DriveThru – Get What You Need

The battle’s not over yet, but there are signs that New Hampshire legislators are finally starting to hear the voices of concerned citizens—who are fed up with having their parental rights robbed in the public schools.

This week members of the New Hampshire House Education Committee appeared poised to vote for a bill that would have resulted in the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism in the classroom.

This was being done under the cover of a so-called “anti-bullying” measure that, if passed, would force all local school districts to add special protections for things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression”—and also would go so far as to stipulate that all schools promote these themes in their curriculum.

But New Hampshire citizens sent a loud, resounding message, which boiled down to: NO YOU DON’T. NOT IN MY KID’S CLASS.

Responding to a call to action from the pro-family group Cornerstone Policy Research, they flooded committee members with emails. As a result, during a subcommittee vote, legislators unexpectedly changed course—voting instead for blanket language providing protection to all students against bullying for any reason.

This is a more fair and reasonable approach to the problem of bullying because it provides equal protection to all kids–without allowing the issue to be hijacked by gay activist groups who use it as a tool to sexualize and politicize classrooms.  

But this is only one step in the battle. The new language must still be approved by the full Education Committee (as early as next week). And a liberal legislator is already threatening to insert the objectionable language back into the bill when it comes before the New Hampshire House.

We’ll keep you updated–and you can keep making your voice heard! Because it does make a difference.

If you live in New Hampshire, promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism could be coming to a classroom near you.

 That’s because liberal legislators and gay activists in New Hampshire are dead set on pushing through a state law that calls for school districts to include those themes in curricula.

 And yet again, this is being done in the name of “safety” and preventing bullying.

Not only does this proposed legislation, H.B. 1523, mandate that all school districts insert the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” into their bullying policies, but it also calls for schools to  integrate those policies  into curriculum.

So in one fell swoop the state legislators plan to give themselves the power to micromanage school discipline policies and lesson plans.

While we agree that bullying is a serious concern and should be strongly prohibited in schools, we believe this can be done without sexualizing and politicizing the entire school environment.

 That’s why Kevin Smith, Executive Director of Cornerstone Policy Research, offered the New Hampshire House Education Committee alternative wording that would have provided blanket protection against bullying to every child. He argued that all children should be equally protected against bullying for any reason—“regardless of whether they are gay, straight, overweight, etc.”

But to no avail. The Education Committed ignored his suggestions and others like it. Over the next two weeks, starting this Thursday, members of the Committee will begin voting on the issue. So stay tuned.

New Hampshire is just one of several states that have come under pressure recently to pass pro-gay provisions making it easier for homosexual activist groups to get their messages into schools and circumvent parental notification requirements.

To learn more about pro-gay bullying policies and what you can do to protect your schools, check out this fact sheet.

Yesterday, The Denver Post brought to my attention yet another piece of legislation pending in the U.S.  House that gay activists could use as a political tool to force their will upon schools nationwide:

It’s called the Student Nondiscrimination Act, and it was proposed this week by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado).

That sounds nice, doesn’t it? I mean, who would be against preventing discrimination?  But this bill is more sinister than it sounds.  

If passed, it would use federal mandates to micromanage local school policy all the way down to the elementary level. It would do this by mandating that every public school in the nation enforce special protections for pro-gay categories like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Why is that a problem?

 First of all, it would open our schools up to a new wave of expensive lawsuits, at a time when they are already burdened by unprecedented litigation.

The proposed legislation calls for noncompliers to not only be liable for providing “compensatory damages” and in danger of losing grants, but also to be written up in a report that is filed with a U.S. House committee. The term draconian might be an understatement in this case.

And it’s unclear exactly how “discrimination” will be defined, which is concerning–especially in light of recent cases involving attempts to censor Christian student groups for having values deemed to conflict with pro-gay “nondiscrimination” policies.

Secondly, the bill would give gay activists the leverage they need to force their agenda—against parents’ will—into public schools, again, all the way down to the kindergarten level. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Just consider recent history.

If this legislation doesn’t make it through, supporters have a backup waiting in the wings that’s equally threatening to local control. It’s called the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Both bills are heavily supported by the largest gay-activist groups in the nation, including the Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN (the organization created by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings.)

As I explained to the The Denver Post, bullying is a serious problem that should be addressed (at the local level), but you can do so without sexualizing and politicizing the entire school environment. The emphasis should be on the wrong actions of the bullies, not on their “perceived” motivations.

In the nonsensical and unrelenting international push by gay and “transgender” activists to convince the world that somehow biological sex can be “changed” but sexual orientation can’t, we learn that the national Congress of Argentina has named a male-to-female “transsexual” as their Woman of the Year.

And to think that out of the approximately 15.6 million Argentine women over the age of fifteen, not a single female could be found spanning 23 provinces and a distance of 2,400 miles from north to south who deserves national recognition as “Woman of the Year.”  Instead, a biological male is chosen.

What a slap in the face this must be for the real women of that great South American country.

While it’s increasingly easy to fool individuals, GLBT activists, mental health professionals, and now, national legislatures that biological sex can be changed, it’s never nice to fool Mother Nature. 

The fact of the matter is that no matter how many ongoing hormone treatments and mutilating surgeries one undergoes, biological sex simply can not be changed, reassigned or “transitioned.” And barring the extremely remote possibility that “Marcela” suffers from a Disorder of Sexual Development – intersexuality – this gentleman was, is, and always will be male.

While one can readily sympathize with the decades of pain, confusion and social isolation that “Marcela” has no doubt experienced in his gender identity struggle, as Christians we are called to speak the truth in love and compassion.

In this case, the truth is that gay and “transgender” activists are asking society to jettison the objective reality of biological sex in favor of the subjective feelings and self-identification of individuals who are in the throes of what is arguably a recognizable and treatable mental condition – Gender Identity Disorder.

Indeed, one of the leading experts in sex reassignment surgery from Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Paul McHugh, notes that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

In short, we do gender-confused individuals no favors when we indulge their confusion and make ways through hormone treatments and unnecessary surgeries to irreversibly cement them in their condition, which, according to McHugh leaves them no happier than they were before.

The movement promoting the normalization of “transgenderism” radically redefines the clearly articulated vision for the sexes found in the Bible. Significantly, the image we humans bear of God on this planet as male and female mysteriously and gloriously reflects who God is.

Just as Jesus went out of His way to minister to the outcasts of society, we are called to speak God’s truth on sex and sexuality in grace and compassion – sharing the love of God embodied in the Gospel message of Christ in humility and service. And we are called to lift up those who struggle with their gender identity in prayer – beseeching the Holy Spirit to bring about conviction, healing and transformation.

We’re crying for you, Argentina.

Some of you may recall hearing about the plight of parents in Alameda, California, who were told their elementary-age kids have to receive pro-gay lessons provided by the public school district—even if those lessons violate their families’ most deeply held religious convictions.

The parents fought back with a lawsuit, asking the court to make the school district honor their requests to opt children out of the controversial teaching.

But this week, the parents got bad news: Judge Frank Roesch of the Superior Court of California in Alameda County denied their request, giving schools carte blanche to indoctrinate kids against their parents’ wishes.

The logic? The judge determined that “any opt out right” is “outweighed by the policies against discrimination and harassment of students from LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] families.” 

Translation: State laws and school provisions citing special protections for homosexual characteristics automatically trump parental rights and religious freedoms. (Next step for the parents is to appeal the decision with the help of Pacific Justice Institute.)

Parents, please take note. This represents the latest tactics being used by gay activist groups to undermine your rights. And this specific Alameda case offers some lessons that are worth paying attention to:

1) Gay activists are aggressively pushing so-called anti-bullying or anti-harassment policies for schools that contain specific references to things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Once passed, they use these policies as legal teeth to enforce things like pro-gay curricula for six- and seven-year-olds.

2) Homosexuality teaching is being couched within “tolerance” and “bullying” lessons as a way to skirt parental rights.  Many state and local opt-out policies have wording that can be construed to only apply to subjects like health or sex education. Therefore, gay activists push schools to categorize homosexuality teaching under more general topics like “tolerance,” “bullying prevention” or “family diversity”—and then argue that opt-out provisions do not apply to these topics.

That’s exactly what happened in Alameda. The judge bought the gay-activist and liberal school-attorney arguments—and decided that opt-out provisions in the state education code only apply to subjects formally categorized as “health” instruction. And therefore, he found that parents don’t have the right to opt their kids out of so-called tolerance lessons.

3) When it comes to battles between pro-gay “nondiscrimination” laws and religious freedoms—religious freedoms are increasingly losing out. And this in turn, is creating alarming disrespect for religious viewpoints in public schools. In this case, for instance, attorneys for the Alameda school district felt free to vilify religious parents—listing as evidence against them that “they believe homosexuality is a sin” and accusing them of trying to “avoid having their children be taught respect.” 

This simply isn’t true. People of  faith consider respect for others to be a core tenet of their religious teachings.  And they believe respect  is based on the fact that all people “are created equal” by God.  Respect should not be twisted into an excuse to indoctrinate young children into homosexual  and "transgender" activism.

In the middle of the healthcare reform debate, let’s not forget that after Congress reconvenes next week, LGBT activists and their Congressional counterparts will be pushing for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (H.R. 2981 & S.1584).  The bill, awaiting consideration in both the House and Senate, constitutes yet another attempt to silence and punish those who disagree with or have moral objections to the practice of homosexuality, bisexuality or “transgenderism.”

Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy, sent a letter to the U.S. House and Senate yesterday urging lawmakers to oppose ENDA because the bill will create an inevitable conflict between “sexual orientation” rights and religious freedom in the workplace.  Focus also sent lawmakers a list of examples of how ENDA-type policies are already harming employers and religious employees.

Harvey Milk – the “first openly gay man to be elected to public office in a major city of the United States” – has received a lot of attention recently. First there was the successful Sean Penn bio-pic, Milk, then there were the proposals to proclaim a “Harvey Milk Day” in California and now the White House has announced that he will be awarded a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom.

To learn more about Harvey Milk, I’ve been reading Randy Shilts’ biography, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. So far, I’m amazed at how obtuse Shilts is in his portrayal of Milk’s induction into homosexuality.

Shilts describes Milk as an 11-year-old, engaging in sexual activity with grown men. He also writes about the early lives of several of Milk’s partners. Sadly, some of them suffered childhood sexual abuse, too. Except that Shilts never calls it that. Instead, he calls what happens to these boys “discovering sexuality.” 

Shilts informs us that one of Milk’s partners, when he was only nine years old, is introduced to gay sex with grown men at a local theater. There, he learns to prostitute himself for quarters.  But Shilts calls it “an introduction to gay life.” Another boy was only 16 when he moved in with the 33-year old Milk. Try teaching all this to a class of fifth graders on the proposed “Harvey Milk Day.”

Milk and his many partners could be poster boys for an analysis produced by authors from the Centers for Disease Control that shows the widespread degree to which men who have sex with men were sexually abused as children.

A number of serious outcomes are associated with childhood sexual abuse of boys, including: sexual compulsivity, sexual identity confusion, shame, guilt, struggles with masculinity, anger, rage, fear, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, depression and increased risk of partner abuse. 

Milk and his sexual partners lead tumultuous, broken lives – rife with many of these problems.  The inappropriate sexual activity introduced to them as children is unaddressed and unhealed, and so it festers on in their adult lives. 

But I doubt that any of this will get even a mention in all the press over President Obama awarding Milk the Medal of Freedom.

See also: Citizenlink Commentary: Got Milk?

For help with childhood sexual abuse, sexual addiction or unwanted same-sex attractions, see: http://listen.family.org/miscdaily/A000000115.cfm; www.pureintimacy.org; or www.lovewonout.com.

Late last week, the Senate passed “hate crimes” legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.  The vote was 63-28. (The House passed it in April this year 249-175).  President Obama has promised to sign “hate crimes” into law.

That means it will be a federal crime to commit violence against someone because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,  gender identity or disability.

Because some victims are more worthy of protection than others–say liberals in Congress.  Here’s what they mean:

Let’s say Joe needs cash for drugs, so he takes his gun purchased at a gun show and decides to rob someone.  Joe sees an elderly man from across the street and realizes he’d make a good target–the man is old and walking slow.  So Joe runs up and knocks him to the ground with the handle of his gun, and runs off with the man’s wallet.

Turns out the wallet had no cash.  So Joe searches for another victim. He notices a young man across the parking lot–short, skinny, and well-dressed.  Maybe he has more money, Joe thinks.  The young man is also wearing a shirt that says “Gay and Proud!” And Joe has never really liked guys who identify as gay.   So he knocks the young man down with his gun and steals his wallet.

Under the federal hate crimes law, Joe will be charged with a more serious crime–a federal crime–for assaulting the gay man than for assaulting the elderly man.  Even though he committed the exact same act.

I’ll take “unequal justice under the law,” for $200 please, Alex.

They say justice is supposed to be blind.  But under the federal hate crimes law, it’s only blind to some victims.

Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on the issue of bullying in public schools, innocently titled, “Strengthening School Safety through Prevention of Bullying.”

What prompted this hearing is a bill currently under consideration in the  House (H.R. 2262) that would would give money to schools who agree to craft and implement “anti-bullying and harassment” policies.

Sounds good, right? Who wouldn’t want the government to give money to schools in order to help them keep our kids safe from bullying and harassment?

But look closer.  The government gets to tell schools which categories of bullying and harassment are “worthy” of protecting against.

Here are the magical categories over which if a student bullies  another, he or she is in big trouble:  race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion.

So under this bill,  if a student harasses another for reasons other than the ones listed above, it’s, somehow, less bad? Yes.

Put another way, if Joe punches Ryan in the nose because Ryan is a Christian or maybe self-identifies as gay, then Joe is deserving of serious punishment.  If Joe punches Ryan because Ryan is small and wears glasses, Joe is deserving of less punishment.  That is unequal treatment at it’s height.

The truth is that all kids who are on the receiving end of a bully’s actions should be protected equally.  Period.

A parent standing in the principal’s office with her wounded child wants the school to bring the full force of discipline on the bully for his act,  not for what the bully was thinking when he did it.   A bully might “think” a bad thought about any number of students during the school day.  But it’s his actions that should have consequences.

There’s another problem with the bill.  Mandating that a school’s anti-bullying policy spell-out the categories of  “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” introduces sexualized and often politicized topics into the school environment–where they don’t belong.

And gay activists will use this federal mandate as the leverage they need to promote homosexuality in public schools.  We’ve already seen evidence of this.  A school district in Alameda, California recently mandated a pro-gay curriculum for elementary kids.  Parents were told they could not opt their kids out, meaning that kids as young as first grade will be taught about same-sex couples whether parents like it or not.  Guess what the school used to justify the pro-gay curriculum? So-called “student safety” and “nondiscrimination” laws.

So make sure your Member of Congress hears from you that if the federal government is going to give money to schools for anti-bullying programs, the government shouldn’t mandate that some students are more deserving of protection from bullying than others.  And that our kids’ school environments shouldn’t be platforms for sexualized or politicized topics.