Where the Slippery Slope Starts

Stanley Kurtz has written a lot on same-sex marriage. His big thing lately is the slippery slope theory: Once homosexual marriages are validated, there's no stopping group marriages, and this will be very destabilizing for society. We agree.

But we differ with Kurtz on where the slippery slope begins. We believe it starts with a legal and social acceptance of homosexuality. Once the legal and social barriers have been removed (i.e., sodomy laws are overturned, gay hookup billboards are allowed on city streets, and family supermarkets carry homosexual newspapers), there's no stopping the radicals from claiming their demands are all about "equal rights". If there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior per se, they can portray any opposition to anything they want as a discriminatory denial of rights.

Kurtz, on the other hand, believes we must accept homosexual behavior and overturn legal impediments to it (sodomy laws). What he doesn't understand is that he's undercutting his own arguments for preserving
marriage as "one man plus one woman."

What he calls "the 'ick' factor" -- undefined, but apparently the natural gut recognition to the unnaturalness of homosexual behavior -- should not be buried, and those who are brave enough to admit it should not be pushed to the sidelines in this debate. MassResistance believes "the 'ick' factor" comes not only from nature, but from our conscience. We think it a positive thing -- and denying it puts you on the slippery slope.

Kurtz's lengthy piece in The Weekly Standard, "Here Come the Brides: Plural marriage is waiting in the wings" about the recent trio (hetero man + two bisexual women) "married" in Holland, focused on his horror at the bisexuality inherent in polyamorous groupings. It seems "the 'ick' factor" is still operative for Kurtz regarding bisexuality!

(Kurtz points out that in the U.S., the Unitarians are ready to take the lead on group "marriage" -- as they did with same-sex "marriage" -- but have pulled back for fear of damaging the still precarious same-sex "marriage" movement. MassResistance noted back in June the Unitarian role in this social revolution.)

More recently in National Review Online, Kurtz responded to a liberal critic, who failed to see one of his main points about the importance of opposite-sex parents for children. Then Kurtz reiterated his opposition to sodomy laws! He wants to be sure we all understand that he does not oppose homosexual "marriage" on the basis of "the 'ick' factor." (Neither does he have any interest in addressing the health risks of homosexual sex, and its impact on public health.)

Kurtz wrote: "Anderson claims my use of the slippery-slope argument shows desperation. In effect, says Anderson, resort to the slippery slope proves that my main argument against gay marriage, "the 'ick' factor," is losing ground with the American people. Trouble is, I do not oppose same-sex marriage based on "the 'ick' factor." I've always called for tolerance of homosexuality, going back to "The Ashcroft-Logger Alliance" in 2001, where I expressed opposition to sodomy laws.

"I've used the slippery-slope argument from the beginning, as have other opponents of same-sex marriage. The only difference is that the slippery-slope argument is becoming more obviously true with every passing year. If anyone is prejudiced here, it's Anderson, who relies on mistaken assumptions about opponents of same-sex marriage.

"Arguably the central claim of same-sex-marriage opponents [is] that gay marriage separates marriage from parenthood, with deleterious consequences for marriage as an institution."

"[S]ame-sex marriage is winning through equal-protection claims. Most of those who favor same-sex marriage give little thought to marriage as an institution and much thought to the analogy from civil rights. Given that fundamental legal-political-cultural fact, there is every reason to fear that the grounds on which we are granting same-sex marriage will someday force us to grant recognition to multiple-partner marriage."

So, Kurtz believes in toleration for homosexuals in general, but is concerned that their right to "marry" is socially destabilizing -- and will lead to group "marriages."

This is puzzling. Can't Kurtz see that a slippery-slope argument applied earlier in the game? Once you're publicly tolerant of homosexuality, how do you deny it's a legitimate basis for a "marriage" or "family"? If you outlaw "the 'ick' factor", or refuse to address the health risks of homosexuality (and transsexuality), your only recourse is to prove something that lies in the future (so is still unprovable): the socially destabilizing effect of sanctioned homosexual or polyamorous "marriages" and "parenting."

Once you say that the unnatural is natural and acceptable in sexual relations, how can you insist that there's a natural family order ("a child needs both a mother and a father") that must be adhered to? Why can't we be accepting of all family structures as valid, including three or more parents? Once you accept homosexual sexuality, why not accept bisexual sexuality? Why is he so upset at the idea of bisexuality, while tolerant of homosexuality?

As the grand social experiment leads into weirder and weirder places, Kurtz has too keep adjusting his outrage trigger. He accepts homosexuality, but not bisexuality. And bad as homosexual "marriage" is, he seems to think group "marriages" are even worse! What he doesn't seem to grasp is that the GLBTQIP activists are winning through incrementalism. After a few years of in-your-face outrageous demands, people like Kurtz are softened up, and ready to move on to oppose the next outrage. Meanwhile, the first outrageous demands have been achieved.

"More important, the De Bruijn [recently in Holland] wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time."

Kurtz is taking a purely sociological perspective, trying hard to keep his scholarly focus just on family structure, while being open to an anything-goes sexuality...until "bisexuality" pops up and leads into polyamory! But he got on the slippery slope the minute he argued for accepting homosexual sex, while opposing only homosexual "marriage."

We believe "the 'ick' factor" is still powerful in America. It's the only thing that will halt this social and moral decline. Sadly, the public has been propagandized for so long about being open-minded and accepting, and seeing homosexual "marriage" as an "equal rights" issue, they don't want to appear "backward". So they've saved their gut opposition for the ballot box ... when they're allowed to vote.

Slippery Slope Confirmed by Time Magazine

The slippery slope of legalized depravity is real and now being confirmed, even by Time Magazine. The effect of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas 2003 ruling is far-reaching, just as Senator Santorum and Justice Scalia warned at the time. Jeff Jacoby wrote about it in last Sunday's Globe. Now WorldNetDaily has posted an article.

So look again at our posting yesterday: the list of some of the sick behaviors which will soon be protected by laws barring discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression." Take the warning seriously. This is what's coming our way, unless Massachusetts Bill H1722 is stopped, and the phrase "sexual orientation" is removed from our statutes.

The liberal elite and mainstream media laugh at you and call you names to attempt to silence your warnings. Then, after their filthy plan is in place, a few stories may trickle out from the mainstream media confirming our warnings were right after all. But by then it may be too late to reverse course. Mission accomplished by the forces of depravity.

Time Magazine, "Should Incest Be Legal?" (4-5-07):
When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench. It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest....

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, "Lawful incest may be on its way" (4-2-07):
...Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.

WorldNetDaily: "Court ruling does support incest, polygamy; Time admits critics of 'gay' rights decision were right" (4-8-07):
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans" the lives of homosexuals. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.
At the time of the 2003 decision, Time, in its "A Yea for Gays," said, "Lawrence v. Texas turns an issue that states have historically decided for themselves into a basic constitutional tenet."
"The decision was not, strictly speaking, a 'liberal' one," the magazine said then, noting, "Thus the activists' notion that gay marriage is an inevitable outcome of the ruling may be little more than wishful thinking."
The magazine also at that time questioned whether there even was a "culture war" that would involve moral issues. "It is clear … that the court has taken sides in the culture war,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last week in his abrasive dissent from the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize homosexuality. Excuse me, but what culture War?" the magazine wrote.
"Most Americans aren't extremists, and they are not at war. The lovely paradox of 21st century America is that we seem to be increasingly united by the celebration of our differences. That is what the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decisions on homosexuality and affirmative action last week," the magazine wrote then.

John Haskins, Part V: We've Surrendered the Language

[See earlier entries in John Haskins' series: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.]

Now that we've separated government from law (understanding that court rulings cannot outweigh real laws), and we've separated law from constitutions, and constitutions from language, and language from logic, we would be wasting our time unless we backtrack and re-fight the battles we've surrendered that made it possible for judges to rule us.

At this juncture nuanced arguments about whether a right to homosexual "marriage" should exist are beside the point of the coup d'etat that is under way on Beacon Hill. We have to impeach judges and other officials when they deserve that fate, or nothing that we argue or that is in our constitution will have any weight.

Conservatives have already accepted so much of the twisted political language and false legal and constitutional doctrine of the anti-constitutional left that every new concession of yet another aspect of constitutionally-constrained government is a step closer to final surrender on whatever remains of the moral and social order, and of the right to rule ourselves.

Language and terminology are absolutely vital, since words convey ideas. We constantly use the misnomers and subversive phrases of our opponents, so we convey their ideas -- not ours -- even when we think we are resisting them.

This is one of the biggest reasons we are losing the Culture War, the war to preserve some kind of humane and sensible ideal of the family and society that children are entitled to grow up in. The other sides lies pathologically -- never one lie at a time, but in laminated multi-tiered condominium lies. Big lies and little lies together. And "conservatives" accept the big, earth-shaking lies that will haunt us in every battle we will ever face to preserve our children's right to govern themselves in a society worth preserving. But "conservatives" debate the little lies that are related to the details of conditions after surrender. We have surrendered our Constitution. Everything from here on out is up for grabs -- with no firm boundaries.

A blogger responded in agreement with these points elsewhere:
"The purpose of this doublespeak campaign is the corruption of the language to the extent that concepts become so vague and mushy that the voice struggles to find the words to give expression to essential concepts such as equality, liberty, rights, rule of law, and good governance. Perfectly useful words are gutted and their meaning replaced. This is emblematic of the same sex marriage campaign. It is not so much a slippery slope as a series of dominos."

And if we do not identify the the thing within ourselves that answers with gentle words of moderation the steady supply of costly losses to the American family and the American child, the appropriate metaphor will be: "a line of dominos on a slippery slope."

Read Original Intent by David Barton to get a sense of how far the mentality and language of gradual surrender, which pervades conservative journalism, public policy, law and constitutional matters, has taken us outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

Maine's Slippery Slope

2005: The year Maine was lost. Soon many of its beautiful cities and towns will be like Provincetown, so lost to depravity you dare not go there.

We've noted the tragedy of the Nov. 8 vote in Maine, which gave the state over to the most radical queer/transgender "rights" bill in the nation. Recently, the Christian Civic League of Maine has posted other very disturbing news stories. Their slippery slope is looking very steep right now.

Just in the past few weeks, semi-nude models were prancing in store windows in Augusta, modeling lingerie. The local press was ga-ga at how "New York" this was, but there was not a word of alarm over where this Maine's public life is trending. Also, a pro-family activist was verbally pummeled -- just for advocating a boycott of a supermarket chain promoting the homosexual agenda. Check out the CCL reports on Nov. 30 and Dec. 5:

Within this year of transformation was a week of shame, a week in which even the most jaded, apathetic citizens were forced to acknowledge that a moral calamity has overtaken Maine.

On Saturday, the Kennebec Journal reported that semi-nude lingerie models were peddling their wares in the window of a store in downtown Augusta. On Monday, the story was picked up by the national news media, and on Tuesday the story had traveled as far as Europe and Australia. The reaction of our state and local lawmakers was a collective snicker, as if nothing bad could ever result from the goings-on at a store named "Spellbound".

On Friday, the Kennebec Journal ran an editorial which praised the store in the highest possible terms. The editorial said that the behavior of the store was "sassy" and "so New York" and that it "spiced up a bit of downtown Augusta that needed improving." Emboldened by the press, the owner of the store promised to add male models; and by Friday, scantily-clad young women were dancing in the store window.

All the while, the media, the Governor's Office, and state and local legislators said nothing about the importance of public morality. Their silence proclaimed to the entire state that lewd and lascivious behavior is now acceptable in public.

Italy's Red Sodomy Brigade Issues Death Threats on Bishop

How long until we see this here? Anyone who has the common sense, faith, and courage to speak out against the rampant perversions taking hold in this country is already subject to public ridicule, intimidation, criminal harassment, and even house break-ins. Next come the death threats? It's hard to believe this is happening to a leader of the Catholic Church in Italy. WorldNetDaily reports:

Bodyguards, not altar boys, flank pro-marriage cleric: Archbishop receives death threats, bullet in mail from 'Red Brigade' for opposing same-sex unions

Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco no longer celebrates Mass in the cathedral of Genoa, Italy, with assistance from altar boys or deacons – not since the death threats began after he spoke out against government plans to legalize same-sex unions. Bagnasco, recently appointed head of Italy's Conference of Bishops, stirred controversy last month when the group issued a statement directed at Catholic lawmakers, reminding them of their moral obligation to oppose the move toward mainstreaming homosexuality.

In the statement, Bagnasco made a "slippery-slope" case for what could go wrong in Italian society if the Church's moral position was not upheld. "Why say ‘No’ to forms of legally recognized cohabitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘No’ to incest? Why say ‘No’ to the pedophile party in Holland?” he asked.

Democrat Presidential Candidates Without Moral Grounding

They've proven it by their comments on teaching homosexual coupling to 2nd-graders. The top Democrat candidates for President all think that anal intercourse is a valid basis for "marriage" and if you disagree, you're fearful and hateful. Though this story is a few weeks old (the debate took place on Sept. 27), it shouldn't be overlooked.

The appropriateness of reading the story book King & King to 2nd-graders (as done in a Lexington, Mass. school, at the heart of the Parker lawsuit) was the subject of a question to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. None of them objected to the youngest minds absorbing the idea that sodomy was a valid foundation for "marriage". John Edwards' response may be the most amazing. He basically said it's not his business to instruct his children regarding right and wrong!!!

Nothing makes more clear than these responses how dangerous it is to accept "civil unions" -- the slippery slope -- because once you go there, how do you say NO to a fairy tale about two princes kissing and marrying? All three of these Dem candidates say they're for "civil unions" but against homosexual "marriage" -- yet they all accept the use of the "fairy tale" King and King!

Allison King [NECN]: The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts [sic - no it's NOT legal] but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum? I'm going to start with Senator Edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely. What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives. And I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who's 9, and Jack, who's 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage. And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.
So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in – did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all ...

KING: Well, that's the point. It is second grade.

EDWARDS: ... those possibilities, because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, has spoken her own mind on this issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I feel [sic; no thought, just feeling] very similar to John.... One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different ... And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people's fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I really respect what both John and Barack said.... With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion, I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make. [Is she saying homosexuality is a choice?!] ... So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. And I hope that – tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill, and I'm sure that those of us in the Senate will be there to vote for it. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.

The full transcript of the debate on King and King is available here.

New Form of Child Abuse: Parents Support Toddler "Coming Out" as Transgender

Slippery slope alert in the heartland: A Missouri couple are being applauded by PROMO, the GLBT advocacy group in Missouri, for supporting their very young child "coming out" as transgender -- starting at the age of two-and-a-half! This is unreal. Also involved are the Safe Schools Coalition of Missouri and "Growing American Youth" of Missouri.

PROMO is "Missouri's statewide organization advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality through legislative action, electoral politics, grassroots organizing, and community education." They sent this out a few days ago in recognition of National Coming Out Day:

I was lucky enough to talk to a mom from St. Charles who comes out every day as a mother of a transgender child. The first time I heard her story as she came out to me as an openly transgender family, I was choked up over the phone because I was so proud knowing there are families like hers who step up, come out, and stand strong together every day. I wanted to share her family's story with you to celebrate all of the differences and similarities in each of our coming out stories. I hope this mom's story inspires you to come out for yourself and to come out for those around you.

Hello,



We are the parents of a seven-year-old transgender son. He came out to us when he was just two years and eight months old. As young as our child was, he has always made it clear that he wanted people to "know" who he was and seldom missed an opportunity to let a family member or close friend know that he was actually a boy -- not a girl. As he grew, so did his insistence that he was a boy. I so admired his strength and courage.



As his parents, and once we understood that "he knows who he is," we came to the conclusion early that forcing him to live as something he is not would be heartless and cruel. God does not make mistakes. And God gave us this beautiful and courageous child who I grow prouder of every single day.



Our son expressed a deep desire that we begin letting everyone know that he was actually a boy. So earlier this year, we sat down with immediate family members to let them know we would be allowing our child to transition. We sent a heartfelt letter to extended family members. We told close friends. We told his dentist and pediatrician. We told co-workers. We told neighbors. We told our pastor and church leaders. We told the staff at our son's summer camp. We changed schools, and at our son's insistence, we told the administrators we wanted to come into the school as an openly transgender family. The school sent a letter to the homes of all first grade students explaining what it means to be transgender.



We have had an incredible outpouring a love from many, and we have suffered the worst pain imaginable -- watching our child be rejected. But we follow our child's lead and march forward. He says, "It's always better to tell the truth, Mom. Just tell the truth."



Our hope is that by coming out, we will touch lives with our story in a way that brings meaning and understanding. Our prayer will continue to be that our son can find his place in this world -- openly and without ever feeling he needs to hide.



We thank God every single day for sending us this precious and special child. We feel blessed and grateful to have him in our lives.



Our best,



Brian and Kim




Today, on National Coming Out Day, I challenge you to "come out" to 5 new people -- people with whom you have never talked about it. Some of you might say, "Well, everyone knows." I say, "Come out to a stranger, and tell them why it's important that they know."



On Saturday, November 20th, the Safe Schools Coalition of Missouri is hosting the 2010 Youth Empowerment Summit at the University of Missouri campus in Columbia, Missouri. I encourage youth and adults to come and learn how to change lives from being bullied to being an empowered leader and standing up to bullying in schools and communities.



If you cannot attend the summit in November but still want to help and be a part of changing and empowering a young person's life here in Missouri, for just $25, one young person's travel, food, and summit cost will be taken care of. 

Thank you for all that you do to change the lives of our young people.



In solidarity,

Morgan Keenan


Missouri Safe Schools Organizer

PROMO Fund

Somerville, MA -- 1st in US to give polygamists legal non-discrimination protections

In April 2004, Article 8 Alliance held a demonstration on the State House steps denouncing the Supreme Judicial Court's anti-constitutional Goodridge gay marriage ruling (Nov. 2003) and calling for removal of the four rogue justices. One of our protesters held a sign reading "Polygamy Is Next"

Protester on left holds sign: Polygamy Is Next  [Amy Contrada photo]

Our prediction was correct. It's just taking a few decades to get there. We will probably see a case before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court soon and it will rule, once again, that LOVE IS LOVE and there's no reason to limit marriage to only two people.

Since I no longer live in Massachusetts, I don't keep track of this sort of insanity. A Boston area friend alerted me to the latest slide down the pervy slope in Somerville. From the local rag, Patch: 

Somerville Passes Polyamorous Non-Discrimination Ordinances The historic move makes Somerville the first city in the United States to extend explicit legal protections to polyamorous families. (March 24, 2023)

Somerville must be so proud! First in the nation! ... except for certain areas out west where this sort of thing is quite open (though illegal).

Not surprisingly, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group at Harvard Law School helped draft the language adopted by the City Council.  (Now you know one thing the + stands for...) One of the City Councilors identifies as "polyamorous". From the report:

Somerville City Council made history Friday with the passing of non-discrimination ordinances to protect polyamorous families and relationships, city officials announced in a news release.

The ordinances make Somerville the first city in the country to extend legal protections to polyamorous and non-nuclear families and relationships.

The ordinances were introduced by City Councilor At-Large Willie Burnely and Councilor JT Scott to prohibit employers, law enforcement, and others from discriminating against someone based on their family or relationship structure.

“As a polyamorous person, I'm grateful to live in a city that embraces rather than punishes people based on their family or relationship structure,” said Councilor Willie Burnley Jr in the news release.

My friend commented: "Previously, Somerville and Cambridge gave benefits to city employees in poly relationships. Somerville used to be nearly all blue collar and not Woke years ago. But it caught the Cambridge disease and is probably sicker than Cambridge now.  And that's saying a LOT. (Cambridge is full of hi-tech companies from which it gets loads of tax revenue, yet believes in socialism.) Other nearby Woke cities: Arlington, Brookline, Newton, Boston ... The disease is spreading."

Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN Pushing “Transgender Bathrooms” in Maine Schools

Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” has played a key role in the nightmare plan to transgenderize restrooms in Maine’s schools. According to the Bangor Daily News, a GLSEN leader in Maine is a player in the push to end biology-based restrooms:

Representatives from several gay and lesbian rights groups participated in a Dec. 15 workshop with the [Maine Human Rights] commission on the guidelines. One of them was Peter Rees of the Downeast Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN] based in Ellsworth. Rees said people who oppose rights for transgender students — such as allowing them to use locker rooms with people who are biologically of the opposite sex — fear something “that just isn’t borne out in reality.”

“What do they think is going to happen?” asked Rees. “That boy who is identifying as a girl is not going to be displaying herself in a girls’ locker room. She’s going to be acting as much like a girl as possible and being very modest.”

“She” – meaning a boy – will be “acting … like a girl … and being very modest.” But wait! We thought we weren’t supposed to stereotype on the basis of gender!?How confusing!

GLSEN has been very influential in Maine. Check out the 2008 report by the “LGBT Youth Commission” to the Maine Governor, where GLSEN is listed as the authoritative source on what needs to be done in the schools.

Maine’s 2005 anti-discrimination law -- covering the essentially undefined revolutionary concepts “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” --has opened the door to the horror of boys using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms (and vice versa), and playing on opposite-sex sports teams, in schools. Worse, we wrote in our recent report:

As MassResistance has consistently warned, this also opens the door for the discussion in schools of transgenderism and so-called "sex-change" operations for children, even as young as elementary school age. Assemblies and events introducing kids to these concepts have already been taking place in some high schools in Massachusetts.

And a GLSEN-Boston board member gave a talk in a third-grade classroom in Newton, Mass. about a student’s father who was transitioning to “become a woman” – without parental notification, of course.

 “Safe Schools Czar” Jennings was one of the masterminds of this insanity being foisted upon young children across the country. He founded GLSEN shortly after his participation in the 1987 gay march on Washington. He apparently also participated in the 1993 gay march on the capitol*, which was the first big event to push “gender identity” non-discrimination alongside “gay and lesbian rights” demands. (See the “Platform of the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation.”) One speaker at that 1993 march was a transsexual (“male-to-female”) attorney who told of the oppression married men face after sex-change operations.

Back to the Maine school bathrooms, WorldNetDaily reported (“Biology-based restrooms to be banned?”):

[GLAD attorney Mary] Bonauto has filed a brief with the [Maine Human Rights] commission that says the commission is acting properly in trying to deal with students' "identity" issues.

 "Practically speaking, making a transgender student with a female gender identity [a boy] use the boys' restroom would be stigmatizing and have a serious, negative, emotional consequence for the student as well. It would be no less stigmatizing for that student to have to use the boys' room than it would be for any non-transgender girl to be singled out and made to use the boys' room," she claims.

Bonauto suggests restroom usage should not be based on biology.

"Applying these rules, it is clear, for example, that an anatomy or biology-based rule for bathroom usage cannot be used to bar transgender students from using a facility consistent with their gender identity," Bonauto said.

… On the issue of sports, Bonauto supports rules that require the schools to open doors based on the students' sense of identity.

The Slippery Slope is real.

See also:

Press release by Christian Civic League of Maine (1-25-10).

GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) document targeting Maine’s school children, “Students' Rights in Maine” (lists GLSEN as resource in PDF).

________

*See Jennings’ Equality Utah speech (Part 3 at 1 min. 10 secs.) where he's showing slides of his life story, and bragging that his Concord Academy gay-straight alliance was at the march.

Continuing Feminization of the U.S. Military: The Repeal of DADT

Sexual tension in the ranks means the end of military discipline.

The U.S. military took its first step on the sexual slippery slope when it admitted women to the military academies in the mid-1970s. Later, women began serving on the frontlines (just one way Bill Clinton ensured the decline of our once proud military and kowtowed to the radical feminists). The denial of reality—that there was no new element of sexual tension acting as a distraction from discipline—began then. 

The incorporation of women at least involved normal sexuality. And if a woman became pregnant, she would be discharged. Still, enormous damage has been done.

Now, with the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly, we will see increased tensions, this time with an unnatural and perverted sexuality endangering discipline—and it will be more pervasive in the daily life of a soldier. Where men and women are at least segregated in their housing, bathrooms, etc., this will not be the case with homosexuals. 

What a betrayal by our new Senator Brown to vote for the repeal of this important element of discipline. But then, he probably doesn’t have a problem showering no matter who is ogling him. 

Mitt Romney Favors Overturning Laws against Sodomy

In January 2002, early in his run for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney told the extremist homosexual publication Bay Windows that he favored overturning laws criminalizing sodomy. (That Romney would even grant an interview to this publication is telling.) Romney's position on sodomy laws, an issue of morality as well as public health, is clearly not conservative.

Romney answered a questionnaire from Bay Windows, so this was not an off-the-cuff answer:

“19 questions for Mitt Romney” January 1, 2002
Bay Windows asked: “What is your position on each of the following issues? … Repeal of sodomy laws -- ”
Romney answered: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.”

Does Romney consider sodomy laws to concern just what goes on in private? Does Romney also believe that the state has no interest in outlawing other “private” sexual behaviors such as prostitution, incest, bigamy, or polygamy -- if they are between “consenting adults”?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that criminalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent the far-reaching impact that ruling would have: “Scalia … averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [previous ruling] Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices…. The Court has not ruled on statutes prohibiting adult incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of sexual intimacy between consenting adults. Lawrence may have created a slippery slope for these laws to eventually fall.” (Wikipedia)

Scalia was right. Just months later, the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts (which said that it was unconstitutional to ban homosexual “marriage”) cited the Lawrence sodomy ruling as precedent.

Not only is decriminalizing sodomy serious as a legal precedent, it also has public health ramifications Romney apparently wishes to ignore. It is established fact that the high-risk behavior of anal intercourse (sodomy) plays a huge role in the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.

In Massachusetts, sodomy is still on the books as a "crime against nature":
Ch 272, Section 34: Crime against nature. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

Connecticut Case Shows: "Civil Unions" On Slippery Slope to "Gay Marriage"

True conservatives, those who understand you can't compromise with evil, have been warning for years of the danger of allowing "civil unions" (and those marriage amendments which do not specifically ban civil unions). Here's all you need for proof that we have been right:

GLAD (Gay & Lesbian & Bisexual & Transsexual Advocates and Defenders), the attorneys who pushed for Vermont civil unions and Massachusetts homosexual "marriage", are now arguing that the earlier passage of civil unions legislation in Connecticut PROVES that homosexual relationships deserve the same level of government sanctioning as heterosexual marriages.

From Bay Windows (11-29-06):
GLAD files marriage suit with CT Supreme Court

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court Nov. 22 in its lawsuit to extend marriage to same-sex couples in that state, Kerrigan and Mock v. Department of Public Health. GLAD’s suit lost at the Superior Court level when Justice Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled that granting couples the legal rights of marriage through civil unions did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. Yet GLAD attorney Ben Klein said GLAD will argue before the Supreme Court that the legislature’s passage of the civil union law makes their case for full marriage equality stronger.

Klein said the basic principle of equal protection under the law is that people who are the same should be given equal treatment. By granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits attached to marriage Klein said the legislature showed that committed same-sex relationships were equivalent to heterosexual marriages.

“[The civil union law makes our case] more compelling because the legislature has already established a policy that gay and lesbian couples are the same with respect to the marriage laws. So there is no justification under the marriage laws for treating them differently,” said Klein.

Kerrigan and Mock was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of eight Connecticut same-sex couples denied marriage licenses. GLAD expects the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the case sometime next spring.

Pimping for Polygamy at Boston Globe

If you read a headline, "Fine new series explores monogamy and faith," would you guess that the series is all about . . . POLYGAMY ?? ! Only when you get to the finer print do you read, "Series about polygamy asks what you say after 'I do,' 'I do,' 'I do'."

(Wow, if this isn't newspeak, we don't know what is! The series "explores monogamy" -- when it's really exploring polygamy? !)

This the Boston Globe's latest exercise in socially destabilizing propaganda: a glowing review of a new HBO TV series on a polygamist family in Utah called "Big Love". One husband, three wives, three homes:

''Big Love," which premieres Sunday at 10, is layered enough to do what HBO's ''The Sopranos" and ''Six Feet Under" have done so well: make atypical heroes knowable and universal. It pulls us into its parallel moral universe, rather than keep us standing outside in judgment.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to stand outside in judgment! Modern American society demands that we suspend all judgment, whether rational or moral. And since the series is "layered", that will cover all our doubts.

Why is the ultra-Left so eager to jump on the polygamy bandwagon? Is it because polygamy is even more revolutionary extremist-Leftist-socially-destabilizing-deconstructionist-anti-Judeo-Christian than homosexual "marriage"? So it makes homo "marriage" look mild by comparison? We're now beyond boundaries. The slippery slope is undeniable.

As we've pointed out, there is a real movement to legitimize polygamy, not just in breakaway sects in Utah, but in the Unitarian Universalist "Church" which also led the way with homosexual "marriage". And we have yet to hear a reasonable legal argument -- which would meet Empress Margaret Marshall's standards -- that there is a "rational" case to be made to limit marriage to only two people. LOVE is all that matters!

Slippery Slope to ... Bestiality?

A really fun play about bestiality has just opened in Boston. What to make of it? Some in the elite culture will argue that the subject of the play -- bestiality -- is just a metaphor for homosexuality, and that the play is really about the nature of human love, and where homosexuality fits in. Blah, blah, blah.

But the problem is, we in Massachusetts are beyond thinking in terms of metaphors about homosexual relationships. We have state-sanctioned sodomitic "marriage". And we have a bill pending in our Massachusetts legislature which would eliminate altogether the crime of bestiality. (See House Bill H819, which among other things would overturn Ch. 272, sec. 34 of Massachusetts law which criminalizes sodomy and bestiality.)

So when we look at this play, we need to think concretely about the impact of its focus on bestiality. Isn't there really something more than "metaphor" going on here, whether the playwright consciously intended it or not?

The deconstruction of Western-Judeo-Christian values has followed this pattern: A dangerous or taboo idea takes hold in the academic and/or arts community, then filters down to the popular culture, and then gains accession by our elected representatives. If it's playing on Broadway, it must be the next with-it thing. Hop on board!

Edward Albee's "The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia" opened on Broadway in 2002, even receiving the Tony Award for Best Play. Now it's at the Lyric Stage in Boston. It's about a family man, a renowned architect, who has a love affair with a goat named Sylvia.

The subtitle of the play is "Notes toward a definition of tragedy." The actress playing the betrayed wife said she was drawn to the role by the epic scale of the story, saying, "It feels universal and cataclysmic," like a Greek play about the downfall of a family.

The Boston Globe reviewer says, "It also feels, to everyone's surprise, extremely funny," and the first scene is highly comic in the style of Noel Coward.

The humor of "The Goat" is apparently a ruse to get people to "go there" and approach the concept of bestiality. After the humorous opening of "The Goat", you get to "the deep dysfunction." But, according to the Globe, audiences are left confused. That's because this is no Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. It's a "postmodern" jumble, intentionally confusing the audience, attempting to detach them from all their commonsense or moral moorings.

Greek tragedy did not juxtapose tragedy and levity. "Oedipus Rex" has no laughing moments, and its tragedy sprang from fate, not a man's choice to do it with a goat. Or take Shakespeare's "King Lear", where the fool's wisecracks are never purely humorous, but are connected to the very dark undercurrent of that story. Human pride and lust for power are at the bottom of Lear, not something as base as sexual lust for an animal.

"Albee asks the audience to buy into something almost inconceivable, [the actress] says: that Martin is not just having sex with a goat, but is genuinely in love with her."

"[I]t's perhaps especially magical when the play is so insistent on testing boundaries, pushing toward the edge of what audiences will accept, asking where passion becomes perversion" [says the reviewer].

Well, Massachusetts residents are beginning to learn that there are no more boundaries. There is no such a thing as perversion. There are only different "sexual orientations." And the "tragic" figure in "The Goat" just happens to have a sexual orientation towards beasts. Who are we to judge?

Canada: Welcoming Polygamy, Abolishing Marriage?

Stanley Kurtz's latest in National Review Online, "Dissolving Marriage" (2-3-06) is a must read. He explains the significance of the recent official studies by the Canadian government on polygamy and polyamory. Who can seriously argue against the "slippery slope" theory, after reading this?

And don't miss the link to Mark Steyn, who explains that multiculturalist arguments (Muslim husbands with multiple wives) will be the vehicle to get this really rolling in Canada.

[Kurtz:] The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what [the legal "scholars" behind the reports] really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.

The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by [the recent] polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years.

One tidbit in the Kurtz piece: The recent riots in France might very well be linked to all those young men being the products of poor, polygamist families, where there's no strong fatherly presence. BBC News reported (11-16-05):

[S]enior officials from President Jacques Chirac's centre-right party have suggested that polygamy is one factor in the riots, arguing children of polygamous families have less of a father figure and are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions.

"Polygamy... prevents people being educated as they should be in an organised society. Tens of people cannot live in a single flat," Bernard Accoyer, leader of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) in the National Assembly lower house of parliament, told French radio. Polygamy is illegal in France but until 1993, it was possible for immigrants to bring more than one wife from their home country to join them.

Is this a good model for Canada to follow?

Gay Tourism in Boston

It was a bit of a secret when Rosie O'Donnell's two-mommies cruise ship docked in Boston two weeks ago (an "RFamily" tour). Now we'll see events like that more often, given the new $100,000 advertising campaign to promote Boston to the worldwide homosexual tourism market.

Our tourism official says that "transgender" tourists will be welcome as well. Does that mean you won't have to go to Provincetown to see men in skirts, fishnets, and high heels?

Homosexual tourism is about sex, but it's also about money. MassResistance addressed this topic several months ago. It underscores that there's little evidence of discrimination against the "gay" community, if they have such high incomes as a group that high-end advertising targets them.

Boston and Cambridge are rolling out the rainbow carpet (Boston Herald, July 20, 2005):

Tourism officials hope to lure more gay and lesbian travelers through a new $100,000 advertising and marketing campaign.

The Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau has teamed with Man Around - a U.K. company billed as the world's largest long-distance gay-tour operator - to market Boston and Cambridge as gay-friendly destinations.

Gay and lesbian travelers are an attractive market for the tourism industry, according to Pat Moscaritolo, the convention bureau's chief.

"Because they have higher income, they have a propensity or ability to travel,'' Moscaritolo said. "They also have an affinity to support destinations and companies that support the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.''

Those who book trips will receive a new eight-page gay and lesbian visitors guide to Boston and Cambridge, along with other promotional material. The guide touts Boston and Cambridge as having a "vibrant, creative and professional openly gay population, with many gays and lesbians active in cultural organizations and city, county and state politics.''

Do advertisements targeting any other segment of the touring population focus on the sexuality of the inhabitants at the destination? Maybe we should compare this to "sex tourism" in places like Thailand. Is this really so different? Granted, Thailand is known specifically for child prostitution. -- But isn't that where this slippery slope will take us? If the "gay" tourists are led by our tourism agency to the best "gay" nightclubs in Boston, how long before some of them take the next step? (Activists are already working to lower the age of sexual consent, and decriminalize prostitution. Then who can object to child prostitution, as long as the kid is over 12?... or 11? or 10?)

Senator Rick Santorum Was Right

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Rights" Talk: Where Does It Lead?

This is SERIOUS. It's the Culture of Death and Deceit we're dealing with here. The techniques employed by that side are very sophisticated. Let's take the very basis of their argument: "It's a RIGHT, and you can't take it away." ... "These our are civil RIGHTS." ... "It's our RIGHT to express ourselves, to love anyone we choose."

Beware! Their "rights talk" is very dangerous. If they succeed in framing their cause as a "RIGHT", your true rights will be stomped out. It will inspire those who think only through their emotions, and worship their bodies, to some very dangerous actions. And we've only just begun down this road.

Take abortion. That "RIGHT" started with labeling a developing human being a "blob of tissue" so it would be easier to say it was "a woman's RIGHT to choose" to murder her baby. This FALSE RIGHT led to violence: 40+ million American babies murdered. If you object, you're called names: extremist, fanatic, fundamentalist, red-stater, strict constructionist.

And now we have the "RIGHT" of homosexual couples to "marry". If you disagree, you're called nasty names: bigot, hater, "homophobe", Nazi, prejudiced, ignorant, stone-age, religious fanatic. Your freedom to dissent on any grounds is being stomped out. How does it look as we start down this slippery slope?

--An elementary school in Lexington giving kindergarten students picture books portraying "gay" and lesbian families as normal and wonderful. Parents are not even notified in advance. If they object: "It's legal now! You can't do anything about it," says the principal.

--Students in Bedford Middle School encouraging its children to cross dress. (Pizza party for the most kids in costume!) And if parents object? Activate the Bedford "No Place for Hate" crowd.

--What if residents in a certain senatorial district meet with their pro-homosexual-marriage senator with concerns over this sort of thing in the public schools? The Diversity Squads from Lexington and Concord are called in to run a "same-sex marriage" discussion at a local church!

--Object to the "Day of Silence"? Hear lies from your school administrators ("It's not part of the curriculum; it's only a student-led event; you're the only parent who's complained") and watch them come after your child.

Soon they'll go to the next level. If you dare to testify at a State House hearing, have your name appear in a news story, or appear on a radio or TV show -- THEY WILL TRY TO SILENCE YOU. Intimidation, threats, harassment, lawsuits. And in the not-too-distant future, you'll be found guilty of HATE SPEECH.

Next comes VIOLENCE. They've killed babies. Who's next?

Sadly, there is no reasoning with these people. There is no possibility of true dialogue. Because they do not recognize any ultimate source of TRUTH or RIGHTS.

Where do we derive our true RIGHTS? The Creator.

Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Massachusetts Constitution:
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ... It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

Women Raping Women

The Springfield Republican reports that two women have been charged with the rape and assault of another woman, in a "sexual encounter that a prosecutor said started out consensual and turned into a rape involving handcuffs and knives."

The details of this sordid encounter remind us that one of the dangers of the lesbian "lifestyle" is a higher incidence of domestic violence than in heterosexual relationships. It also brings to mind just how dangerous the kinky, pansexual world can become, and how quickly people can slide down that slippery slope into dangerous perversions, including the sort of sadism described in the article.

Maybe they had just gone to see the highly touted new movie romanticizing the Marquis de Sade. Or the lie-filled movie on the pervert Kinsey who is largely responsible for leading our society in this sorry direction. (Both movies received high praise in the Boston Globe and major media, of course.)

But if two (or three people) love each other, what business is it of mine what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?