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

This is an oldie but a goodie from the brilliant, politically incorrect (lesbian) feminist Camille Paglia, from her 1998 online Salon Q&A column “Ask Camille.” Now, before you think we’ve sold our conservative souls and are ready to join the Wayne Besen Homosexual Hysteria Club so we can start smearing ex-gays, ridiculing common sense, and destroying traditional marriage — no, we are not sanctioning lesbianism by posting this piece. (Personally, my hope would be that Paglia would outgrow lesbianism, but that’s another essay.) She just makes some refreshing observations that, frankly, we wish more traditionalists would make. (And Paglia has always opposed the Gay Left’s totalitarian impulse by defending the free speech righs of opponents of homosexuality.) 

Of course, the problem Paglia addresses below has only grown exponentially worse in the decade since she wrote this.– Peter LaBarbera

Emphasis is added below:

Dear Camille:

I am a black, conservative female. I am proud to say that you are one of my heroes. I would like your opinion of the following press release, which I am forwarding to you. It’s regarding the Gay Youth Pride Day. Now, according to some, I may have no right to have an opinion about this, because of my heterosexuality. However, I think some in the so-called “gay community” take this pride thing a bit too far. As a 19-year-old, openly straight female, I really don’t understand the need for the self-anointed leaders of the gay rights movement to draw gay youngsters into their self-indulgent politics. Am I misguided or insensitive in my approach to the “young gay dilemma”?

Your conservative admirer in Va.
Dear Conservative:

The psychological turmoil of adolescents at sexual awakening cannot be underestimated. Everything is in flux — impulses, fears, dreams, with simultaneous longings for independence and for protection by adults. What I dislike about the push of organized gay activism into high schools is that it imposes a rigid political paradigm on a stage of life that is in rapid, painful transition for everyone, gay or straight.

As an equity feminist, as well as an open lesbian, I oppose special protections for any group, including my own. Teachers and administrators should obviously not permit physical harassment of any kind on school property, but verbal epithets, however offensive or hurtful, have First Amendment protection. The PC thought police, having been defeated on college campuses after the court-ordered banning of the fascist speech codes, are now oozing their way into high schools. “Hate” cannot be stopped by authoritarian manipulation but by slow social change, which may take generations.

The Internet has been a boon to lonely gay teens in geographically remote areas — but, of course, computers still remain largely a white middle-class luxury. I find very suspicious the statistics about teen suicides with which gay activists badger the media. If gay teens are indeed attempting suicide at a higher rate than straight teens, perhaps more questions need to be asked about the genesis of homosexuality. The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa.

I have written repeatedly about my theory that homosexuality is an adaptation, rather than an innate trait, and that it is reinforced by habit. With its cant terms of “oppression” and “bigotry,” gay activism, encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness. We need more art and history and less politics in primary education. Art gives the young the psychological and spiritual tools for authentic self-discovery. And art is where sexual dissenters have contributed the most to the human record.

In short, I agree with your concern about the Trojan Horse of gay activism, which is being dragged into high schools under the false flag of compassion. Young people who oppose homosexuality for any reason have a constitutional right to express their views, in or out of the classroom. Whatever they may privately believe as individuals, educators have a professional obligation to remain ideologically neutral in their treatment of students.

And the Punch Line Is …

 Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?

By Brenda Zurita

Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008

Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.

Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.

The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.

Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.

Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?

PFOX News Advisory:  November 8, 2007

Contact:  Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)

703-360-2225  PFOX@pfox.org   www.pfox.org
 
New “Gender Identity” Law Would Have The Effect of Legalizing Indecent Exposure to Minors

‘Weekend Transgenders’ to Use Women’s Shower Rooms and Bathrooms?
 
Montgomery County, MD — A bill before the Montgomery County, Maryland Council puts girls and women at risk by opening women’s restrooms and locker rooms to men who dress as women, warns Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).  The bill virtually eliminates gender distinctions by allowing Montgomery County residents to choose if they are male or female even when the choice conflicts with their biological sex. 

The bill, slated for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 13, would add ‘gender identity’ as a protected class for ‘transgenders.’  It would guarantee the right to use public facilities consistent with the person’s gender identity “publicly and exclusively expressed or asserted.”  No sex change is necessary.
 
As an organization that aids former transgenders, PFOX can attest that many transgenders prefer to dress and act publicly and exclusively as a woman or man on weekends and then as their birth gender during the work week.  These are known as “weekend transgenders.”  Pedophiles could also put on a dress and assert they are exclusively female in order to get near naked children in swimming pool locker rooms. 

When asked if the proposed law would apply to weekend transgenders, Council member Duchy Trachtenberg refused to answer, instead insisting that “transgender people face serious discrimination … in public accommodations.” 

“There’s a good reason why transgenders face ‘serious discrimination’ when using shower rooms and toilets that don’t apply to their gender,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.  “It’s because they don’t belong there.  What parents want their daughter to use the public pool’s locker room with a naked man who cross-dresses full-time or part-time?  This bill in effect legalizes indecent exposure to minors in these kinds of situations.” 

From Traditional Values Coalition’s website. TVC has led the charge against ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, on Capitol Hill: 

October 26, 2007 – Shortly after the White House issued a veto threat on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced she was delaying a vote on ENDA.

Pelosi is delaying the vote because Democrat leaders can’t find enough votes for passage of ENDA with “gender identity” added back into it. However, this supposed delay may only be a strategic move to undermine organized opposition to ENDA.

Click HERE to read the whole article

By Peter LaBarbera 

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s signing of two radical pro-homosexuality school bills — SB 777 and AB 14 — is very bad news for the Republican Party, California, and the nation.

I suppose it’s good news for Democrats and pro-homosexuality-education-for-tots Republicans, all 7 of them, but we’ll let the faux conservatives over at Log Cabin Republicans make that case.

If the GOP joins the Democrats as a party embracing homosexuality, many Christians and pro-family voters will start looking to third parties, or check out of the political process entirely. They certainly won’t be motivated to go out and work for the Republican Party.

It’s a pretty simple equation: “Maria Shriver Republicanism” does not sit well with the party’s conservative and religious grassroots — who increasingly feel like the water they carry for the GOP every election is commensurate with the shaft they get from Republican politicians in the ensuing years. (Schwarzenegger did veto a pro-“same-sex marriage” bill but ironically, the bills he signed into law will create precisely the sort of classroom propaganda that conservatives have warned would result from legalized “gay marriage.”)

Under the guise of “equality,” SB 777 and AB 14 will be used to indoctrinate students in the Left’s false analogies between the noble civil rights movement and their pro-homosexuality and -transsexuality activism. (You know, the same Social Leftists that regularly equate people of faith who oppose homosexual behavior with fringe racists.)

The new laws will greatly expand one-sided, pro-homosexuality and pro-“transgender” curricula and programs such as “Gay and Lesbian History Month” that elevate Christian bashing “gay” icons like Frank Kameny — who can’t seem to recall if he spoke at a meeting for the despicable NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association — to U.S. historical heroes. (Kameny is old, but don’t you think a NAMBLA meeting, as reported by NAMBLA itself, would stick in your mind?)

In other words, more indoctrination for public school kids, who will be trained in dubious concepts like “homophobia” and the notion that the only people left who oppose rights based on “gayness” are bigots and irrational religious people out of step with the times.

Gee. California schools are doing such a fine job teaching reading, writing, math and science: isn’t it wonderful that they can now focus on grounding the state’s children in Gay Advocacy 101?

At AFTAH, we operate on the premise that God does not smile on Republican homosexual advocacy any more than He does on the Democratic brand. GOP leaders who fail to see the growing dissatisfaction with their party among the pro-family rank-and-file may be in for a big shock on Election Day. But even if they prevail in 2008, signs of long-term corrosion in the party’s social conservative base are everywhere.

One major political party committed to homosexuality- and transsexuality-based “rights” including “gay marriage” (aka civil unions) is one too many for America. Do the Republicans really want to compete for that title?

TAKE ACTION:  go to the website of the California group Campaign for Children and Families (www.savecalifornia.com), run by my friend Randy Thomasson, who works harder for true family values than anyone I know. CCF has tons of information on the anti-family school bills and ways to get involved.

 

If you are a Republican, communicate with your local and state GOP officials that the party must not embrace homosexuality, and that it is reckless to give children one-sided, pro-“gay” lessons that undermine marriage and historic Judeo-Christian morality. (If you are a Democrat, do the same for your local Democratic officials.) You can write or call Gov. Schwarzenegger through this website: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact.

___________________________ 

The following is CNSNews.com’s article on Schwarzenegger’s “gay” school capitulation:

California Group to Fight ‘Sexual Indoctrination’ Laws in Court 

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – The head of a pro-family organization in California said on Tuesday that his group is mounting a legal effort to overturn pro-homosexual measures signed into law last weekend by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before they can have a negative impact on the state’s educational system and religious community.

“Apparently, the governor now feels the freedom to favor the pro-homosexual message and to disregard conservative voters and traditional values,” Ron Prentice, chief executive officer of the California Family Council, told Cybercast News Service.

Prentice called Schwarzenegger’s decision to approve the measures “puzzling,” because he vetoed similar legislation last year. (The governor did not explain his decision, nor did his office return calls from Cybercast News Service seeking comment.)

As a result, “we have no security that any bill that comes to him next year promoting homosexuality” will be prevented from becoming law, said Prentice.

Therefore, the organization will challenge SB 777, the California Student Civil Rights Act, which was passed by the legislature to “update specific anti-discrimination provisions that are scattered throughout the state’s education code.”

To accomplish this, for instance, the legislation replaces “sex” as defined as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being” with “gender,” which is “a person’s gender identity and gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

The new law also adds the category of “sexual orientation,” which is explained as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.”

Finally, the measure states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic” identified in the law.

The homosexual advocacy group Equality California (ECQA) described the legislation as protecting students “from harassment and bullying in public schools by making sure teachers and school administrators fully understand their responsibilities to protect youth.”

But as Cybercast News Service previously reported, the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) responded that the measure is nothing more than “sexual indoctrination.”

“SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values,” said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for the conservative Capitol Resource Institute. “The terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.”

Click HERE for the full Cybercast News Service article

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress. I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.” –– Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), back when he opposed including “transgenders” in the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA). Frank later relented but since has signed on to a watered-down version of ENDA (H.R. 3685) that dropped the “trans” language.

The “gay” activist movement’s partnership with the “transgender” cause is costing it votes for the expansive version of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 2015, on Capitol Hill, so a new version of the bill (H.R. 3685) was floated that throws out the “gender equity” provisions. (H.S. 3685 also simplifies the bill’s religious exemption.) Now that version is being rejected by major homosexual and transsexual groups, led by the Human Rights Campaign (see letter below).

Over the years, homosexual activists including Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) (see quote above) have chafed at their alliance with a transsexual movement — knowing that it only makes their cause look even more radical to the general public. Yet the two movements have been intertwined and their partnership, as symbolized by the “GLBT” acronym (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender), has only strengthened in recent years. 

Transgender activists lobbied HRC to back a “trans”-positive ENDA and the leading homsoexual lobby organization eventually embraced it.

For the moment, the leading pro-homosexual groups are sticking with the  “transgenders,” but word on the Hill is that ENDA’s “trans” language — which AFTAH, CWA and other conservative groups have highlighted (we called ENDA the “Transgender Bathrooms for Business Bill”) — has cost H.R. 2015 key support, including among moderate Democrats.

The following letter (emphasis added) was sent yesterday by the liberal coalition Leadership Conference to Rep. George Miller (D-Cal.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. Miller’s committee was scheduled to consider the watered-down ENDA (H.R. 3685) this morning until the hearing was cancelled following the “gay”-led coalition effort against it. — Peter LaBarbera

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

1629 K Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202-466-3311
Fax: 202-466-3435
http://www.civilrights.org/

October 1, 2007

The Honorable George Miller, Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Miller:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our opposition to the strategy and process by which the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3685) is to be considered in the House of Representatives. We ask that the markup in the House Education and Labor Committee, scheduled for less than 24 hours from now, be canceled.

For many years, we have worked to develop an employment non-discrimination bill that protects the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Our organizations support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as introduced (H.R. 2015).

Although we believe that the bill’s sponsor, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), and the House Democratic Leadership have a sincere desire to protect the LGBT community from
discrimination, we believe the process and strategy that has been adopted is a mistake. That mistake is compounded by moving forward with a markup tomorrow.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Nancy Zirkin, LCCR Vice President, at (202) 263-2880 or Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at (202) 466-6058.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition
Human Rights Campaign
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Legal Momentum
National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Centers
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Council of Jewish Women
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG National)
People For the American Way
Pride At Work, AFL-CIO
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
GLSEN – the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
Representative Barney Frank
Representative Tammy Baldwin

Americans For Truth alerted the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and its director, Bill Donohue, to the Folsom Street Fair’s annual funding of the anti-Christian and Catholic-mocking ‘Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,’ and the now the Catholic League has launched a boycott of Folsom sponsor Miller Brewing Company.

The following statement was issued Wednesday by Donohue and the Catholic League emphasis added):

It Really Is “Miller Time”: Collision Course between Miller and Christians

September 26, 2007

Yesterday [Tuesday], we contacted the Miller Brewing Company protesting an obscene ad for an event it is sponsoring in San Francisco on September 30; the ad for the Folsom Street Fair depicts a sadomasochistic scene where sex toys are placed on the table of the Last Supper, flanked by half-naked homosexuals. Miller now says, “We understand some individuals may find the imagery offensive and we have asked the organizers to remove our logo from the poster effective immediately.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded this way:

“Miller’s response (some might find mocking the Last Supper offensive?), while limp, would normally have been enough to get us off their back. But we have subsequently learned that some of the monies being raised at this event are being funneled to a notoriously anti-Catholic and misogynist group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (click here). After this development was brought to the attention of Miller, spokesman Julian Green responded that Miller was standing by the event. That’s fine with us. We just hope he knows that it really is ‘Miller Time.’

“Tomorrow night, the group that Miller is funding via the festival will hold ‘The Last Supper With the Sisters,’ an event that will ridicule this sacred moment in history. Indeed, on its website it describes this sick stunt as the best way ‘to prepare your mortal flesh for the kinkiest weekend on Earth.’ (Its emphasis.)  On Friday, the Sisters will bring in porn stars to entertain the leather crowd. The big day is on Sunday, or what the Sisters call ‘the biggest and baddest fetish fair fundraiser in the world!’ Pictures from last year’s event (click here) show naked men and women, simulated sex, a huge phallic glass sculpture, etc.

“Apparently, Miller has decided to side with a small band of depraved and bigoted gays against Catholics (25 percent of the population) and Protestants (60 percent of the nation). This is an ethical and marketing fiasco of colossal proportions. I will announce within the next day exactly what our game plan will be. The collision course that Miller wants with Christians is now on.”