DriveThru – Get What You Need

In case you were wondering where homosexual activism in public schools can eventually lead, Maine is giving a pretty good preview right now:

“… a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”  That’s the summary from Maine’s Bangor Daily News, reporting on school guidelines currently under development by Maine’s Human Rights Commission.

So now we are on the cusp of allowing boys into girls restrooms based on their stated identity choice of the day. It’s hard to imagine an environment more sexually confusing for kids—or fraught with risky situations— than that.

At issue is the Maine Human Rights Commission’s efforts to adopt guidelines for schools on how to deal with gender-confused students. While they are being touted as just “guidelines,” the reality is that schools found in violation of the commission’s policies are more vulnerable to losing a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, according to the Bangor Daily News report,  gay activist groups—in particular, the local Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) chapter—have helped develop these guidelines. (GLSEN is the controversial group founded by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings. It is devoted to promoting homosexuality and ”transgender” behavior to kids all the way down to the kindergarten level.)

The Maine School Management Association has raised concerns that the Human Rights Commission is overstepping its bounds by giving schools specific mandates. And then there’s concerns from both secondary schools and colleges about “fairness” issues in sports  and how teams are classified under NCAA guidelines.

This is just some of the chaos we will continue to see if identity politics and homosexual activism are given free rein in our public school systems.

For more about how transgender-activism is affecting schools’ and states’ policies, check out our “Transgender” Madness commentary.

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.

One of the problems with so-called “nondiscrimination” policies that create politicized lists of specially protected people is that once that list gets going, it’s really hard to know where to stop. Basically, every one and their dog wants to be included.

 The Rapid City, South Dakota, school board provided an apt illustration of this last night. Taking a vote that sent it sliding way over the cliff of that slippery slope, the board included no less than 16 categories of personal classifications in its nondiscrimination policy. Along with “sexual orientation,” the list now includes things like “student marital status,” “political orientation,” “pregnancy” and “status as a veteran.” It would almost be laughable if the ramifications weren’t so serious.

Even the city officials shied away from taking similar actions, after their attorney advised  against adopting an unruly laundry list, pointing out that the more protected classes the city added, the costlier it could become to defend the city from potential discrimination lawsuits. The South Dakota Family Policy Council also tried to convince the school board to at least stick to six basic categories mentioned in some federal laws, such as “race” or “disability.”

But alas, common sense didn’t prevail. Once the ball got rolling they couldn’t stop it.

 Truth is, it makes more sense to not to start on that slope at all. A truly constitutional approach would be to implement an across-the-board anti-bullying policy that prohibits bullying against any child for any reason. This should be based on the constitutional principle that every one has a right to life and the pursuit of happiness— it should not be based on the demands of every special interest group in the community.

It would be nice to see schools start emphasizing what we have in common as Americans—for instance, the Founding Fathers’ teaching that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights—rather than constantly focusing on dividing people into political categories.

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.

Those trying to protect man-woman marriage in Maine have repeatedly cited the Massachusetts court decision Parker v. Hurley as a timely warning. In the decision—rendered after gay marriage was legalized in that state–a federal judge denied parents the right to opt elementary-age children out of lessons about same-sex marriage. 

But Maine’s Attorney General, Janet Mills, recently issued a statement brushing aside those warnings because, she claimed, the Parker case didn’t “turn on any provision of state law relating to marriage or education.”

But that’s simply untrue. Let’s examine the facts:

For instance, I wonder if the Attorney General took the time to read the first few paragraphs of the decision.  If so, surely she would have noticed the clear references to “Massachusetts law” granting special protection to “sexual orientation.”  The opinion specifically explained that, because of this law, the “Massachusetts Department of Education has issued standards which encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade students concerning different types of people and families.” (In other words, teaching about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.) So this obviously did “turn on state law”—and keep in mind that Maine also has at least one state law giving special protection to “sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the Massachusetts judge clearly and repeatedly connected the dots between what is being taught in the classroom and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, which mandated the legalization of gay marriage. “Students today must be prepared for citizenship in a diverse society. .. As increasingly recognized, one dimension of our nation’s diversity is differences in sexual orientation. In Massachusetts, at least, those differences may result in same-sex marriages,” said the judge [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, the judge concluded that parents cannot opt their kids out of instruction promoting gay marriage because “under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

And in Massachusetts those “goals” now include teaching “respect” for homosexuality and gay marriage. “It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents…”

Clearly, Maine is in danger of taking a path that leads to almost exactly the same scenario—one that robs parents of their parental rights and religious freedoms in public schools.

Shifting from penguins, yet another media story focusing on purported homosexuality in the animal kingdom has surfaced – this time involving vultures in the Holy Land.

While it’s tempting to revisit the topic of “gay” penguins, we’ve already covered that base here.

Instead, what’s fascinating about this story – reported in Ha’Aretz from Israel and Fox News – is the unmistakably pro-gay media bias.

Specifically, both stories speak about Dashik and Yehuda – two male Griffon vultures – as having been a “gay vulture couple.” While Ha’Aretz offers details going back ten years, in neither story is there an explicit recognition that this “couple” is past tense and that there has quite evidently been a shift in the respective sexual orientations of these males – who have subsequently dated, mated and procreated with female vultures.

Indeed, this ex-gay perspective is conveniently ignored – lest the obvious get in the way of promoting the politically correct view that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable.

Even more striking is the portrayal by Fox News that Dashik and Yehuda had previously “fathered” a chick together – as if it were possible for two males, of any species, to physiologically reproduce. However, buried in the details of the Ha’aretz piece we see that Dashik and Yehuda were part of a program to reestablish their dwindling aviary species in Israel. Zoo keepers gave them an artificial egg some years ago to care for – one that was later replaced by a live chick with the apparent goal of training Dashik and Yehuda to nurture it.

Beyond this, Fox characterizes the breakup of Dashik and Yehuda as two gay males who have “gone back into the closet.” The implication here is that these carrion creatures are suppressing “who they really are” and “living in denial” – sentiments that align with invective hurled by gay activists at those today who choose to walk away from homosexuality and instead steward their sexuality in alignment with their values and faith.

The assumption reflected by these media outlets is known as the “essentialist” theory on homosexuality – a view which says that humans (and animals, apparently) are, somehow, at their essence, homosexual. Never mind that valid and reliable evidence to support this bias-driven theory continues to elude researchers.

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.