Well, here you have it: some Wisconsin homosexual activists testify below to the lies and unethical campaign tactics used by the “gay” activist group “Fair Wisconsin” in trying to derail the state’s Marriage Protection Amendment.  This corroborates reports that we heard from Wisconsin of citizens outraged that the homosexual group was intentionally misleading voters into thinking that a NO vote was PRO-marriage (in truth, a YES vote was FOR the Marriage Amendment.)

Despite their dirty tricks and deceptions–and the fact that pro-homosexual lobby in Wisconsin outspent pro-family forces 10-1 in this campaign–the amendment passed easily, by 59-41 percent.  This in the very first state to enact a “sexual orientation” law (back in 1982).  Who says the homosexual movement’s triumph is inevitable?– Peter LaBarbera

Comments posted Nov 7, 2006, on the Fair Wisconsin blog (emphasis added):

At 6:59 AM, Skippy said…

I am not going to take the time to read all of this but… YOU LIED… to so many people… YOU LIED to people who where going to vote no and TRICKED them into voting yes… YOU CALLED PEOPLE AND TOLD THEM TO VOTE NO IF THEY WANTED TO KEEP MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN… FAIR WISCONSIN DESTROYED GAY COUPLES FUTURES BECAUSE THEY LIED… YOU LIED… YOU FLAT OUT LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE… Why lie… all we want is the truth… Fair WISCONSIN made us out to be fakes… phoneys… and fair WISCONSIN hurt the gay community SEVERELY… NEVER TO BE FORGIVEN… I would like to see Fair Wisconsin Retired… and will not rest until that happens… NO BODY that sticks up for me is going to go around and LIE…

At 2:05 PM, Miss Judy said……I think that Skippy’s comments are histrionic; however, I think Matt’s comment should not be ignored. The campaign was a mainstream – Democrat-style political campaign. As such, I think compromises were made in the name of perceived political expediency. Although we did indeed talk of gay and lesbian couples and their families, much of the campaign downplayed ‘queerness’ and focused on the effects the amendment would have on “all non-married couples”, i.e., straight folks. It’s a dicey path to walk – on the one hand we were asking people to expand their hearts and consciousness and really question why they are so afraid of queer folks; on the other hand we were in effect saying “Don’t think about homosexuals if they creep you out; think about how this would affect ‘normal’ people,” thus tacitly accepting homophobia.
Could we have waged a successful campaign without making these compromises? Probably not. However, we still need to look at these issues head-on, engage in constructive self-criticism and consider their effects, not just dismiss them as givens or necessary evils.

At 4:03 PM, psion9999 said…
I won’t hide my anger at my life being politicized and I won’t hide my hatred of all those who have done so. I’m not strong enough to keep myself from it. But, this is only directed at those who knew what they were doing, and hid behind the face of their religion and used phrases like “protecting marriage from being redifined” to mask their bigotry and ignorance. I pity all the others who voted “yes” out of confusion and because they were directed to do so by their churches. With education, those people can be reached in the future. It is the truly hateful people that will lose out in the end, because I believe that they are vocal and powerful now, but small in number. The youth of today truly will bring a bright future. They are more enlightened in what is truly good and right in society, and they will overcome the bigots and religious zealots in time.

In 1999, the American Psychological Association published a study on the impact of child sexual abuse which concluded that:

…Lasting psychological harm was uncommon…Two thirds of SA men and more than one fourth of SA women reported neutral or positive reactions…

Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic…

…CSA [child sexual abuse] does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis…

One possible approach to a scientific definition…is to focus on the young person’s perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term child should be restricted to nonadolescent children ( Ames & Houston, 1990 ). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the “normal” range of human sexual behaviors ( Bullough, 1990 ; Greenberg, 1988 ; Okami, 1994 ). A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled scientifically as adult-adolescent sex, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse…

HR 107 was introduced in Congress to condemn these findings.

Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) was one of thirteen congressmen who voted “present” (rather than “yea” or “nay”) on HR 107 (which passed with 355 yeas). The other twelve were:

• Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
• Rep. Thomas Allen (D-ME)
• Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)
• Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
• Rep. William Delahunt (-MA)
• Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)
• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
• Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Rep. E.B Johnson (D-TX)
• Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI)
• Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
• Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA)

(SOURCE: Thomas Legislative Information)

The following was excerpted from ‘Foley problem’ Surfaces for Ohio Democrats, published Oct 11, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio

In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, questions are circulating below the radar screen in Ohio about the past record of Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland on pedophilia.

Strickland is the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Ohio running against Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

The issue surfaced Dec. 15, 2005, when the left-leaning Athens News reported on an anonymous letter-writing campaign to Democratic voters citing Strickland’s vote as “present” and not in support of the 1999 House Concurrent Resolution 107 that condemned an American Psychological Association study supporting “nonnegative sexual interactions between adults and adolescents.”…

In the Democratic primary, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Flannery openly challenged Strickland on his HCR 107 vote. Flannery still has posted on his gubernatorial website Strickland’s July 27, 1999, speech on the House floor explaining his refusal to condemn the APA pedophilia study.

Mr. STRICKLAND: Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that sometimes in this Chamber we stand and say things that we ought not to say. We criticize people that we have no right to criticize.
We recently voted to condemn a scientific study and an organization, an organization that has done as much as any organization in this country to fight child abuse.

…The HRC 107 controversy resurfacing in the last month of the Ohio gubernatorial campaign also has brought back another controversy over sexual misconduct that first was launched by Flannery, Strickland’s Democratic challenger.

On March 17, during the primary campaign, Lynn Hulsey reported in the Dayton Daily News that Flannery had accused Strickland of hiring from 1997 to 1999 a male congressional and campaign staffer who had been convicted of exposing himself to children. As Hulsey wrote:

According to Athens police, the man’s case stems from 1994, when he was arrested for public indecency after several children reported he’d exposed himself. Police records show he was found guilty, although the exact charge is unclear.

Flannery also accused Strickland of taking the man with him to Italy after his 1998 congressional campaign. Again, Hulsey wrote:

Strickland said campaign workers planned to treat themselves to the trip if Strickland won, but as it turned out only Strickland and the man were able to go.

Hulsey reported Strickland had learned of the sexual misconduct charge against his employee late in the 1998 campaign through an anonymous letter, but he discounted the letter since it was sent anonymously. Hulsey quoted Strickland as saying “perhaps” he should have pursued the matter more aggressively, but at the time he took no action. The man left Strickland’s office of his own accord in 1999, after the reported trip to Italy with Strickland.

Americans for Truth comment:

Interestingly, Ted Strickland offered a different standard for House leaders…

Another Ohio lawmaker, Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, faulted House leaders for an inadequate response last fall to a complaint they received about Foley…

“I think we need to find out what he knew and when he knew it before we can make that decision,” he said.

…Among Strickland’s endorsers is the choice of Ohio’s openly pro-homosexuality PAC, the Equality Ohio Campaign Fund, or EOCF. In endorsing Strickland, EOCF emphasized his service as a minister, a psychologist and a professor, commenting:

Representative Strickland has long been an ally of and advocate for LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-sexual-Transvestite) people. He maintained a 100% rating with the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard while in Congress. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…

From the news brief entitled OutFront Minnesota Leads Effort to Investigate Police Psychologist, posted Aug 31, 2006, by OutFront Minnesota:

OutFront Minnesota would like our community to know about recent developments with a police psychologist who’s been suspended and is being investigated by the Minneapolis Police Department.

This suspension comes as the result of work that OutFront Minnesota is doing with the Minneapolis Police Community Relations Council (PCRC). OutFront Minnesota serves on the PCRC, along with other council members representing other traditionally marginalized communities. Law enforcement is also represented on the council. OutFront Minnesota, in addition to several other PCRC members and law enforcement personnel, raised significant concerns about Dr. Michael Campion, after meeting with him for the first time on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006…

Continue reading at OutFront Minnesota…

Followup – From the news brief entitled OutFront Minnesota Frustrated at Minneapolis Police Decision, posted Oct 3, 2006, by OutFront Minnesota:

…OutFront Minnesota is highly concerned about the use of a police psychological evaluator who has long standing ties to an anti-GLBT organization, as well his writings from the 1970’s advocating “conversation therapy” for GLBT people. During the Police Community Relations Council questioning of Dr. Campion, he gave no indication that he had renounced any of these beliefs and was, in our view, evasive in answering the questions…

Continue reading at OutFront Minnesota…