The Gaytheist Agenda

Not that this hasn’t happened countless times before, but it’s always nice to have another documented case of it. The more we have, the stronger our case is against these “pro-family” groups that seek only to harm.

Dr. Gary Remafedi Says Conservative Group Guilty of “Gross Misrepresentation” And Questions If Focus Actually Read His Article Before Misquoting It

NEW YORK – Truth Wins Out published a letter today from a researcher who claims Focus on the Family twisted his work. In the letter, Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, asked Focus on the Family’s leader James Dobson to stop misrepresenting his findings from a key 1992 study.

“I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of Focus on the Family,” Remafedi wrote in his letter to Dobson. “More important, had the authors of “Myths and Facts” actually read the article, they would have found no support for their contention that ‘many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can be influenced in either direction.’”

(Full Text of Letter Below)

Remafedi’s report was published in Pediatrics in 1992. The study explored patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. Focus on the Family distorted his findings to make the case that young people should not learn about homosexuality because they were sexually confused, and could thus be influenced by educational material.

“Focus on the Family has engaged in a disturbing pattern of misrepresenting the work of legitimate researchers to further their anti-gay agenda,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of TruthWinsOut.org. “We call on Focus on the Family to immediately expunge all falsehoods and fallacies presented as‘facts’ from their past and present literature.”

Focus on the Family has an ignoble history of manipulating or cherry picking the research of genuine scientists. Last year, several researchers held Dobson accountable for misrepresenting their work. Letters and videos from these scientists can be viewed at www.RespectMyResearch.org.

TruthWinsOut.org is currently working to find examples where right wing organizations have twisted scientific work. If you have a case that is worthy of investigation, please contact TWO’s Director of Research, Peter Cabrera, at petercabrera74@yahoo.com

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

Dr. James Dobson
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995

April 30, 2008

Dear Dr. Dobson,

I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of “Focus on the Family” (see here). In the third paragraph of the article, “Myths and Facts,” our research is cited in support of the statement: “During early adolescence, many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can easily be influenced in either direction.”

First, please note that the citation itself is incorrect. The original article was published in Pediatrics, not Journal of Pediatrics. The correct reference is: Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, Harris L. Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 89(4):714-721, 1992. More important, had the authors of “Myths and Facts” actually read the article, they would have found no support for their contention that “many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can be influenced in either direction.” The word confusion does not appear in our article; nor did we find that anyone can influence a young person’s sexual identity.

The purpose of our study was to explore patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. We found that the percentage of student who reported being “unsure” about their orientation steadily declined with age from 25.9% in 12-year-old persons to 5% in 18 year-old students (p. 716). Youth who were “unsure” were more likely than others to entertain homosexual fantasies and attractions and less likely to have had heterosexual experiences (p. 720). These and other data suggested that uncertainty about sexual orientation “gradually gives way to heterosexual or homosexual identification with the passage of time and/or with increasing sexual experience” (p. 720).

Please ask the authors of the misstatements to correct them as soon as possible. In the interest of accurate translation of research into practice, a copy of this letter will be posted at Truth Wins Out. Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully yours,

Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Pediatrics
University of Minnesota
428 Oak Grove St.
Minneapolis, MN 55403

cc: Truth Wins Out

That’s the question so many people ask. It’s also the question discussed by this intriguing and amusing video.

If you’re in California, and even if you’re not, it’s possible you’ve heard of SB-777. Chances are, however, that what you’ve heard is more propaganda and hysteria than reality. Some claim the bill promotes homsexuality, even “indoctrinates” children into homosexuality. Others claim that words like mom, dad, husband, wife, etc. would be banned from textbooks and that prom kings and queens would be prohibited. The most outrageous claims are that the bill requires bathrooms and locker rooms be unisex and that it encourages cross-dressing.

Well I’m going to tell you the unvarnished truth about SB-777. First I’ll present to you the actual text of the bill so you can read it yourself. I’ll leave out some of the most boring parts about teaching credentials, access to libraries and the like (the entire bill is quite mundane) but you’re welcome to read it in it’s entirety here. Now, on to SB-777.

…..
SB 777, Kuehl. Discrimination.
(1) Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases and contains various provisions to implement that policy.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
(2) Existing laws relating to education refer to “handicapped pupils,” “handicapped adults,” “physically handicapped pupils,” “physically handicapped adults,” “the handicapped,” and “handicapped
persons.”
This bill would change these terms to “pupils with disabilities,” “adults with disabilities,” “pupils with physical disabilities,” “adults with physical disabilities,” and “persons with disabilities.”
…..
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Student Civil Rights Act.
SEC. 1.5. Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 2. Section 210.1 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
210.3. “Educational institution” means a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the governing board of a school district; or any combination of school districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or secondary schools.
SEC. 3. Section 210.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.1. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 212 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 7. Section 212.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.1. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 8. Section 212.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.3. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 10. Section 219 is added to the Education Code, to read:
219. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 11. Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

SEC. 12. Section 220.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 13. Section 235 of the Education Code is amended to read:
235. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 220 in any aspect of the operation of alternative schools or charter schools.
SEC. 14. Section 260 of the Education Code is amended to read:
260. The governing board of a school district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 220 and for monitoring compliance with any and all rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 15. Section 14058 of the Education Code is amended to read:
14058. (a) For all adults with disabilities educated by the county superintendent of schools, for all secondary schools maintained in juvenile halls, juvenile homes, and juvenile camps by the county superintendent of schools, and for all pupils enrolled in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in opportunity schools and classes and all continuation schools and classes maintained by the county superintendent of schools, the Superintendent shall allow the same amount as he or she would compute for the foundation program of a high school district under Section 41712.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the total of allowances for education of adults with disabilities in classes established by the county superintendent of schools pursuant to Section 52570 or 78440 shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in any one fiscal year. The Superintendent shall establish a system of priorities that he or she shall by rule or regulation adopt that shall give highest priority to those counties in which no program or an insufficient program for the education of adults with disabilities is provided by the school districts within the county, in order to comply with the
imitation prescribed by this section.
…..
SEC. 35. Section 66251 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66251. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 36. Section 66260.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.5. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 37. Section 66260.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 38. Section 66261.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.5. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 39. Section 66261.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.7. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 40. Section 66262 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 41. Section 66262 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 42. Section 66262.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262.7. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 43. Section 66269 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66269. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 44. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 44.5. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 45. Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
66271. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 46. Section 66292 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292. (a) The governing board of a community college district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that community college district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
(b) The Chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges shall have responsibility for monitoring the compliance of each district with any and all regulations adopted pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 47. Section 66292.1 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66292.1. The Chancellor of the California State University and the president of each California State University campus shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
SEC. 48. Section 66292.2 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292.2. The President of the University of California and the chancellor of each University of California campus shall have primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
…..

There it is. Not a word about indoctrinating children into homosexuality, teaching them to cross dress or allowing them to share bathrooms. There’s also nothing about outlawing terms like mother, father, husband and wife in textbooks. All it says is that discrimination against students based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, is prohibited. Now why is it that the bill prohibits discrimination based on so many factors, yet the RRRW is only launching a crusade against two, those being the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity? In all of the articles about SB-777 we’ve seen no concerns raised over the fact that it protects students based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or disability. Why is that?

Notice in particular that the bill prohibits discrimination against people based on their religion, yet nobody is raising concerns that children will be “indoctrinated” into religion while in school. (Mind you the RRRW would like it very much if children were indoctrinated into religion–their religion–in schools.) I’ve also not seen any articles claiming children will be harmed because their schools cannot discriminate based on any other factors. No, the only concerns anybody has is that students might have protections based on their gender identity and sexual orientation.

So in reality it has nothing at all to do with protecting the children, for they don’t care one whit about the children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Children like Lawrence King aren’t worthy of having equal rights and protections under the law. Pushing their anti-gay agenda and keeping LGBT people permanent second-class citizens is far more important, apparently, than the lives and safety of the children they claim to care about.

Now you know the truth about SB-777. It prohibits discrimination in California schools based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Nothing more, nothing less. If anybody tries to say otherwise, they’re simply not giving you the facts.

 

That’s the simple yet critical lesson of this video . Please be warned that this piece contains some adult language and brief violence.

On the April 4 edition of his program, The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly had a dialog with conservative radio host Marc Rudov and Fox News Analyst Margaret Hoover. Here are the video and exerpts provided by Media Matters. I’ll provide my commentary.

O’REILLY: “Back of the Book” segment tonight: There’s no question that some powerful forces in America want to mainstream the gay lifestyle, and now, you can decide whether that’s a good or a bad thing, because it’s all on the table.
…..
O’REILLY: — three in 10 seconds. And Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, who is here in New York — and you’re appalled by this mainstreaming, correct?

HOOVER: Not at all.

O’REILLY: No?

HOOVER: Not at all. Look, a conservative feminist stands for increasing personal responsibility and increasing personal freedom, and there is nothing about this — I mean, these are private people, individuals, in their private lives spending their own money, leading their own lifestyle, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Their pursuit of happiness involves this, and frankly, there are kids out there that need families and parents that love them. There are plenty of broken homes that don’t have parents –

What do you know? A voice of reason advocating that LGBT people and families are private citizens who deserve to live their own lives and be left alone. How uncommon in certain circles.

O’REILLY: Even — even when the mainstreaming now has become fairly intrusive? You know, you look at television or you pick up a newspaper and, you know –

HOOVER: Is it really intrusive, though?

O’REILLY: To some people.

If the definition of “intrusive” is that one cannot pick up a magazine newspaper or turn on the television without seeing it then pretty much anything could be defined as intrusive. The media is filled with sex, violence, politics, religion, racial strife, war, crass consumerism and countless other things that any number of people might consider offensive. A person who is so sensitive that they cannot tolerate being exposed to that which exists in the normal, everyday world should avoid picking up newspapers and turning on the television.

O’REILLY: All right. What do you say, Marc?

RUDOV: Well, I think we are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and I fear for the consequences — the long-term consequences for children.
…..
You know, in California, for example, in October of last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SP-777. It’s a new law that says you can’t use “Mom,” “Dad,” “husband and wife” in textbooks anymore. Girls can come to school dressed as boys; boys can come to school dressed as girls. They can use each other’s lavatories. And all of this is so not to offend gays and transgenders and bisexuals –

SB-777 does not say that Mom, Dad, husband and wife cannot be used in textbooks anymore. In fact it doesn’t even address textbooks at all. Nor does it state that girls and boys can cross-dress or that they can use each others bathrooms. Rudov is outright lying. Read the text of the bill yourself if you like, though it’s quite dull really.

O’REILLY: Well, that’s part of the mainstreaming –

RUDOV: — who are about 6 percent of the population.

O’REILLY: Yeah, that’s part of the mainstreaming of the –

RUDOV: That’s right. But the –

…..

RUDOV: And the 94 percent of us who aren’t in that –

Yes, because the majority would be so oppressed by allowing the minority to have equal rights. Just look at the damage the Civil Rights Act has done to me and other Caucasians.

O’REILLY: Wait, wait, Marc. Let –

HOOVER: Marc, I’ve got to object –

RUDOV: — we have to go along with it.

HOOVER: But, Marc, I have to object to this notion that children form their sexuality and their sexual identity from their parents. The truth is that scientists, biologists, we don’t know how sexuality is formed in people, and to suggest that people are going to be gay if they’re raised by gay parents is just scientifically unfounded. You just can’t say that. You can posit that, but you can’t say that’s the fact.

You — I — if you’re going to be worried about the future of children and children growing up in same-sex couples, you ought to be a heck of a lot more worried about deadbeat dads and broken homes and inner city America, because there are a whole lot of people and kids that are growing up that don’t have parents that love them.

But of course gay parents would raise gay children. Look at the centuries of straight children that straight parents have raised. Wait. Never mind…

As to the rest of the program, what little there is, I’ll leave you to form your own opinions of it…

 

Thanks for another case of o’reilly hates gay people.

 
You’re welcome. Really I could tolerate him and others not liking LGBT people. There are people I’m not fond of after all and it’s impossible to like everyone. What gets me is the intolerance they foster, particularly when they do it with propaganda and outright lies. There’s no reason for that, and it only leads to hurt and harm.

 

Republican homophobes have been crawling out of the woodwork lately. First there was Sally Kern, then Mary Frances Forrester. Now make way for Oregon State Senator Gary George

In his first media interview since coming forward as co-sponsor of the initiative to repeal the recently enacted Oregon Equality Act – an anti-discrimination law for sexual minorities – George railed against gay activists and affirmative action, and warned that if gays continued to be “oppressive toward straights,” they were in danger of “violent backlash.”

The full interview will appear in the March 21 issue of Just Out, but excerpts are included below.

Just Out: Why are you sponsoring this repeal initiative?

State senator Gary George: I’ve had people approach me for special rights for homosexuals and I don’t believe anyone should have special rights. I’ve had members of the gay community come in and ask and I’ll say I’m sorry I don’t give anyone special rights.

That’s just what people like Senator George don’t get. They aren’t special rights, they’re equal rights.

Just Out: What sort of special rights do you feel that the Oregon Equality Act offers?

George: First off, I thought that was a fabrication of definition, in the sense that you gave special rights, it picks out another group, a lifestyle group, and says hmm, you have all these protections. The main thing that bothered us with the whole bill was the fact that here we go again, adding one more class of people that need to have special rights.

Just Out: Can you give an example?

George: If I discriminate in favor of you it automatically requires I discriminate against someone else. I was hoping with your generation we can stop calling each other ‘asian-american,’ or ‘latino-american…’ There’s one talk show host, and he has really severe hard feelings against affirmative action. Because of the race that he is, I believe he’s Italian, he was discriminated against because he’s not black. I have dear dear friends in the legislature who are black but sometimes I really get tired of hearing about their color.

So Senator George outs himself as a racist in addition to a homophobe. He seems to have so many issues withe the labels other people have and apply to themselves, and considers the rights they get/want to be “special”. I wonder why he doesn’t think the same of his labels and rights. I’ll assume he’s Christian, for example, and he’s certainly not going to be giving up his right to protection from discrimination based on his religion. Nor would he give up his right to protection from race based hate crimes (yes, white people are protected too). Nor would he dream of forfeiting his right to prosecute if he were the victim of gender related bias. Yet he wishes to keep others from having the same (read: equal) rights he has.

Just Out: What if an employee is fired because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity? Isn’t the Oregon Equality Act in place to guard against such discrimination?

George: As an employer, I don’t wanna hear about it. This workplace is for work purposes. My advice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.

Senator George, when your straight employees come in and talk about the dates they had over the weekend do you tell them to SHUT UP? When they talk about their upcoming weddings do you tell them to SHUT UP? When they start passing around pictures of their children, which are nothing more than evidence of their unprotected sex, do you scream “SHUT UP–I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU DO IN THE BEDROOM!!!” ? If not, then you are nothing but a homophobe, Senator George.

Just Out: What is your reaction to the recent murders of out gay youth in Florida and California?

George: Obviously murder is murder, there’s no excuse for that. Here’s what I’m saying, I think we’re seeing a backlash, in other words if you push me too hard don’t be surprised if I react. Gays will tend to react violently if people are oppressive toward them. If gays are oppressive toward straights, then you’ll see a violent backlash. You’re going to have a point where these groups develop and say I’m tired of these special privileges.

Just Out: Are you suggesting that gays, by virtue of being out and open, are inciting these types of violent reactions?

George: You have to recognize for every action there’s a reaction…we’re obviously not gonna tolerate anyone who beats up any other person.

If you do feel like you’ve been discriminated against as a gay, you have hard feelings. I remember when I was heavy and wore glasses as a child and I was picked on. We all know the gay person that nobody notices – I think that is where we need to head. Everybody knows where the line is, so when I see I’m offending someone, I have to back away from that. We have to adjust our behavior so as to not be offensive. If you push anyone too hard, they will react.

Translation: Get back in your closets you homos, and then you won’t get beaten up and killed so much. And anyway getting brutally murdered is really not much worse than getting picked on for wearing glasses.

I honestly feel ill after reading Senator George’s interview (and that was the abridged version). The hateful screeds of Sally Kern and Mary Frances Forrester were far enough off the deep end that most people will see them for what they were–the incredibly bigoted tirades of homophobes. But this man is deadly calm and rational in his hatred, and that is what makes him more frightening and dangerous than the other two. The thought that he could influence minds in his state is quite unnerving.

By the way, should anybody wish to contact the Senator, here is his information:

Address:

Senator Gary George
900 Court St. NE, S-214
Salem, OR 97301

Phone:
503-986-1712

Email:
sen.garygeorge@state.or.us

As you may have read here previously, Representative Stacey Campfield (R) proposed a bill whereby elementary and middle schools in TN would be banned from teaching or discussing any form of sexuality other than heterosexuality. I’m pleased to report that his attempt failed miserably.

“I’m trying to find out where this bill came from or is it part of your re-election legislation,” an annoyed Rep. Ulysses Jones asked sponsor Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Knoxville Republican.
Advertisement

The lawmakers argued and were gaveled into silence at times when they raised their voices, and in the end, the House panel sent the bill to the State Board of Education, effectively killing the proposal.

…..

Lilith Jackson, 9, her hair highlighted in bright pink, sat on the front row at the meeting with her two moms, Audra Kelly and Ardyce Mercier.

They think teachers at her school, the Brown Academy public magnet school in Chattanooga, should be able to talk about families with two mommies or two daddies as being healthy family structures.

“They should be teaching about other kinds of relationships and families,” Kelly said. She agreed that teachers should not being talking about sexuality in terms of “who is sleeping with whom.”

…..

Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Tennessee Education Association said no Tennessee schools are promoting gay rights.

“There is not a problem here,” said Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU of Tennessee. “It is a clear attack on one community.”

…..

Campfield said he had heard complaints from two school districts but had not verified them. He went on to say that the Education Department could opt to include the topic as part of school curriculum.

“It is possible,” said Bruce Opie of the Department of Education. “But it’s highly unlikely and highly improbable.”

Campfield noted a 2006 resolution by the National Education Association saying that activities and programs must increase “acceptance” of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Tennessee Education Association lobbyist Jerry Winters insisted that TEA does not advocate for gays in schools.

Campfield lost one other battle: He asked for a roll call vote on any motion. Chairman Rep. Joe Towns denied the request. It appeared the subcommittee voted along party lines, with Democrats choosing to send the bill to the Board of Education.

My take? Campfield pulled the two “complaints” out of his backside as part of his anti-gay agenda. Kudos to Rep. Jones for his refusal to tolerate Campfield’s blatantly bigoted proposal. It’s high time such hateful legislation be recognized for what it is.

Florida is not known for its gay-friendly atmosphere. Mayor Jim Naugle of Ft. Lauderdale alone is well known for his blatantly homophobic opinions and propositions. So it’s no surprise it’s in the news again for oppressing the rights of LGBT individuals.

A Florida high school has been trampling the First Amendment rights of students who support equal rights for gay people, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. In its lawsuit, the ACLU described an atmosphere of fear and censorship at Ponce de Leon High School, where the school board’s attorney says even expressions like a rainbow sticker may mean students are members of an “illegal organization.”

…..

The ACLU sent a letter in November to the school board’s attorney on behalf of Gillman, asking for clarification as to whether a variety of symbols and slogans, such as the rainbow flag or “I support my gay friends,” would be allowed at the school. The school district replied that it would not allow any expressions of support for gay rights at all because such speech would “likely be disruptive.” The district then went even further, claiming that such symbols and slogans were signs that students were part of a “secret/illegal organization.”

The letter was sent after Gillman and other students approached the ACLU about an atmosphere in which students say they were routinely intimidated by school officials for things like writing “gay pride” on their arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. According to students, problems began in September when a lesbian student tried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by other students because she is a lesbian. Instead of addressing the harassment, students say the school responded with intimidation and censorship.

“Because the Supreme Court has held that students have a right to free speech at school unless that speech disrupts the educational process, many administrators think they can just slap the label ‘disruptive’ on anything they don’t like and get away with stomping on students’ First Amendment rights. The law doesn’t work that way,” said Benjamin James Stevenson, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. “School should be a marketplace of ideas, where students share new ideas and learn about themselves and others. Just talking about gay rights or any other topic outside of class isn’t inherently disruptive.”

In the complaint filed today, the ACLU asked the court for an injunction to stop Ponce de Leon High School officials from suppressing students’ First Amendment rights in the future.

“Writing something like ‘I support gay rights’ on your notebook doesn’t mean you’re part of some secret conspiracy or shadowy organization,” said Christine Sun, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “Schools shouldn’t be in the business of trying to frighten students into silence.”

It’s sad that it is so far gone that the ACLU must intervene on behalf of the students. Human rights are suppressed to the point that saying something like I’m not ashamed to be gay is considered disruptive and a sign that the student is part of an “illegal organization”. Have we returned to the McCarthy era? Is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell now the official policy for high school students? When will the purges begin?

Excuse me, I realize am going a bit overboard. I’ve just read the second story in a row about these gag policies for students and I’m utterly frustrated. It seems that overall we are regressing rather than advancing with regard to rights for LGBTs in every way, shape and form across the nation and I don’t know where it will end.