Gay Groups Exploit Teen Suicides for Political Ends

Linda Harvey at MissionAmerica has a great article on the sexual-radical political lobby's exploitation of tragic suicides by confused teens. The damage done by their homosexual indoctrination programs in our schools is immeasurable. (My family has experienced it first-hand.)

Harvey points to Candi Cushman's excellent analysis of the propaganda tool GLSEN uses as justification of its programs in the schools, its "School Climate Survey."

Is 'gay' agenda to blame for teen suicides?

By Linda Harvey

WorldNetDaily, Oct. 6, 2010

Details are sketchy in the recent rash of homosexual-related teen suicides throughout the nation, but already the "gay" lobby is ready to exploit our children one more time....

How do families and school communities cope with such tragedy? As a parent, I cannot even imagine the heartbreak. In trying to prevent such devastating events in the future, emotional manipulation can lead schools and communities to implement wrongheaded, harmful plans of action. That's what is being attempted now. But it's nothing new. It's been the modus operandi of homosexual activism for the past 20 years.

It's time to stop it, now.

Would widespread community embrace of homosexuality and gender-switching prevent some of these suicides? Or is misinformation actually a contributor to the despair embedded in these tragedies?

The homosexual lobby has gone into full demand mode, particularly GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and the Human Rights Campaign. Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan hosted a national summit on bullying with homosexual activists present and featuring former GLSEN president and "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings. There's a renewed press for passage of H.R. 4530, national legislation that goes beyond stronger anti-bullying measures to incorporate mandatory pro-"gay" propaganda. ...

The already troubled youngster is often the one drawn to homosexuality or gender compromise and is extremely vulnerable. For many reasons, the grand experiment is crashing before our eyes. But it's our precious young people, the targets of the double barrels of cruel words as well as cruel sexual manipulation, who are paying the ultimate price.

Read more...

Senate Candidate Martha Coakley OK with Fisting for Teens

Martha Coakley, Democrat U.S. Senate candidate for Kennedy's seat, 

flanked by SEIU thug-ettes. [Photo: SEIU]

Kevin Jennings and his organization GLSEN sponsored the obscene Fistgate Conference in 2000 at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. There, they not only talked with children about fisting, anal beads, sadomasochism, and assorted perversions – they also invited groups to hand out their graphic and even frightening materials to young teens (who, of course, needed to know how a “phallic woman” puts on a condom, and other “safer sex” techniques for post-op transsexuals).

Why were Jennings and his cohorts not prosecuted for "crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order" (MGL Ch. 272 -- which also still includes sodomy as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature")? Simply put, because those very concepts are now dead in Massachusetts. How about the rest of the country?

Jennings and GLSEN knew there was a loophole in the Massachusetts law that would protect them on the charge of disseminating materials harmful to minors. (See below.) But what about “enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse” and “inducing a person under 18 to have sexual intercourse”? (MGL Ch. 272, Sections 2 & 4.) No loopholes in those sections that we can see. Still, they got away with it. Law enforcement authorities seem to be on the side of the perverts here.

Then-District Attorney Martha Coakley (now Democrat candidate for Ted Kenney’s U.S. Senate seat!) didn’t even bother to respond to Parents’ Rights Coalition’s (now MassResistance) request for a criminal investigation after the 2000 GLSEN event. (Ann Coulter recently wrote of another Coakley outrage, which should disqualify her as a Senator.)

Since then, PRC/MassResistance has repeatedly filed a bill to remove the exemption for schools that allows them to disseminate such obscene materials (for “educational purpose”). Of course, this being Massachusetts, our bill keeps getting killed in committee.

And we all know that Kevin Jennings and GLSEN are all about “education”. GLSEN even had a contract with the Massachusetts Department of Education at the time to prove its bona fide status. (Yes, we can produce a document if MediaMatters cares to challenge this.)

The absurd Massachusetts statute reads:

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 28. Matter harmful to minors, dissemination; possession; defenses

Chapter 272: Section 28. Whoever disseminates to a minor any matter harmful to minors, as defined in section thirty-one, knowing it to be harmful to minors, or has in his possession any such matter with the intent to disseminate the same to minors, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars for the first offense, not less than five thousand nor more than twenty thousand dollars for the second offense, or not less than ten thousand nor more than thirty thousand dollars for the third and subsequent offenses, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A prosecution commenced under this section shall not be continued without a finding nor placed on file. It shall be a defense in any prosecution under this section that the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor. It shall also be a defense in any prosecution under this section if the evidence proves that the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or library, or was acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization.

Flood of GLBT Lawsuits Predicted after Passage of Mass. Transgender Bill, ENDA, & Federal Hate Crimes Bill

Get ready for a flood of lawsuits if the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill (H1728/S1687) is passed in Massachusetts. The how-to documents are already in place, and test cases have already hit the courts.

We haven’t already seen lots of anti-bias lawsuits on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” -- but only because the sexual radicals don’t yet have all their ducks in order. Once the federal bills become law (ENDA and the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act”), along with the Massachusetts “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill, they need no longer fear a backlash.

Lawsuits will come to the courts, and complaints will be filed with MCAD -- the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. We’ve warned of the danger of that shadow court system. Its new Chairman, Malcolm S. Medley, recently noted that the GLBT community has been holding back on filing anti-bias complaints, apparently waiting for dust to settle after their “gay marriage” coup. And we believe they’re also waiting for the transgender rights/hate crimes bill to be passed. According to the Bay State Banner (April 30, 2009):

There has not, however, been a sharp rise in formal complaints of discrimination against those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community since the legalization of same-sex marriage statewide in 2003, Medley said. Some gay rights advocates feared a backlash would follow the state Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the monumental case that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. While there are still those who disagree with the court’s decision, Medley said that his agency must uphold laws set by the state regarding sexual orientation.

The Massachusetts Bar Association reported (June 2008) that MCAD is awaiting action on the transgender rights bill:

Medley said MCAD is watching with interest several bills pending in the Legislature, including the so-called height and weight and transgender bills.

GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) is certainly ready to roll, and has posted a page of “how-to” brochures.

• Here are your rights!
• Here’s how to bring a complaint! [MCAD brochure]

GLAD is the primary legal assault team bringing down traditional values throughout New England. They argued for “gay marriage” in the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, conducted a well-funded campaign to bring “gay marriage” to all six New England states by 2012, and have been busy with pioneering “anti-bias” lawsuits on the basis of (conveniently undefined) “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”.

Formal charges of “anti-LGBT” bias will soon become commonplace, and GLAD is helping with its tutorial. “Verbal harassment” alone can result in criminal or civil prosecution.

GLAD even has brochures informing GLBT students and “transgender youth” of their rights. On this issue, GLAD erroneously states:

Prohibitions against discrimination in public schools require that transgender students must have equal access to ‘the advantages, privileges and courses of study’ of those schools. (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, sec. 5). This must include access to safe, clean, appropriate restroom and locker room facilities.

In fact, that section of the law applies to “sexual orientation” – but not transgenderism or “gender identity.” This raises the question: If “sexual orientation” already covers “transgender rights”, why is the transgender rights bill needed? Since neither phrase is defined in the law, anything goes! But GLAD now wants to ensure the broadest possible protection for perversions yet untried with another vague law.