Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Oct. 13th, 2005 11:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdMore allegations of fraud in the Massachusetts anti-marriage signature gathering process - this time, from a former signature gatherer;
Pat Robertson attacks "movement Conservatives" as irrelevant, demands they fall in line behind Miers or face retaliation;
Bush: Miers is an an evangelical Christian; Y'know, I really do think that the reason Bush nominated her is because he decided to split the two nominations - to give one justice to the neoconservatives and movement conservatives, and one to the evangelical fundamentalists, and this is the one for the evangelical fundamentalists, and that was about as far as he thought it out;
Focus on the Family declares the judicial confirmation process "broken" and talks about a many-year battle to change it;
FotF goes to traditional fundamentalist ground, complaining about immoral movies and TV;
FotF's version of Bush's statements about Miers's evangelical fundamentalist Christianity: "Bush Says Religious Beliefs Part of Qualifications";
FotF: Dobson did not discuss Roe v. Wade with Rove, drops second (follow-up) broadcast on the topic - have his lawyers told him to shut the fuck up about it? Says nothing else will be forthcoming unless he's subpoenaed by Congress; includes ACTION ITEM on the subpoena topic;
FotF attacks American Girl for supporting Girls, Inc., a group that supports reproductive choice and is GBLT-inclusive - includes ACTION ITEM to complain to American Girl;
This is the kind of thing that really, really takes the fundamentalist movement into self-parody; "some" attack the idea of HPV vaccination because since it can be sexually transmitted, vaccinating against HPV (which causes CERVICAL CANCER) will encourage sexual promiscuity, which really does cut straight to the chase: they'd rather see women die than having sex they don't like. They even acknowledge right out that it would prevent 10,000 cases of cancer in the US a year;
Lesbian woman sues doctors in California after they refused intrauterine insemination - she says it's because she's lesbian, they say it's because she's not married, but of course, she can't get married in California because she's a lesbian, so;
Frist defends stem cell research; includes ACTION ITEM to get him to reconsider and oppose it;
Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America wonk Throckmorton push the "ex-gay" line on National Coming Out Day;
Basic Rights Oregon drops either a civil unions initiative drive or a civil unions legal case, it's hard to say which from the article;
US Supreme Court refuses to hear Wiccan case of religious discrimination in the case of a Virginia government meeting prayer; they only invite Christians and Jews and refuse other prayer leaders; by letting the case stand, the practice stands;
Concerned Women for America are growing impatient with Harriet Miers not answering their questions;
CWA is not happy with the new set of Miers talking-points;
Family Research Council pushes Texas Proposition 2, an anti-marriage Constitutional amendment on the ballot this November in Texas;
FRC brochure compares same-sex marriage to bestiality; goes on to make the usual assortment of claims about those nasty queers;
FRC Q&A article against marriage rights; queers don't actually want marriage except to destroy it; implies a tie between homosexuality and pedophilia; revives even the old "Gay Bowel Syndrome" invention of Paul Cameron; are diseased in general; also, we're all crazy, dykes are all fat, and beat each other up; again claims that gay men molest children, and lesbians screw up kids; so if you think this stuff isn't still out there and being given a pass, here it is, linked to right off the banner headline of the front page of FRC's website;
"Former gay says Jesus as 'motivating factor'" [sic];
Traditional Values Coalition: Ungrateful Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Threaten Schwarzenegger with ‘Payback’;
TVC: gender identity disorder is a mental illness; does not reiterate usual assertion that the transgendered should be involuntarily institutionalised, which I suppose is some sort of progress. Either that, or they just forgot and left it out.
----- 1 -----
Tricks on petitions described by worker
Student employed to gather names
By Kathleen A. Shaw WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
October 13, 2005
http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/pr/101305.html
WORCESTER— A 21-year-old Florida college student who spent more than two weeks in Massachusetts collecting signatures for initiative petitions at stores and shopping malls said in an interview that she quit the job because of what she described as “sleazy” tactics used to obtain signatures.
Angela McElroy told the Telegram & Gazette that she took the job with the Florida-based petition-gathering firm JSM Inc. after a friend told her about making money by working on petition drives throughout the country. Upon taking the job, she said she was told her goal was to collect as many signatures as possible “and leave the state before the dust settles.”
Allegations of improprieties in Massachusetts petition drives made in the past few weeks have stirred controversy and the attention of state legislators, the state attorney general’s office and the secretary of state’s office.
While employed by the firm, Ms. McElroy said, she saw one of her co-workers forge signatures from one petition to the other at the Square One Mall in Saugus, re-creating the original signer’s handwriting and address. She said she questioned the co-worker about what he was doing and was told that he was boosting his earnings by transferring signatures from petition A, which would allow wine sales in grocery stories, to petition K, which would put a ban on same-sex marriages on the ballot.
After she quit, Ms. McElroy contacted KnowThyNeighbor.org., the state attorney general’s office and Tom Lang, an organizer of KnowThyNeighbor. Corey Welford, a spokesman for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, said the attorney general will not comment on complaints they have gotten alleging fraudulent tactics in gathering signatures.
Ms. McElroy returned to the state last night and said she is ready to testify at a legislative hearing scheduled for Tuesday and to meet with investigators from the state attorney general’s office.
Ms. McElroy said employees were paid $1 per signature they obtained if the number was less than 500 names. The amount rose to $1.50 a signature if the gatherer produced 500 or more names. They were paid twice a week, she said; she said some employees did exceptionally well financially.
Jennifer Breslin, who operates JSM, declined to be interviewed, citing contractual agreements with firms and groups sponsoring petition drives. She did say that Ms. McElroy was an independent contractor assigned to a petition crew in Massachusetts, and was “asked to leave.” Ms. Breslin said the Florida woman did not actually work for her company. Ms. Breslin also defended the reputation of her company, and said all its signature collections were conducted legally.
Ms. McElroy said petition workers who attract unwanted media attention are quickly sent out of the state. She said one worker was on television news when allegations of fraudulent tactics first surfaced in Massachusetts and was working in another state within days.
JSM paid for Ms. McElroy’s plane fare from Florida to Massachusetts, motel rooms and $20 per day for food, she said, but said she was expected to pay those expenses back out of her earnings. When she quit, she was told to find her own way home, she said. She arrived at her parents home in Tallahassee on Saturday.
Ms. McElroy said she had taken the semester off from her courses at Tallahassee Community College and Florida State University.
While on the job, Ms. McElroy told the T&G, co-workers informed her she could make more money if she induced people first to sign petition A regarding wine sales, then slip the petition to ban same-sex marriage underneath and ask unsuspecting people to sign the second copy without telling them what it concerned.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Who Will Keep the GOP Coalition Together?
By Ed Kilgore
The Coffee House
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/13/01151/941
What's the thread, other than Republican misfortune and Democratic opportunity, that connects the crises involving Miers, Rove, Abramoff, DeLay, Frist and ultimately George W. Bush? It's this: the connective tissue holding together the GOP's unwieldy coalition of K Street, "movement conservatives," Republican hacks, and the Christian Right, is rapidly dissolving.
Pat Robertson's fatwah today against conservative opponents of Miers spelled it out explicitly.
Oct 13, 2005 -- 12:11:51 AM EST
In a direct broadside aimed at two of the elements of the coalition, Robertson said:
"These so-called movement conservatives don't have much of a following, the ones that I'm aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, `now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?' Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."
I don't have to tell you that this hostility is being returned tenfold by "movement conservatives" who think Christian Right leaders like Robertson, Dobson and Land are being gamed once again by an administration that's playing the "Christian card" to outflank the revolt from the Right against Miers.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Bush: Miers' Religion Key Part of Her Life
Oct 12 1:10 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6K760J.html
WASHINGTON
President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts."
He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS IS BROKEN
Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time getting confirmed today.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 13, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038237.cfm
SUMMARY: Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time
getting confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court -- in today's
atmosphere.
The judicial-confirmation system has become a political
gantlet that more and more candidates are unwilling to run
through.
That's the opinion of numerous experts on the federal
judiciary, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
-- the man President Bush has long indicated is a model
for what a justice ought to be.
When NBC's "Today" recently asked Scalia -- who was
approved 98-0 by the Senate in 1986 -- whether he thought
he could be confirmed again, he said: "I don't know. I
wouldn't want to go through it today, I'll tell you that
much."
Steve Crampton, executive director of the American Family
Association Center for Law and Policy, said the sad fact
is that even Scalia probably could not get confirmed in
the current atmosphere.
"We have a broken process," Crampton said. "It is in dire
need of a fix, or else we face the prospect of losing the
very finest minds that may be available to take positions
on the Supreme Court and elsewhere, because they simply
aren't going to be willing to undergo the grueling
process."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
MOVIES BLIND TO CONSEQUENCES OF PRE-MARITAL SEX AND DRUGS
A review of top films affirms that movies glamorize immoral lifestyles.
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 13, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0038233.cfm
Most popular movies portray unmarried sex and the use of
illicit drugs in ways that not only condone the behavior
but never shows the negative consequences, according to a
study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine.
Hasantha Gunasekera, a researcher at the Institute for
Child Health Research (ICHR), said the findings are
troubling.
"The study showed there were no references to important
consequences of unsafe sex such as HIV transmission,
spread of STDs (sexually transmitted disease) or unwanted
pregnancy," Gunasekera said. "The social norm being
presented in movies is concerning given the HIV and
illicit-drug pandemic in developing and industrialized
countries."
ICHR, along with two other research groups in Australia --
the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney
and the University of New South Wales -- analyzed the
portrayal of sex and the use of illegal drugs in the most
popular movies of the last two decades. Looking at the
Internet Movie Database list of the top 200 movies of all
time, the researchers then narrowed the search by
eliminating animated movies, movies that were not about
humans and movies rated G or PG.
Using a data-extraction sheet, the team of researchers
then documented STD, sexually transmitted disease
prevention, birth-control measures, drug use and the
consequences discussed or depicted in the films.
In the 87 movies reviewed, 32 percent had sexually
explicit scenes and only once was there a suggestion that
a condom be used. (That reference was in the 1990 movie
"Pretty Woman" and was in the context of prostitution.)
According to the study, there were no depictions of the
consequences of unprotected sex such as unwanted
pregnancy, HIV or STDs.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Bush Says Religious Beliefs Part of Qualifications
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
October 13, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
President Bush emphasized Wednesday that the personal
faith of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers should be
openly discussed, because those beliefs are a vital part
of her background, USA Today reported.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet
Miers," he said. "They want to know as much as they
possibly can before they form opinions. And part of
Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the
Family Action, in a radio broadcast the same day, told
listeners that his personal conversations with White House
aide Karl Rove indicated that faith played an important
role in Miers' life.
Dobson said he was told "she is an evangelical Christian
from a very conservative church, which is almost
universally pro-life."
----- 7 -----
Dr. Dobson Says He Never Discussed Roe with Rove
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Radio host says he was not given any assurance of
how Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would rule.
Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson told his
radio listeners today that the White House gave him no
private assurances about how Supreme Court nominee Harriet
Miers would rule on Roe v. Wade -- or any other case
likely to come before the court.
Dobson said he was speaking out because he has been "a
topic of conversation from the nation's Capitol to the
tiniest burg and farming community" since he mentioned a
confidential phone call he had with White House Deputy
Chief of Staff Karl Rove.
Last week, he said the call had been private -- and he was
not at liberty to reveal details about it. But today he
said it was time to respond to -- as he put it -- "members
of the Judiciary Committee who are running from one talk
show to another, threatening to subpoena me to find out
what occurred."
"What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I
couldn't reveal?" Dobson asked rhetorically. "Well, it's
what we all know now -- that Harriet Miers is an
evangelical Christian, that she is from a very
conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,
that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the
issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not
be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of
the Texas Right to Life."
[...]
Will members of the Senate Judiciary Committee haul Dobson
to Capitol Hill to testify?
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's ranking
Democrat, acknowledged that committee staff members were
investigating the possibility. He also repeated his
allegation that Rove may have somehow given "secret
assurances" to Dobson how Miers might vote on issues.
"We don't confirm justices of the Supreme Court on a wink
and a nod," Leahy said today, "and a litmus test is no
less a litmus test by using whispers and signals."
[...]
Today's broadcast will serve as Dobson's answer to the
committee unless he is summoned to appear -- a previously
announced second broadcast on the topic is not in the
offing.
TAKE ACTION: To let the members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee know how you feel, please see the CitizenLink
Action Center.
Long URL elided
----- 8 -----
DOLL MAKER SUPPORTS PRO-ABORTION, PRO-GAY GROUP
Fundraiser supports Girls, Inc.
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 12, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038229.cfm
American Girl, known for its popular line of dolls, books
and toys aimed at preteens, is calling for support of
Girls, Inc., a group that promotes sexuality,
homosexuality and abortion.
The company has been selling an "I Can" bracelet with the
promise that 70 percent of the proceeds would go to the
controversial group.
[...]
"Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially
burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls
Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a
constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade," the Web site reads. "To make
responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and
parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive,
truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe,
effective methods of contraception and protection from
disease; and referral to comprehensive information,
counseling, clinical and other services that support their
responsible decisions."
The site also recommends "sexual identity" resources for
girls -- publications that encourage them to be accepting
of homosexuality for others and for themselves. A resource
list includes "Free Your Mind: The Book for Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Youth and Their Allies," and "Is it a Choice?
Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions
About Gay and Lesbian People."
TAKE ACTION: Let American Girl President Ellen Brothers
know that you oppose her company's support of pro-gay,
pro-abortion Girls, Inc. You may reach her through the
CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/alert/?alertid=8108111&type=CU
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Government Considers Vaccinating Students Against HPV
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 12, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Some question the ethics of universal inoculation
against a sexually transmitted disease.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are
considering the recommendation of a human papillomavirus
(HPV) vaccination for every 12 year old, a proposal that
some are applauding for its medical benefit, but that
others are criticizing on ethical grounds.
If the CDC accepts the recommendation, it could lead to
states requiring boys and girls to be vaccinated for the
sexually transmitted disease before they enter middle
school.
Studies have indicated that 4-out-of-5 sexually active
teen girls are infected with the virus.
More than 10,000 American women each year are diagnosed
with cancer or precancerous cells caused by HPV, and 3,700
of them will die. Eighty times that number will die
worldwide. A vaccine could prevent nearly all those deaths
according to Dr. Reginald Finger, an immunologist.
"The vaccine would have the potential of preventing
against infection acquired in adulthood in marriage, or in
a sexual assault or from any sexual risk throughout the
lifespan," he said. "Our intent is to do all we can to
benefit health, so long as you don't cross an ethical or
bioethical barrier in doing so."
But Dr. Hal Wallis, an obstetrician / gynecologist and
chairman of the Physicians Consortium, argued that giving
this vaccine to every child crosses that barrier.
"We're going to be sending a message to a lot of kids that
you just take this shot and you can be as sexually
promiscuous as you want and it's not going to be a
problem," he said. "That's just not true."
Wallis told Family News in Focus the vaccine does hold
wonderful promise for those who need it.
"I do think that we need to be selectively offering this
to patients who are at high risk for HPV infections," he
said, "but I'm not sure that we are at a point where we
can justify universal applications."
----- 10 -----
Lesbian Sues Doctors for Not Helping Her Get Pregnant
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 12, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A California appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in the
case of a woman who sued two doctors after they refused to
participate in her artificial insemination.
Associate Justice Gilbert Nares was not optimistic that it
could be resolved in his court and predicted it would
likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Guadalupe Benitez claims the doctors discriminated against
her because she is a lesbian, but they say it was because
she was unmarried, the North County Times reported.
She filed a claim against North Coast Women's Care group
in 2001 after Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Douglas Fenton
declined to inseminate her and referred her to other
doctors. They argued they were exercising religious
liberty when they declined such services to an unmarried
woman.
A lower court ruled that using a religious liberty was not
allowed as a defense in the case.
Jennifer Pizer, attorney for Benitez, told said she
believes that the case involves more than the doctor's
opinion about her client's marital status.
"This case is about sexual orientation discrimination,"
Pizer said.
Carlo Coppo, attorney for the two doctors, said Benitez's
sexual orientation was not the basis for the doctors'
decision.
"Our clients made the decision not to perform an
(intrauterine insemination)," he said, "because Ms.
Benitez is an unmarried woman."
----- 11 -----
FRIST STUMPS FOR EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH
The Senate majority leader explains his support of the destructive science to pro-lifers.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 11, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038206.cfm
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., took his case for support of
embryonic stem-cell research to the pro-life Christian
community over the weekend.
The Senate majority leader spoke to 300 medical
missionaries at Billy Graham's conference center, The
Cove, just outside Asheville, N.C. Afterward, he told
CitizenLink that not only is he a pro-life Christian
physician and lawmaker -- he considers his support of
embryonic stem-cell research to be pro-life, as well.
"My principles have not changed since I first went to the
U.S. Senate," Frist said. "I oppose human cloning. We need
a strong ethical framework around embryonic stem-cell
research."
Embryonic stem-cell research involves extracting
stem-cells from human embryos -- a process that always
destroys the embryos. Frist claims his position on stem
cells is the same as the one President Bush first
articulated in 2001.
[...]
No matter how strongly Frist may claim his position is
pro-life, Earll said the pro-life community does not agree
that his support for the destruction of discarded embryos
is, in any sense, a pro-life position.
TAKE ACTION: Urge Sen. Frist to reconsider his position on
embryonic stem-cell research. You can contact him through
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=540&lvl=C&chamber=S
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Ex-Gay Groups Counter Coming Out Day
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 11, 2005
SUMMARY: Experts say those identifying with homosexuality
should know about other options.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038199.cfm
Today is National Coming Out Day, and gay and lesbian
groups are encouraging homosexuals to speak out, but
ex-gay groups are countering the event with information
for those who want to change.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign,
which is sponsoring National Coming Out Day, has said that
every time the news media talk about gay issues, they are
"one step closer to equality."
Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at
Grove City College in Pennsylvania, said that underscores
how the event is a well-calculated media push.
"Their mission with National Coming Out Day is to extend
that to the widest possible audience," he said.
Throckmorton has produced a video called "I Do Exist"
about the ex-gay movement.
"Instead of coming out as homosexual," he said, "there is
an alternative that people can affirm their religious
beliefs and can even see change in their sexual feelings."
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Gay Rights Group Drops Civil Unions Case
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Basic Rights Oregon, a gay-advocacy group, has dropped its
push for civil unions in Oregon after determining it would
have lost.
When Oregon handily passed its marriage amendment last
November, gays began working on a ballot initiative to
legalize civil unions.
Tim Nashif, director of the Oregon Family Council, said
his state was not receptive to the idea.
"Basic Rights Oregon decided that it was not in their best
interest to do a ballot measure promoting civil unions,"
he said. "They felt like the opposition would come against
them and if they got beat this time, that would be then
end for them."
Basic Rights Oregon announced it would instead try to
elect more gay-friendly lawmakers and turn public opinion
in its favor.
----- 14 -----
Wiccan Priestess Loses at High Court
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to consider a Wiccan
priestess's claim that she was discriminated against when
Virginia officials denied her the opportunity to pray
before a government meeting.
Cynthia Simpson, a member of the Broom Riders Association,
won her original federal lawsuit against officials in
Chesterfield County, Va., arguing that she wasn't given
the same opportunity as clergy from more traditional
religions, who were invited to open meetings in prayer.
The verdict was overturned by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals -- a decision that will stand in light of the
Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented
Simpson, claimed her rights were violated because the
county "refuses to issue invitations to Native Americans,
Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, or members of any other
religion."
The county countered that its practice was in line with
the Supreme Court's endorsement of legislative prayer that
doesn't proselytize, advance or disparage a given
religion.
----- 15 -----
Concerned Women for America on-site banner ad
indicates impatience with Harriet Miers nomination
October 13, 2005
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/harrietmiersbanner.gif
[Ed: In case the banner goes away, it says:
<fade in>
17 Questions Asked of Supreme Court Nominee Harriet E. Miers
<fade>
Day 03 Questioned answered: 0
<repeat>
]
----- 16 -----
CWA Issues Stern Memo on Harriet Miers Nomination
By Culture of Life Foundation
MichNews.com
Oct 13, 2005
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9866.shtml
One of the most important Christian conservative grass roots organizations in America has issued a memo that is a shot across the bow of the nomination of Harriet Miers for the US Supreme Court. The memo, released on Monday by Concerned Women for America (CWA), falls just short of outright opposition to the Miers nomination. Though it withholds final judgment, it strongly scolds the White House for what CWA sees as a weak nomination followed by insulting talking points in her support.
The memo was written by CWA chief counsel, Jan LaRue, and says "CWA cannot endorse the nomination but we remain open to persuasion" even though, the memo says, "the media are brimming over with coverage about Miss Miers' background and qualifications…"
The memo strongly goes after the talking points used by the White House and it supporters in the Miers fight. Specifically, CWA takes umbrage at the charge leveled as recently as yesterday morning by First Lady Laura Bush that opposition to Miers stems from "sexism." The CWA memo rejects "the notion that a nominee should be selected or rejected on the basis of sex, race, or ethnicity. Neither equal justice under the law nor one's judicial philosophy is dependent upon such factors."
The charge generally coupled with "sexism" is that opponents are "elitists" who insist only on Ivy Leaguers for the high court. CWA, whose populist credentials are well grounded in their 600,000 members, points out that they have supported many judicial nominees from outside elite schools.
CWA takes special offense at the talking points now being used by White House surrogates that she should be trusted because she is an Evangelical Christian. This point has been made by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Pat Robertson. The CWA memo scaldingly says, "We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Defining Marriage in the Lone Star State
by: Mr. Greg Di Napoli
Familiy Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV05J02
On November 8, 2005, the Texas electorate will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 2, an amendment to their constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. However this amendment has the potential to be voted down because of pressure by homosexual rights activists and a lack of awareness among Texas constituents. In August of this year the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force launched a campaign to air ads on CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in the Houston area. The ads are in opposition to Proposition 2. Because this is an off election year, voter turnout will most likely be low, meaning that the outcome rests on approximately three and a half percent of Texas voters. Meanwhile, homosexual rights activists are pouring all of their time, money, and energy into defeating Proposition 2 in hopes that they can begin to sway public opinion on homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."
It is crucial that the voters approve Proposition 2 because it would take the issue out of the hands of activist judges, allowing the people to decide once and for all, on the definition of marriage. In other states, judges are striking down the traditional definition of marriage and opening the door for civil unions and the legalization of same-sex "marriages." Marriage between a man and a woman, as it is traditionally defined, is the only relationship that unites the sexes, produces life, and can provide the best possible home for children, one with both a mother and a father.
Therefore, conservatives in Texas must work hard to encourage voters to get to the polls. The people who reside in the Lone Star State have the chance to show the rest of the nation that they are life affirming and have a strong desire to protect the sanctity of marriage.
----- 18 -----
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage"
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
A Man and His Horse
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to Marriage
The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"
Issue No.: 256
by: Peter Sprigg
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.
The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.
The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.
Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.
[...]
Don't some scholars claim that some cultures have recognized same-sex unions?
A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have asserted this. They support this claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non-conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong heterosexual marriage, which is what today's pro-homosexual activists are demanding.
Even if "marriage" itself is uniquely heterosexual, doesn't fairness require that the legal and financial benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples--perhaps through "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships?"
No. The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society--including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).
Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society. The fact that AIDS is at least ten times more common among men who have sex with men than among the general population is but one example.
[...]
Do most same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities of marriage?
There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front-page article in the New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 = months after Ontario's highest court legalized "marriage" for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.
[...]
What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?
Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:
· Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men
· Hepatitis A, B, and C
· Gonorrhea
· Syphilis
· "Gay Bowel Syndrome," a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis
· HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, "life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.")
Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:
· Bacterial vaginosis
· Hepatitis C
· HIV risk behaviors
· Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight
[...]
Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?
Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:
· Alcohol abuse
· Drug abuse
· Nicotine dependence
· Depression
· Suicide
[...]
Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?
Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:
· Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and
· Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet
· Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.
These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).
This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.
But haven't studies shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no different from other children?
No. This claim is often put forward, even by professional organizations. The truth is that most research on "homosexual parents" thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems. However, even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the "no differences" claim to be false.
Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:
· Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
· Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
· Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."
· Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.
A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Former gay says Jesus as 'motivating factor'
Baptist advocates conversion to heterosexuality
by Bradley Wooten
News Editor
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Post
http://www.uwmpost.com/article/c58b6a0406d7cba80106e1c7930c0002
A Baptist preacher told homosexuals at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee that they can walk away from their unwanted same-sex attractions last Tuesday.
Of the more than 100 people in attendance, at least 30 walked out and many more did not return following a five-minute recess an hour and a half into the speech.
Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual, presented “The Christian Response to Homosexuality” after the newly formed Apologetics Association asked him to come speak.
The AA’s purpose and goal is to promote the literal word of the Bible as logical and reasonable, said Matt Boeke, AA vice president.
Taking the soapbox
Wilkins began by affirming that homosexuality is not a choice.
“Understand and believe when others say it is not a choice,” he said.
He said that when he was 12 or 13 he began experiencing “unwanted same-sex attractions.” At 22, he said he began to be “obedient to what he knew the Bible was teaching despite not knowing how to be heterosexual.”
“The thought of heterosexuality was physically nauseating to me,” Wilkins said.
[...]
‘Gay theology’
If homosexuals are unable to make the conversion to heterosexuality, they should be celibate and seek a relationship with Jesus, Wilkins said.
“The only legitimate and the best motive (in becoming a former homosexual) is one’s relationship with Jesus Christ,” Wilkins said.
Wilkins said another argument used to defend homosexuality is “gay theology.”
“Gay theology is a reinterpretation of scripture to say what scripture does not really say,” he said. The reinterpretation is a search for loopholes to justify actions and sin.
“You can choose to abstain from … homosexual activity,” Wilkins said. “Rest assure with time and obedience the attraction for (the same sex) will diminish and the attraction for (the opposite sex) will increase.”
[more at URL]
----- 21 -----
Ungrateful Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Threaten Schwarzenegger with ‘Payback’
Traditional Values Coalition
Despite His Signing Into Law Four of their Sponsored Bills.
Latest Tantrum Is Proof Homosexual Radicals Will ‘Scorch and Burn’.
For Immediate Release
October 12, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300—office
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2456
Anaheim, California —“The extreme homosexual activists in this state just don’t know when to say ‘thank you’ and sincerely mean it,” said TVC Chairman & Founder Rev. Louis Sheldon. “Their actions and threat proves they believe in nothing more than a scorch and burn policy when it comes to forcing their agenda on the people of California.”
Yesterday, TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez discovered that Equality California, the main sponsors of the recently vetoed same-sex marriage bill and four other pro-homosexual pieces of legislation, issued a statement sent to their supporters aimed at Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying “It’s Payback Time!” The organization’s website also features the political threat.
The group further stated, “On Nov. 8, Veto Arnold! He Said No to Us, Now Say No to Him,” in an obvious effort to rile up their supporters to retaliate for Schwarzenegger’s veto of AB 849, the same-sex marriage bill, on September 29 th and vote against his backed initiatives on the November 8 th ballot. But their statement failed to disclose that Schwarzenegger signed into law the majority of their legislative package of bills. Schwarzenegger even issued a proclamation on behalf “of all Californians” for so-called Pride celebrations in Palm Springs this November.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Mainstream Media Promotes Gender Identity Confusion… Again!
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2457
October 13, 2005 – Last week, we reported on how the mainstream media (MSM) is promoting the normalization of cross-dressing, transsexualism, and associated Gender Identity Disorders (GID).
This week, the Wisconsin State Journal has joined in the MSM chorus to normalize a mental illness. “Floating between genders” is written by Paula Dohnal who is not identified as the managing editor of the Journal of Sex Research for the pro-homosexual Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
Dohnal pulls materials from the Associated Press story published last week and adds stories of Wisconsin college students who think they are the opposite sex or don’t identify with male or female. Dohnal tells the story of Dite Bray, a woman who dresses in men’s clothing and adds fake facial hair to her face when she’s downtown. Bray is a volunteer at OutReach, a “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender resource center” in Madison. According to Bray, “I don’t identify as a man, either, in any way. I’m in that sort of fluid zone where who I am is not really represented by society.”
The theme of Dohnal’s article is that being male or female isn’t clear cut as more young people are denying they’re either one. The belief that a person isn’t either male or female is a political or philosophical statement—not one based upon biology or genetics. The fact is that maleness and femaleness are in the DNA. There are clear genetic differences between males and females and a person who thinks he is the opposite sex suffers from a mental illness.
Pat Robertson attacks "movement Conservatives" as irrelevant, demands they fall in line behind Miers or face retaliation;
Bush: Miers is an an evangelical Christian; Y'know, I really do think that the reason Bush nominated her is because he decided to split the two nominations - to give one justice to the neoconservatives and movement conservatives, and one to the evangelical fundamentalists, and this is the one for the evangelical fundamentalists, and that was about as far as he thought it out;
Focus on the Family declares the judicial confirmation process "broken" and talks about a many-year battle to change it;
FotF goes to traditional fundamentalist ground, complaining about immoral movies and TV;
FotF's version of Bush's statements about Miers's evangelical fundamentalist Christianity: "Bush Says Religious Beliefs Part of Qualifications";
FotF: Dobson did not discuss Roe v. Wade with Rove, drops second (follow-up) broadcast on the topic - have his lawyers told him to shut the fuck up about it? Says nothing else will be forthcoming unless he's subpoenaed by Congress; includes ACTION ITEM on the subpoena topic;
FotF attacks American Girl for supporting Girls, Inc., a group that supports reproductive choice and is GBLT-inclusive - includes ACTION ITEM to complain to American Girl;
This is the kind of thing that really, really takes the fundamentalist movement into self-parody; "some" attack the idea of HPV vaccination because since it can be sexually transmitted, vaccinating against HPV (which causes CERVICAL CANCER) will encourage sexual promiscuity, which really does cut straight to the chase: they'd rather see women die than having sex they don't like. They even acknowledge right out that it would prevent 10,000 cases of cancer in the US a year;
Lesbian woman sues doctors in California after they refused intrauterine insemination - she says it's because she's lesbian, they say it's because she's not married, but of course, she can't get married in California because she's a lesbian, so;
Frist defends stem cell research; includes ACTION ITEM to get him to reconsider and oppose it;
Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America wonk Throckmorton push the "ex-gay" line on National Coming Out Day;
Basic Rights Oregon drops either a civil unions initiative drive or a civil unions legal case, it's hard to say which from the article;
US Supreme Court refuses to hear Wiccan case of religious discrimination in the case of a Virginia government meeting prayer; they only invite Christians and Jews and refuse other prayer leaders; by letting the case stand, the practice stands;
Concerned Women for America are growing impatient with Harriet Miers not answering their questions;
CWA is not happy with the new set of Miers talking-points;
Family Research Council pushes Texas Proposition 2, an anti-marriage Constitutional amendment on the ballot this November in Texas;
FRC brochure compares same-sex marriage to bestiality; goes on to make the usual assortment of claims about those nasty queers;
FRC Q&A article against marriage rights; queers don't actually want marriage except to destroy it; implies a tie between homosexuality and pedophilia; revives even the old "Gay Bowel Syndrome" invention of Paul Cameron; are diseased in general; also, we're all crazy, dykes are all fat, and beat each other up; again claims that gay men molest children, and lesbians screw up kids; so if you think this stuff isn't still out there and being given a pass, here it is, linked to right off the banner headline of the front page of FRC's website;
"Former gay says Jesus as 'motivating factor'" [sic];
Traditional Values Coalition: Ungrateful Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Threaten Schwarzenegger with ‘Payback’;
TVC: gender identity disorder is a mental illness; does not reiterate usual assertion that the transgendered should be involuntarily institutionalised, which I suppose is some sort of progress. Either that, or they just forgot and left it out.
----- 1 -----
Tricks on petitions described by worker
Student employed to gather names
By Kathleen A. Shaw WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
October 13, 2005
http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/pr/101305.html
WORCESTER— A 21-year-old Florida college student who spent more than two weeks in Massachusetts collecting signatures for initiative petitions at stores and shopping malls said in an interview that she quit the job because of what she described as “sleazy” tactics used to obtain signatures.
Angela McElroy told the Telegram & Gazette that she took the job with the Florida-based petition-gathering firm JSM Inc. after a friend told her about making money by working on petition drives throughout the country. Upon taking the job, she said she was told her goal was to collect as many signatures as possible “and leave the state before the dust settles.”
Allegations of improprieties in Massachusetts petition drives made in the past few weeks have stirred controversy and the attention of state legislators, the state attorney general’s office and the secretary of state’s office.
While employed by the firm, Ms. McElroy said, she saw one of her co-workers forge signatures from one petition to the other at the Square One Mall in Saugus, re-creating the original signer’s handwriting and address. She said she questioned the co-worker about what he was doing and was told that he was boosting his earnings by transferring signatures from petition A, which would allow wine sales in grocery stories, to petition K, which would put a ban on same-sex marriages on the ballot.
After she quit, Ms. McElroy contacted KnowThyNeighbor.org., the state attorney general’s office and Tom Lang, an organizer of KnowThyNeighbor. Corey Welford, a spokesman for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, said the attorney general will not comment on complaints they have gotten alleging fraudulent tactics in gathering signatures.
Ms. McElroy returned to the state last night and said she is ready to testify at a legislative hearing scheduled for Tuesday and to meet with investigators from the state attorney general’s office.
Ms. McElroy said employees were paid $1 per signature they obtained if the number was less than 500 names. The amount rose to $1.50 a signature if the gatherer produced 500 or more names. They were paid twice a week, she said; she said some employees did exceptionally well financially.
Jennifer Breslin, who operates JSM, declined to be interviewed, citing contractual agreements with firms and groups sponsoring petition drives. She did say that Ms. McElroy was an independent contractor assigned to a petition crew in Massachusetts, and was “asked to leave.” Ms. Breslin said the Florida woman did not actually work for her company. Ms. Breslin also defended the reputation of her company, and said all its signature collections were conducted legally.
Ms. McElroy said petition workers who attract unwanted media attention are quickly sent out of the state. She said one worker was on television news when allegations of fraudulent tactics first surfaced in Massachusetts and was working in another state within days.
JSM paid for Ms. McElroy’s plane fare from Florida to Massachusetts, motel rooms and $20 per day for food, she said, but said she was expected to pay those expenses back out of her earnings. When she quit, she was told to find her own way home, she said. She arrived at her parents home in Tallahassee on Saturday.
Ms. McElroy said she had taken the semester off from her courses at Tallahassee Community College and Florida State University.
While on the job, Ms. McElroy told the T&G, co-workers informed her she could make more money if she induced people first to sign petition A regarding wine sales, then slip the petition to ban same-sex marriage underneath and ask unsuspecting people to sign the second copy without telling them what it concerned.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Who Will Keep the GOP Coalition Together?
By Ed Kilgore
The Coffee House
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/13/01151/941
What's the thread, other than Republican misfortune and Democratic opportunity, that connects the crises involving Miers, Rove, Abramoff, DeLay, Frist and ultimately George W. Bush? It's this: the connective tissue holding together the GOP's unwieldy coalition of K Street, "movement conservatives," Republican hacks, and the Christian Right, is rapidly dissolving.
Pat Robertson's fatwah today against conservative opponents of Miers spelled it out explicitly.
Oct 13, 2005 -- 12:11:51 AM EST
In a direct broadside aimed at two of the elements of the coalition, Robertson said:
"These so-called movement conservatives don't have much of a following, the ones that I'm aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, `now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?' Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."
I don't have to tell you that this hostility is being returned tenfold by "movement conservatives" who think Christian Right leaders like Robertson, Dobson and Land are being gamed once again by an administration that's playing the "Christian card" to outflank the revolt from the Right against Miers.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Bush: Miers' Religion Key Part of Her Life
Oct 12 1:10 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6K760J.html
WASHINGTON
President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts."
He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS IS BROKEN
Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time getting confirmed today.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 13, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038237.cfm
SUMMARY: Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time
getting confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court -- in today's
atmosphere.
The judicial-confirmation system has become a political
gantlet that more and more candidates are unwilling to run
through.
That's the opinion of numerous experts on the federal
judiciary, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
-- the man President Bush has long indicated is a model
for what a justice ought to be.
When NBC's "Today" recently asked Scalia -- who was
approved 98-0 by the Senate in 1986 -- whether he thought
he could be confirmed again, he said: "I don't know. I
wouldn't want to go through it today, I'll tell you that
much."
Steve Crampton, executive director of the American Family
Association Center for Law and Policy, said the sad fact
is that even Scalia probably could not get confirmed in
the current atmosphere.
"We have a broken process," Crampton said. "It is in dire
need of a fix, or else we face the prospect of losing the
very finest minds that may be available to take positions
on the Supreme Court and elsewhere, because they simply
aren't going to be willing to undergo the grueling
process."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
MOVIES BLIND TO CONSEQUENCES OF PRE-MARITAL SEX AND DRUGS
A review of top films affirms that movies glamorize immoral lifestyles.
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 13, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0038233.cfm
Most popular movies portray unmarried sex and the use of
illicit drugs in ways that not only condone the behavior
but never shows the negative consequences, according to a
study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine.
Hasantha Gunasekera, a researcher at the Institute for
Child Health Research (ICHR), said the findings are
troubling.
"The study showed there were no references to important
consequences of unsafe sex such as HIV transmission,
spread of STDs (sexually transmitted disease) or unwanted
pregnancy," Gunasekera said. "The social norm being
presented in movies is concerning given the HIV and
illicit-drug pandemic in developing and industrialized
countries."
ICHR, along with two other research groups in Australia --
the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney
and the University of New South Wales -- analyzed the
portrayal of sex and the use of illegal drugs in the most
popular movies of the last two decades. Looking at the
Internet Movie Database list of the top 200 movies of all
time, the researchers then narrowed the search by
eliminating animated movies, movies that were not about
humans and movies rated G or PG.
Using a data-extraction sheet, the team of researchers
then documented STD, sexually transmitted disease
prevention, birth-control measures, drug use and the
consequences discussed or depicted in the films.
In the 87 movies reviewed, 32 percent had sexually
explicit scenes and only once was there a suggestion that
a condom be used. (That reference was in the 1990 movie
"Pretty Woman" and was in the context of prostitution.)
According to the study, there were no depictions of the
consequences of unprotected sex such as unwanted
pregnancy, HIV or STDs.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Bush Says Religious Beliefs Part of Qualifications
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
October 13, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
President Bush emphasized Wednesday that the personal
faith of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers should be
openly discussed, because those beliefs are a vital part
of her background, USA Today reported.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet
Miers," he said. "They want to know as much as they
possibly can before they form opinions. And part of
Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the
Family Action, in a radio broadcast the same day, told
listeners that his personal conversations with White House
aide Karl Rove indicated that faith played an important
role in Miers' life.
Dobson said he was told "she is an evangelical Christian
from a very conservative church, which is almost
universally pro-life."
----- 7 -----
Dr. Dobson Says He Never Discussed Roe with Rove
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Radio host says he was not given any assurance of
how Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would rule.
Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson told his
radio listeners today that the White House gave him no
private assurances about how Supreme Court nominee Harriet
Miers would rule on Roe v. Wade -- or any other case
likely to come before the court.
Dobson said he was speaking out because he has been "a
topic of conversation from the nation's Capitol to the
tiniest burg and farming community" since he mentioned a
confidential phone call he had with White House Deputy
Chief of Staff Karl Rove.
Last week, he said the call had been private -- and he was
not at liberty to reveal details about it. But today he
said it was time to respond to -- as he put it -- "members
of the Judiciary Committee who are running from one talk
show to another, threatening to subpoena me to find out
what occurred."
"What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I
couldn't reveal?" Dobson asked rhetorically. "Well, it's
what we all know now -- that Harriet Miers is an
evangelical Christian, that she is from a very
conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,
that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the
issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not
be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of
the Texas Right to Life."
[...]
Will members of the Senate Judiciary Committee haul Dobson
to Capitol Hill to testify?
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's ranking
Democrat, acknowledged that committee staff members were
investigating the possibility. He also repeated his
allegation that Rove may have somehow given "secret
assurances" to Dobson how Miers might vote on issues.
"We don't confirm justices of the Supreme Court on a wink
and a nod," Leahy said today, "and a litmus test is no
less a litmus test by using whispers and signals."
[...]
Today's broadcast will serve as Dobson's answer to the
committee unless he is summoned to appear -- a previously
announced second broadcast on the topic is not in the
offing.
TAKE ACTION: To let the members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee know how you feel, please see the CitizenLink
Action Center.
Long URL elided
----- 8 -----
DOLL MAKER SUPPORTS PRO-ABORTION, PRO-GAY GROUP
Fundraiser supports Girls, Inc.
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 12, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038229.cfm
American Girl, known for its popular line of dolls, books
and toys aimed at preteens, is calling for support of
Girls, Inc., a group that promotes sexuality,
homosexuality and abortion.
The company has been selling an "I Can" bracelet with the
promise that 70 percent of the proceeds would go to the
controversial group.
[...]
"Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially
burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls
Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a
constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade," the Web site reads. "To make
responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and
parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive,
truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe,
effective methods of contraception and protection from
disease; and referral to comprehensive information,
counseling, clinical and other services that support their
responsible decisions."
The site also recommends "sexual identity" resources for
girls -- publications that encourage them to be accepting
of homosexuality for others and for themselves. A resource
list includes "Free Your Mind: The Book for Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Youth and Their Allies," and "Is it a Choice?
Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions
About Gay and Lesbian People."
TAKE ACTION: Let American Girl President Ellen Brothers
know that you oppose her company's support of pro-gay,
pro-abortion Girls, Inc. You may reach her through the
CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/alert/?alertid=8108111&type=CU
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Government Considers Vaccinating Students Against HPV
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 12, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Some question the ethics of universal inoculation
against a sexually transmitted disease.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are
considering the recommendation of a human papillomavirus
(HPV) vaccination for every 12 year old, a proposal that
some are applauding for its medical benefit, but that
others are criticizing on ethical grounds.
If the CDC accepts the recommendation, it could lead to
states requiring boys and girls to be vaccinated for the
sexually transmitted disease before they enter middle
school.
Studies have indicated that 4-out-of-5 sexually active
teen girls are infected with the virus.
More than 10,000 American women each year are diagnosed
with cancer or precancerous cells caused by HPV, and 3,700
of them will die. Eighty times that number will die
worldwide. A vaccine could prevent nearly all those deaths
according to Dr. Reginald Finger, an immunologist.
"The vaccine would have the potential of preventing
against infection acquired in adulthood in marriage, or in
a sexual assault or from any sexual risk throughout the
lifespan," he said. "Our intent is to do all we can to
benefit health, so long as you don't cross an ethical or
bioethical barrier in doing so."
But Dr. Hal Wallis, an obstetrician / gynecologist and
chairman of the Physicians Consortium, argued that giving
this vaccine to every child crosses that barrier.
"We're going to be sending a message to a lot of kids that
you just take this shot and you can be as sexually
promiscuous as you want and it's not going to be a
problem," he said. "That's just not true."
Wallis told Family News in Focus the vaccine does hold
wonderful promise for those who need it.
"I do think that we need to be selectively offering this
to patients who are at high risk for HPV infections," he
said, "but I'm not sure that we are at a point where we
can justify universal applications."
----- 10 -----
Lesbian Sues Doctors for Not Helping Her Get Pregnant
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 12, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A California appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in the
case of a woman who sued two doctors after they refused to
participate in her artificial insemination.
Associate Justice Gilbert Nares was not optimistic that it
could be resolved in his court and predicted it would
likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Guadalupe Benitez claims the doctors discriminated against
her because she is a lesbian, but they say it was because
she was unmarried, the North County Times reported.
She filed a claim against North Coast Women's Care group
in 2001 after Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Douglas Fenton
declined to inseminate her and referred her to other
doctors. They argued they were exercising religious
liberty when they declined such services to an unmarried
woman.
A lower court ruled that using a religious liberty was not
allowed as a defense in the case.
Jennifer Pizer, attorney for Benitez, told said she
believes that the case involves more than the doctor's
opinion about her client's marital status.
"This case is about sexual orientation discrimination,"
Pizer said.
Carlo Coppo, attorney for the two doctors, said Benitez's
sexual orientation was not the basis for the doctors'
decision.
"Our clients made the decision not to perform an
(intrauterine insemination)," he said, "because Ms.
Benitez is an unmarried woman."
----- 11 -----
FRIST STUMPS FOR EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH
The Senate majority leader explains his support of the destructive science to pro-lifers.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 11, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038206.cfm
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., took his case for support of
embryonic stem-cell research to the pro-life Christian
community over the weekend.
The Senate majority leader spoke to 300 medical
missionaries at Billy Graham's conference center, The
Cove, just outside Asheville, N.C. Afterward, he told
CitizenLink that not only is he a pro-life Christian
physician and lawmaker -- he considers his support of
embryonic stem-cell research to be pro-life, as well.
"My principles have not changed since I first went to the
U.S. Senate," Frist said. "I oppose human cloning. We need
a strong ethical framework around embryonic stem-cell
research."
Embryonic stem-cell research involves extracting
stem-cells from human embryos -- a process that always
destroys the embryos. Frist claims his position on stem
cells is the same as the one President Bush first
articulated in 2001.
[...]
No matter how strongly Frist may claim his position is
pro-life, Earll said the pro-life community does not agree
that his support for the destruction of discarded embryos
is, in any sense, a pro-life position.
TAKE ACTION: Urge Sen. Frist to reconsider his position on
embryonic stem-cell research. You can contact him through
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=540&lvl=C&chamber=S
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Ex-Gay Groups Counter Coming Out Day
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
October 11, 2005
SUMMARY: Experts say those identifying with homosexuality
should know about other options.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038199.cfm
Today is National Coming Out Day, and gay and lesbian
groups are encouraging homosexuals to speak out, but
ex-gay groups are countering the event with information
for those who want to change.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign,
which is sponsoring National Coming Out Day, has said that
every time the news media talk about gay issues, they are
"one step closer to equality."
Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at
Grove City College in Pennsylvania, said that underscores
how the event is a well-calculated media push.
"Their mission with National Coming Out Day is to extend
that to the widest possible audience," he said.
Throckmorton has produced a video called "I Do Exist"
about the ex-gay movement.
"Instead of coming out as homosexual," he said, "there is
an alternative that people can affirm their religious
beliefs and can even see change in their sexual feelings."
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Gay Rights Group Drops Civil Unions Case
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Basic Rights Oregon, a gay-advocacy group, has dropped its
push for civil unions in Oregon after determining it would
have lost.
When Oregon handily passed its marriage amendment last
November, gays began working on a ballot initiative to
legalize civil unions.
Tim Nashif, director of the Oregon Family Council, said
his state was not receptive to the idea.
"Basic Rights Oregon decided that it was not in their best
interest to do a ballot measure promoting civil unions,"
he said. "They felt like the opposition would come against
them and if they got beat this time, that would be then
end for them."
Basic Rights Oregon announced it would instead try to
elect more gay-friendly lawmakers and turn public opinion
in its favor.
----- 14 -----
Wiccan Priestess Loses at High Court
Focus on the Family
NEWSBRIEFS
October 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to consider a Wiccan
priestess's claim that she was discriminated against when
Virginia officials denied her the opportunity to pray
before a government meeting.
Cynthia Simpson, a member of the Broom Riders Association,
won her original federal lawsuit against officials in
Chesterfield County, Va., arguing that she wasn't given
the same opportunity as clergy from more traditional
religions, who were invited to open meetings in prayer.
The verdict was overturned by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals -- a decision that will stand in light of the
Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented
Simpson, claimed her rights were violated because the
county "refuses to issue invitations to Native Americans,
Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, or members of any other
religion."
The county countered that its practice was in line with
the Supreme Court's endorsement of legislative prayer that
doesn't proselytize, advance or disparage a given
religion.
----- 15 -----
Concerned Women for America on-site banner ad
indicates impatience with Harriet Miers nomination
October 13, 2005
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/harrietmiersbanner.gif
[Ed: In case the banner goes away, it says:
<fade in>
17 Questions Asked of Supreme Court Nominee Harriet E. Miers
<fade>
Day 03 Questioned answered: 0
<repeat>
]
----- 16 -----
CWA Issues Stern Memo on Harriet Miers Nomination
By Culture of Life Foundation
MichNews.com
Oct 13, 2005
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9866.shtml
One of the most important Christian conservative grass roots organizations in America has issued a memo that is a shot across the bow of the nomination of Harriet Miers for the US Supreme Court. The memo, released on Monday by Concerned Women for America (CWA), falls just short of outright opposition to the Miers nomination. Though it withholds final judgment, it strongly scolds the White House for what CWA sees as a weak nomination followed by insulting talking points in her support.
The memo was written by CWA chief counsel, Jan LaRue, and says "CWA cannot endorse the nomination but we remain open to persuasion" even though, the memo says, "the media are brimming over with coverage about Miss Miers' background and qualifications…"
The memo strongly goes after the talking points used by the White House and it supporters in the Miers fight. Specifically, CWA takes umbrage at the charge leveled as recently as yesterday morning by First Lady Laura Bush that opposition to Miers stems from "sexism." The CWA memo rejects "the notion that a nominee should be selected or rejected on the basis of sex, race, or ethnicity. Neither equal justice under the law nor one's judicial philosophy is dependent upon such factors."
The charge generally coupled with "sexism" is that opponents are "elitists" who insist only on Ivy Leaguers for the high court. CWA, whose populist credentials are well grounded in their 600,000 members, points out that they have supported many judicial nominees from outside elite schools.
CWA takes special offense at the talking points now being used by White House surrogates that she should be trusted because she is an Evangelical Christian. This point has been made by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Pat Robertson. The CWA memo scaldingly says, "We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Defining Marriage in the Lone Star State
by: Mr. Greg Di Napoli
Familiy Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV05J02
On November 8, 2005, the Texas electorate will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 2, an amendment to their constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. However this amendment has the potential to be voted down because of pressure by homosexual rights activists and a lack of awareness among Texas constituents. In August of this year the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force launched a campaign to air ads on CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in the Houston area. The ads are in opposition to Proposition 2. Because this is an off election year, voter turnout will most likely be low, meaning that the outcome rests on approximately three and a half percent of Texas voters. Meanwhile, homosexual rights activists are pouring all of their time, money, and energy into defeating Proposition 2 in hopes that they can begin to sway public opinion on homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."
It is crucial that the voters approve Proposition 2 because it would take the issue out of the hands of activist judges, allowing the people to decide once and for all, on the definition of marriage. In other states, judges are striking down the traditional definition of marriage and opening the door for civil unions and the legalization of same-sex "marriages." Marriage between a man and a woman, as it is traditionally defined, is the only relationship that unites the sexes, produces life, and can provide the best possible home for children, one with both a mother and a father.
Therefore, conservatives in Texas must work hard to encourage voters to get to the polls. The people who reside in the Lone Star State have the chance to show the rest of the nation that they are life affirming and have a strong desire to protect the sanctity of marriage.
----- 18 -----
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage"
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
A Man and His Horse
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to Marriage
The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"
Issue No.: 256
by: Peter Sprigg
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.
The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.
The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.
Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.
[...]
Don't some scholars claim that some cultures have recognized same-sex unions?
A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have asserted this. They support this claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non-conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong heterosexual marriage, which is what today's pro-homosexual activists are demanding.
Even if "marriage" itself is uniquely heterosexual, doesn't fairness require that the legal and financial benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples--perhaps through "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships?"
No. The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society--including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).
Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society. The fact that AIDS is at least ten times more common among men who have sex with men than among the general population is but one example.
[...]
Do most same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities of marriage?
There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front-page article in the New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 = months after Ontario's highest court legalized "marriage" for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.
[...]
What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?
Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:
· Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men
· Hepatitis A, B, and C
· Gonorrhea
· Syphilis
· "Gay Bowel Syndrome," a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis
· HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, "life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.")
Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:
· Bacterial vaginosis
· Hepatitis C
· HIV risk behaviors
· Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight
[...]
Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?
Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:
· Alcohol abuse
· Drug abuse
· Nicotine dependence
· Depression
· Suicide
[...]
Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?
Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:
· Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and
· Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet
· Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.
These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).
This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.
But haven't studies shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no different from other children?
No. This claim is often put forward, even by professional organizations. The truth is that most research on "homosexual parents" thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems. However, even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the "no differences" claim to be false.
Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:
· Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
· Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
· Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."
· Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.
A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Former gay says Jesus as 'motivating factor'
Baptist advocates conversion to heterosexuality
by Bradley Wooten
News Editor
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Post
http://www.uwmpost.com/article/c58b6a0406d7cba80106e1c7930c0002
A Baptist preacher told homosexuals at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee that they can walk away from their unwanted same-sex attractions last Tuesday.
Of the more than 100 people in attendance, at least 30 walked out and many more did not return following a five-minute recess an hour and a half into the speech.
Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual, presented “The Christian Response to Homosexuality” after the newly formed Apologetics Association asked him to come speak.
The AA’s purpose and goal is to promote the literal word of the Bible as logical and reasonable, said Matt Boeke, AA vice president.
Taking the soapbox
Wilkins began by affirming that homosexuality is not a choice.
“Understand and believe when others say it is not a choice,” he said.
He said that when he was 12 or 13 he began experiencing “unwanted same-sex attractions.” At 22, he said he began to be “obedient to what he knew the Bible was teaching despite not knowing how to be heterosexual.”
“The thought of heterosexuality was physically nauseating to me,” Wilkins said.
[...]
‘Gay theology’
If homosexuals are unable to make the conversion to heterosexuality, they should be celibate and seek a relationship with Jesus, Wilkins said.
“The only legitimate and the best motive (in becoming a former homosexual) is one’s relationship with Jesus Christ,” Wilkins said.
Wilkins said another argument used to defend homosexuality is “gay theology.”
“Gay theology is a reinterpretation of scripture to say what scripture does not really say,” he said. The reinterpretation is a search for loopholes to justify actions and sin.
“You can choose to abstain from … homosexual activity,” Wilkins said. “Rest assure with time and obedience the attraction for (the same sex) will diminish and the attraction for (the opposite sex) will increase.”
[more at URL]
----- 21 -----
Ungrateful Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Threaten Schwarzenegger with ‘Payback’
Traditional Values Coalition
Despite His Signing Into Law Four of their Sponsored Bills.
Latest Tantrum Is Proof Homosexual Radicals Will ‘Scorch and Burn’.
For Immediate Release
October 12, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300—office
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2456
Anaheim, California —“The extreme homosexual activists in this state just don’t know when to say ‘thank you’ and sincerely mean it,” said TVC Chairman & Founder Rev. Louis Sheldon. “Their actions and threat proves they believe in nothing more than a scorch and burn policy when it comes to forcing their agenda on the people of California.”
Yesterday, TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez discovered that Equality California, the main sponsors of the recently vetoed same-sex marriage bill and four other pro-homosexual pieces of legislation, issued a statement sent to their supporters aimed at Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying “It’s Payback Time!” The organization’s website also features the political threat.
The group further stated, “On Nov. 8, Veto Arnold! He Said No to Us, Now Say No to Him,” in an obvious effort to rile up their supporters to retaliate for Schwarzenegger’s veto of AB 849, the same-sex marriage bill, on September 29 th and vote against his backed initiatives on the November 8 th ballot. But their statement failed to disclose that Schwarzenegger signed into law the majority of their legislative package of bills. Schwarzenegger even issued a proclamation on behalf “of all Californians” for so-called Pride celebrations in Palm Springs this November.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Mainstream Media Promotes Gender Identity Confusion… Again!
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2457
October 13, 2005 – Last week, we reported on how the mainstream media (MSM) is promoting the normalization of cross-dressing, transsexualism, and associated Gender Identity Disorders (GID).
This week, the Wisconsin State Journal has joined in the MSM chorus to normalize a mental illness. “Floating between genders” is written by Paula Dohnal who is not identified as the managing editor of the Journal of Sex Research for the pro-homosexual Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
Dohnal pulls materials from the Associated Press story published last week and adds stories of Wisconsin college students who think they are the opposite sex or don’t identify with male or female. Dohnal tells the story of Dite Bray, a woman who dresses in men’s clothing and adds fake facial hair to her face when she’s downtown. Bray is a volunteer at OutReach, a “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender resource center” in Madison. According to Bray, “I don’t identify as a man, either, in any way. I’m in that sort of fluid zone where who I am is not really represented by society.”
The theme of Dohnal’s article is that being male or female isn’t clear cut as more young people are denying they’re either one. The belief that a person isn’t either male or female is a political or philosophical statement—not one based upon biology or genetics. The fact is that maleness and femaleness are in the DNA. There are clear genetic differences between males and females and a person who thinks he is the opposite sex suffers from a mental illness.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 02:08 pm (UTC)Is he going to have them assassinated? :D
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 06:24 pm (UTC)Ignoring, of course, all the other incurable STDs which make sexual promiscuity a problem in itself. It's safe to say the fundamentalist movement want all sexually promiscuous people to die, and this might not even be the most open they are about it... yes, really.
And I'm getting scared about Miers. It seems like she really is another radical fundamentalist.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 11:38 pm (UTC)My suspicious nature - and my experience of course - say the latter. But I'm still waiting to see.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-15 09:16 am (UTC)