate all state laws making homosexual sodomy a crime. It also overruled its own decision just 17 years earlier (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) upholding such laws. If the court meant what it said in Lawrence — that states are barred from “making . . . private sexual conduct a crime” — it will not take that long for laws criminalizing incest to go by the board as well. Impossible? Outlandish? That’s what they used to say about normalizing homosexuality and legalizing same-sex [“marriage.”]

Parts of Europe are already heading down this road. In Germany , the Green Party is openly supporting the Stubings in their bid to decriminalize incest. “We must abolish a law that originated last century and today is useless,” party spokesman Jerzy Montag says. Incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium , Holland , and France . According to the BBC, Sweden even permits half-siblings to marry.

Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be “Ugh, gross.” But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. “Should Incest Be Legal?” Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.

We share Austin Ruse’s outrage at the arrogance of the European Parliament for re-defining Judeo-Christian morality in Poland as “homophobia.” Regarding pedophiles marching in the streets, the notorious NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) once marched in homosexual “pride” parades until “gay” organizers got smart and started banning the pederasty group. However, one “father of gay rights,” Harry Hay, avidly defended NAMBLA, and protested the man-boy-sex group’s exclusion from the 1986 Los Angeles “gay pride” parade, holding a sign that read, “NAMBLA walks with me.” In 2005, ex-gay Christian activist James Hartline made headlines when he revealed that two convicted pedophiles were were working as volunteers for San Diego’s homosexual “pride” festival. Please help Poland by signing C-FAM’s petition.– Peter LaBarbera  

Dear Colleague,

The power of the radical homosexual movement in Europe has just been shown. The European Parliament just voted to condemn Poland on what they term “homophobia.” What was Poland’s crime? The Polish Prime Minister said that Polish school children should not be subject to “homosexual propaganda.”

Polish authorities have also resisted demands from radical homosexuals that they be allowed to march in the streets. If you live in any major city you know these marches where leather boys and pedophiles march freely and disruptively through the streets.

The response of the European Parliament was to pass a resolution calling these sensible actions “hate speech” and asks competent legal authorities to take action against these officials and the government of Poland.

This is outrageous and all people of good will must stand with the Polish people against the radical homosexual movement in the European Union.

I ask you to go immediately to the petition “Homosexual Hands Off Poland” at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php.

The petitions will be delivered to the Polish authorities on Thursday, May 10. I will personally deliver them to Polish Members of the European Parliament and to members of the Polish government when I am in Warsaw for the World Congress of Families.

We only have a few days to get as many names as possible. I urge you to go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition, then send this message to everyone you know. We need to deliver thousands of names of supporters from all over the world. I especially urge those in the EU countries to get this message to everyone you know. We must tell the radicals in the European Union to keep homosexual hands off of Poland!

Go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition and send this email message to everyone in your address book.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM

PS Poland stands almost alone in the European Parliament against an enormous coalition of radicals. Poland needs our help right now. Please sign the petition at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and help Poland fight back.
 
 

By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

“A Terribly Sad Day for Christians in America”: Traditional Values Coalition

The following is Traditional Values Coalition’s firsthand report from last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592 (the bill’s is benignly called the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”). Please note the portions in bold below:  

TVC REPORT FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE “HATE CRIMES” BILL, H.R. 1592

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill.  They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated.  The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill.  There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans [in the Judiciary Committee].  HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed.  Following is TVC’s account of the “Markup.”

TVC materials were used by numerous Congressmen in their presentations.  It was clear that they were quoting from documents TVC had produced.  Numerous Congressmen came over to us and thanked us for staying there all day and all night. 

The TVC staff worked diligently researching, creating reports, meeting with Members and their staff, contacting you the grassroots for help and MUCH MORE.

The first Republican amendment was proposed by Congressman Jim Jordon from Ohio adding those unborn babies and those partially-born babies to the list of protected classes.  However, Chairman Conyers ruled the amendment was non-germane, which means the members were not allowed to vote on it. 

Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican from California offered a clarifying amendment concerning unborn babies which failed.

Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition.   The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.  The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation.

The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill.  They wanted no definitions.

Friends, it was obvious.  There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation.  Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that.  They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc.

Republican Congressman Randy Forbes from Virginia stated that since it has been proven and established that our military are targets of hate and physical attack, many facilities are recommending that soldiers not wear their uniforms in large adjoining cities.  He mentioned several groups by name that are vehemently spitting on them and abusing them, only because they are US military personnel.

So Forbes offered an amendment to also include military personnel as a protected class and thus to attack them would also be a hate crime.  It was defeated.

The Republicans offered many good amendments to add categories that would be covered by the bill.  They did a very good job trying to clarify the bill and hold the democrats accountable.

Senior Citizens should be a protected class as old people are being beaten up and robbed. Rosa Parks got mugged in Detroit.  Another suggested protected class was Pregnant Women who are battered by boy friends, live-in boyfriends or husbands because they are pregnant. Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Florida offered an amendment to add the “homeless.”   All were defeated.

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill.  It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.

Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion.  “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”

A number of Republicans spoke in support of it.  But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment.  Lundgren continuously shot down their answer.  He said, “What is your answer?  Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct.  It is evident what HR 1592 is about.  It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth. 

It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.

It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.

The Judiciary Committee could easily have accepted the amendment, “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.” 

Rev. Lou Sheldon stated, “By refusing to accept this amendment the Democrats on this committee have proven their purpose, to remove freedom of religion from the U.S. Constitution.”

This is an up-to-the minute report late tonight.   

Tomorrow we will send you more news and an Action item so you can write your elected officials.  THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER YET.  HR 1592 WILL GO TO THE HOUSE FLOOR, VERY LIKELY EARLY NEXT WEEK.

Your financial help is urgently needed as we work to defeat HR 1592 on the House floor and continue to uphold and protect Biblical principles here at the Congress.  TVC can be reached at http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ or by calling 202-547-8570.

 Check out this revealing account in yesterday’s New York Post of an appearance by crass lesbian Rosie O’Donnell to a group of VIP women in New York City. The story here is not Rosie’s mouth — the Big Apple’s sewers are cleaner than that — but the lack of outrage from the assembled powerful women despite the presence of a group of high-achieving high school girls in the room. But why are we surprised: after all, most of these women probably endorse the “Vagina Monologues,” a vulgar feminist play that has women discussing their private parts on stage as part of their assault on the patriarchy. (VM wants to take its subversive act from America’s colleges to its high schools — another atrocity for beleaguered parents to fight.) Note how one shocked observer didn’t want to give her name to the press. In other words, she was ashamed to publicly criticize O’Donnell. Meanwhile, we doubt that “shame” is even in Rosie’s vocabulary — which makes her, come to think of it, the perfect spokesman for modern, pro-partial-birth-abortion American feminism.– Peter LaBarbera

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm

April 24, 2007 — ROSIE O’Donnell’s blue humor made faces red when she emceed the Matrix Awards in front of 2,000 feting New York’s most accomplished women in media at the Waldorf-Astoria Grand Ballroom yesterday.

The loose-lipped lesbian dropped the F-bomb as Barbara Walters lowered her head on the dais and covered her face with her hand. O’Donnell concluded a rant about Donald Trump by grabbing her crotch and shouting, “Eat me!”

O’Donnell also said she was sad when Trump called her “disgusting” and “fat” because, “it was always my dream to give an old, bald billionaire a boner.”

The annual luncheon of N.Y. Women in Communications – which honored Cindy Adams, Meredith Vieira, Joan Didion, Susan Lyne, Arianna Huffington and Lisa Caputo, among others – featured as presenters News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch [See photo, facing page], Joy Behar, Nora Ephron, and Martha Stewart.

Also on hand were 17 sweet-faced high school girls who won scholarships to pursue their dreams of careers in media.

“I was offended by how vulgar and common O’Donnell was,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat active in progressive causes. “It was especially inappropriate with young people present.”

Brandon Holley, editor-in-chief of Jane magazine, said, “I wasn’t personally offended, but I thought it was fun to watch other people be offended.”

“I cringed and dove under the table when she said, ‘Eat me,’ ” said one woman attendee who declined to be identified.

Among those in the crowd were Judith Giuliani, her predecessor Donna Hanover, Judge Judy Sheindlin, Helen Gurley Brown, Sue Simmons, Geri Laybourne of Oxygen Media, Jane Friedman of HarperCollins, and Hearst president Cathie Black.

O’Donnell’s publicist, Cindi Berger, told us: “When you ask for Rosie, you know what you’re getting. She’s not a shrinking violet. She’s a stand-up comedienne. She says things that are provocative.”

N.Y. Women in Communications was evidently happy with O’Donnell. The group’s managing director, Beth Ellen Keyes, sent an e-mail to her handlers saying, “Rosie was fabulous. Please let Rosie know how much we appreciated her being there. She was just great.” [See Cindy Adams, Page 20.]

I am shocked — shocked — at the claims of Brian Camenker and our friends at Mass Resistance: are they saying that self-styled “queer” activists would actually use lies and deception, and manipulate the legal system, to bring down a conservative foe? Of course that’s what they’re saying — and Camenker knows the “gay” lobby like few others, since he — as the leading defender of pro-family values on the homosexual issue in Massachusetts — has been a target of its wrath. Remember, it’s all about ends justifying the means for so many homosexual activists, and it appears Cirignano is their latest victim.– Peter LaBarbera

MassResistance reports: 

Catholic activist Larry Cirignano arraigned in court on assault & battery, civil rights violation — completely phony charges against him by homosexual activists. Hearing on May 1. The justice system turned upside down.  ===

On Tuesday, April 11, Catholic activist Larry Cirignano was arraigned in a Worcester [Mass.] courthouse on charges of assault and battery, and civil rights violations. He will have his pre-trial hearing on May 1. Not only could Larry be convicted of these, but they are also exploring whether to also charge him with a hate crime.  This is being driven — with great energy — by local homosexual activists and the ACLU.

Words cannot express what an incredible, unbelievable fraud and injustice this is.  On Saturday morning, Dec. 16, 2006, Larry was helping run a pro-traditional marriage rally for VoteOnMarriage on the steps of Worcester City Hall. They had speakers, signs, and several dozen people who came to hear and see it. They had a permit to be there and made sure that police officers were present.

Homosexual activists also brought a sizeable group of people there. They gathered right in the same area. Their purpose was to scream and mingle and to disrupt the event in any way they could (see the video link HERE). At one point, one of them came right up and stood, with a sign, in front of the podium and started chanting, in order to disrupt it further. The police (who had already told them to back off) did nothing. So Larry walked up and walked her back into the crowd, away from the podium. When Larry was coming back, he heard screams. The woman (who it turns out is an ACLU Board Member) had dived to the ground and was claiming that Larry had pushed her!  But six eyewitnesses we talked to said that it was an act, an happened well after Larry had started walking the other way. Nevertheless, homosexual activists insisted that Larry had assaulted her and pushed her to the ground!

In the days following that incident, we talked to the Worcester police official responsible for deciding what to do. It became clear to us that the police were, shall we say, unbelievably sympathetic to the homosexual activists (“she had a right to free speech there”) and contempt for the pro-family community.

Now Larry’s being charged with a crime, a civil rights violation, and possible an additional hate crime!  The Orwellian absurdity of this is mind-numbing. The homosexual “community” has been celebrating and are determined to punish Larry as much as they can.

Here’s this week’s Worcester Telegram article on Wednesday’s arraignment. It’s completely slanted. It doesn’t mention that there are a MINIMUM of six close eye-witnesses (whom we’ve talked to) that say the alleged “attack” simply did not happen.
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS/704120752/1008/NEWS02

Video of disgusting behavior by homosexual activists at the December 16 event
Here’s our current web page on this incident.   It includes a disgusting video of what the homosexual activists were doing during that event to disrupt it — besides the outrageous and phony stunt they pulled on Larry Cirignano. Unfortunately, this video does not have the actual incident, but it shows you what else was going on. We’ll be updating this page over the next week.
COMING UP SOON:  We have a copy of the only video taken during the actual incident. We will be posting that on the MassResistance website for you to see for yourself.

WE WILL KEEP YOU UP TO DATE ON THIS!

By Peter LaBarbera

At right is a facsimile of the “Day of Silence Card,” which Waubonsie Valley High School in Naperville, IL is urging students to pass out in school tomorrow (Wed., April 18th); to view a clear version in PDF, click HERE.

The following is excerpted from a letter I sent to school authorities at Waubonsie Valley High School (WVHS) in Naperville, Illinois, concerning their promotion and endorsement of the “Day of Silence,” an in-school pro-homosexual protest in which students go silent all day [to protest alleged anti-homosexual oppression]. My children attend public schools in Naperville.

To read Waubonsie’s online announcement about the Day of Silence (DOS), click HERE. To view a PDF of the “Day of Silence Card” that WVHS is promoting to students (to present to their teachers and fellow students), click HERE.  For more information on the parental/student boycott of schools promoting the Day of Silence, go to the NotOurKids.com website. And for information on Alliance Defense Fund’s “Day of Truth” designed to counter the DOS, click HERE.

___________________________

April 7, 2007

Re: Waubonsie Valley HS web announcement: “Second Annual Day of Silence”: http://www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=14568

Dear District 204 Faculty & Waubonsie School Administrators and Teachers,

I was deeply distressed to read the web posting concerning Waubonsie High School’s outright promotion of GLSEN’s national Day of Silence (tomorrow). Because you have chosen to embrace and officially endorse this event — which clearly advances one side of the controversial moral issue of homosexuality and will disrupt the learning environment at WVHS — my wife and I will be pulling our son … from school tomorrow (Wed, April 18th), and will encourage other parents to do the same.

We will also work to advance a policy of strict neutrality [at WVHS] on the issue of homosexuality and other moral conscience issues at Waubonsie and District 204 in the months and years ahead….

We respectfully ask: how does it promote an environment that is conducive to learning to encourage students to present a card to their teachers informing them that they will “remain silent for the entire day, including class….” (emphasis added) on the Day of Silence, Wed., April 18th? What about the students who do not agree with homosexual behavior, for religious, moral or other reasons? Or what about students who come to school to learn, and are not interested in crusading for social causes during school hours? Doesn’t it concern you that these students will be unfairly subjected to this propaganda exercise — and that their right to be educated in a non-politicized atmosphere will be violated?

We are concerned because the “gay” student club at WVHS, Identity — alone among all the extra-curricular student clubs — deals with a highly controversial moral and social issue that has severe implications for students’ health and spiritual well-being. Nobody doubts the merit of the other student clubs. It is as dubious to portray Day of Silence as an innocuous event about tolerance as it is to say that Identity is like any other student club.

We do not view homosexuality as an issue of innate identity but changeable behavior which is immoral in the eyes of the Creator. Some common “gay” sexual behaviors are also very high risk (unsafe), as evidenced by this quotation — not by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson — but by homosexual writer Jack Hart (pardon the graphic content):

Many sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [anal-oral intercourse] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient at transmitting disease. (Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Allyson Books, 1998, pp. 212-213)

There are countless other credible resources I could cite documenting the health risks of homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.”)  Are the GLBT and “questioning” students at WVHS made aware of these risks? Do parents know about them? (I was told by [a Waubonsie Valley HS official] that a student can attend Identity meetings without his or her parents’ knowledge or approval.) Moreover, because I have personally met or interviewed dozens of former homosexuals, I do not view this as an issue of “civil rights.” (There are no ex-African Americans or ex-Latinos.) In fact, I am concerned that homosexual activist groups like GLSEN — the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, an acronym which you failed to define in your web posting about the Day of Silence — are strongly prejudiced against tradition-minded students and their parents.

Consider this highly “intolerant” and bigoted quote disparaging religious conservatives from GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings made in a church in 2000:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F–k] ’em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” (Source: audiotape from event, cited in a paper I wrote for Concerned Women for America, “When Silence Would Have Been Golden”)

When schools delve into the promotion of one side of a controversial moral issue like homosexuality, or join with controversial groups like GLSEN, it naturally discriminates against students on the other side.  Several weeks ago, I attended a District 204 Diversity meeting dealing with gay issues. I voiced concern about the biased nature of the presentation — which was reliant on information provided by GLSEN — hardly an objective source and in fact one that has a record of radical activism. Here are just two more black marks on GLSEN’s record (please forgive the graphic content, but this is what pre-teen children were exposed to):

1) GLSEN-backed 2000 “Fistgate” scandal in Massachusetts: (see http://massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/massnews.html) At a GLSEN-sponsored conference at Tufts U., on March 25, 2000, three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled “What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class” — part of the annual Boston-GLSEN “Teach Out” conference held at Tufts University. The “Queer Sex” session, advertised to “youth only ages 14 to 21,” was attended by Massachusetts family advocate Scott Whitemen, who taped it while standing in the back of the room.

In the workshop, instructor Michael Gaucher, prompted by a teen’s question, verbally guided the students on the mechanics of “fisting” — a homosexual slang term for a sadistic sex act in which a man inserts his hand and arm into another person’s anal cavity. Another instructor, Margot Abels, said fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” and described it innocuously as “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Abels and Gaucher also guided the students on techniques of oral sodomy and lesbian sex.

[NOTE: I think I am correct that GLSEN never issued an apology to the public for sponsoring this heinous event that corrupted innocent children.]

2) At GLSEN’s conference in Arlington Heights, IL [a suburb of Chicago], in 2000, all participants, including dozens of high school-aged kids, could pick up a homosexual “Visitor’s Companion” — which advertised Chicago’s gay “leather” bars, a gay sex club and a homosexual bathhouse (where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men) called “Steamworks,” which was advertised as a “24-hour men’s gym/sauna.”

If GLSEN were a conservative or Christian group and committed such reckless acts endangering youth, do you think they would still be promoted as a credible source by public schools? Were you aware of GLSEN’s scandals? Do you think Naperville and Aurora parents would countenance any WVHS involvement with GLSEN if they know of this organization’s reckless and radical track record? (For more information on GLSEN’s 2000 conference, click on this link: http://www.geocities.com/sirokai/shininglight/gradeschoolkids.htm.)

Frankly, I am stunned that after another concerned 204 parent and I voiced our objections to District 204’s bias on homosexual issues at the 204 Diversity meeting, you have chosen to so blatantly promote an activist pro-homosexual event like the DOS that has angered parents across the nation.

We regard your promotion of GLSEN’s Day of Silence event as educational malpractice and the misuse of your authority granted to you by tax-paying and voting parents (most of whom probably have no idea that Waubonsie VHS is being used for this pro-gay social protest tomorrow). By promoting this massive, in-school distraction, despite claims that this is merely about “tolerance,” you are harming the educational process and directly undermining parents’ rights to guide their own children’s understanding on this important moral question.

Please also consider this document by the Citizens for Community Values on the “Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools.”

I would like to request a meeting to discuss this matter … Also, I would request any data you have on GLBT students being harassed at WVHS in this and the past few years. If there is truly a problem of WVHS administrators and teachers being unable to protect gay-identified kids, the public deserves to know about it.  For the record, our position is that no child should be abused or harassed, but that schools can safeguard all kids without reference to any special criteria such as “sexual orientation.”

Thank you for your urgent consideration of this matter. Needless to say, it is no small thing for us to intentionally pull our child from school, but we feel that you have given us no choice by endorsing this activist, pro-gay protest.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Naperville, Illinois parent