Resistance to Federal Hate Crimes Bill

Hey, "radical right": You'd better be mobilizing against the federal "hate crimes" bill, S1105, like the radical left says you are. Our pitiful Mass. Senator Teddy has SNEAKED his "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill" into a Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill! Here's
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).

(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2481333456096867929&hl=en
Joe Rizoli

(2) From the Liberty Counsel:

The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.

Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.

The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."

(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:

Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.

"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes

CNN Joins Transsexual Propaganda Push

Right: Patrick Guerriero, former Mass. pol and now Executive Director of Gill Foundation's Action Fund, doling out millions in Massachusetts State House. On left: Arline Isaacson, chief GLBT lobbyist.

Below: Mara Keisling, "male-to-female" transsexual "personal mentor" of Patrick Guerriero, addressing trans rally at Harvard. [photo credits: InNews Weekly]

First we had ABC and Barbara Walters telling us that little children -- whose apparently unbalanced mothers give them (at the very earliest ages) haircuts, clothes, and toys of the opposite sex --are really "transgender" from birth. And last night on CNN, reporter Rick Sanchez hits us with another all-out assault on biological sexual reality. The dinner-hour show was chock full of fawning discussion of "transgenderism" and how people are born that way. (So how come every time we see one of these shows, we hear the mothers talk about how they encouraged their very young child in this bizarre direction?)

This is clearly part of a national media push to pass "transgender rights and hate crimes" bills, both at the federal and state levels. The Boston Globe magazine hit us on Easter Sunday with a piece on college girls removing their breasts. And Newsweek had a huge spread in May pushing transgender propaganda.

Reporter Sanchez interviewed a doctor from Children's Hospital in Los Angeles (Dr. Marvin Belzer) who subscribes to the Dr. Spack school of medicating "transgender" children prior to puberty in order to ease their sex change operations later. The report did mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics has no guidelines drawn up on this practice.

CNN also spoke with Mara Keisling (director of the National Center for Transgender Equality), a man dressing as a woman with his deep male voice intact. Why this person is given any credence is unimaginable. His challenge to biological reality and demands for special rights are over the top. But remember that Patrick Guerriero, recently spreading around the Gill Foundation millions in the Mass. State House, called Keisling his "personal mentor"! That is surely a sign that there will be ample funding to push for the passage of Bill #H1722, the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill, currently in the Massachusetts legislature. Gov. Deval Patrick has pledged his support to whatever the transgender group demands.

From our posting on September 4, 2006:
A few months ago, while still head of the National Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero signaled his commitment to the trans cause, and named the "male-to-female" leader of the National Center for Transgender Equality as his "personal mentor": Coalitions with choice and environmental groups and hot button issues like the Schiavo matter represent an evolution in Log Cabin strategy. So too is a stronger focus on transgender rights that Guerriero has introduced in Log Cabin since he took over in 2002. “I have actually brought a level of discussion of that issue to the organization over the past couple of years,” he explained, saying that Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, has served as “a personal mentor” to him.“I think we need us all to move forward and we should be wary of leaving anyone behind,” Guerriero said.

Is the American public really buying this trans propaganda? How can the reporters buy into this? Do transgenders throw really good parties, or what?

CNN links:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/24/sanchez.what.is.transgender.NY1&wm=10

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/lgbt.america/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/06/07/rao.indonesia.transgender.cnn

"Hate Crime" on Esplanade?

The Boston Globe reported a hate crime on the Esplanade. A woman jogger was sexually assaulted by a large, unknown male. ("Sexual assault on Esplanade reported" 6-18-07)

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a "hate crime". She wasn't a member of a victimized group. In fact, the man may turn out to be innocent. Maybe he was just "expressing his gender identity."

Will the Overweight Get "Hate Crimes" Protection?

And then it occurred to us that whoever filed the bill to protect overweight people from employment discrimination dropped the ball! Why is there no hate crimes provision in the bill for the weighty class?

When seeking special rights as a protected class, you need to go all the way, and make it a hate crime if anyone physicially assaults you or even verbally insults you. Or even says something negative about your weight, or overweight people in general. (No "fat jokes" allowed! That would be hate speech.) Or even discusses the health risks of being overweight.

"Weight Discrimination" & Parallel Cases

In a Boston Globe op-ed today, "Jumping the gun on weight discrimination," the authors (both employment lawyers) worry about a bill now in the Mass. legislature which would outlaw discrimination on the basis of weight. Their concerns over a new protected class of people based on "weight" apply equally to a class defined by "sexual orientation", or "gender identity and expression"! They point out:

• Weight is not clearly defined in the bill.
• Since weight is not an immutable characteristic, it is not "worthy of protected status on par with an individual's race or sex."
• Enactment of the weighty bill "would divert scarce state resources from serious issues."
• "A basic tenet of American law has been that businesses have had the freedom to choose employees and those with whom they wish to deal."
• "The burden this proposed legislation would put on employers, landlords, and others in commerce, would be substantial. It is no answer to state that a defendant who can establish that discrimination did not occur will be exonerated by the court system. Defense costs in discrimination cases are astronomical, win or lose."
• People who truly suffer a weight disability -- if their obesity "has a physical cause" and "limits their life activities" -- are already protected by disability laws, and can seek accommodations.
• There is no proven discrimination against this (however loosely defined) class of people.

Maybe these attorneys would like to join us in our concerns over other protected groups, defined by undefined phrases -- "sexual orientation" (already enshrined in our laws), and "gender identity and expression" (pending as a bill). If they think the weight bill is crazy, they should check out the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill."

The End of Free Speech in Britain

We recently received the email below from an oppressed citizen, discriminated against on the basis of his traditional values. Now whether or not you think the language is a bit raw, we believe people should be allowed to so express themselves! And we're printing the comment as a little exercise in free speech. If you lived in Britain or Canada, where NO speech disapproving of homosexuality is allowed, you'd be frustrated too.

Comments:
I wish a group such as yours could exist here in the UK, where any dissent is prosecuted as a "hate crime" with NO DEFENCE PERMITTED, and where, since April it has been illegal NOT to indoctrinate children - even toddlers - with disgusting homosexual propaganda.
Putting your (censored) in someone's (censored) is NOT sex. It's masturbation. It's no different to putting it in a farmyard manure heap. It does retard emotional development though, and that's what those in power really want, a population of immature pansies incapable of resisting attempts to control our every thought, word and deed.
For the sake of America you MUST keep up the fight, and you MUST win. I wish you every success.
- Barney

And that reminded us of a much more refined (but related) recent posting at Defend the Family:
"Requiem for the Magna Carta"
Scott Lively, J.D., ThD.

On June 15, 1215, an intrepid group of English lords stood on the field of Runnymede and faced down the leviathan of arbitrary governmental power, represented at that moment by the heavy-handed King John. They called the list of concessions which they extracted from him that day the Magna Carta Libertatum, and this "Great Charter of Freedoms" has served as a mighty foundational pillar of constitutional law and human rights law for nearly 800 years.

From the Magna Carta have come such legal essentials to democracy as the right of habeas corpus (clauses 36, 38-40) and the right to due process of law (clause 29). But the clause to which the barons gave preeminence, placing it first in the list, was the one which provided that "the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."

On March 21, 2007, another group of English lords, those seated in the upper house of the English Parliament, dealt the death blow to that great clause, which has protected not only the integrity of the English Church, but the notion that the church can stand as a moral authority independent of a nation's ever-changing social policies and political currents. Ironically, this long-standing freedom was cancelled by the approval of the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act, a document which has all the appearance of a human rights instrument. In its implementation, however, this set of rules will have the effect of (among other things) prohibiting private Christian schools throughout the United Kingdom from teaching students the Biblical position that homosexual sexual behavior is morally wrong, and that it violates the evident heterosexual design of the human body.... Read more...

Watertown Declares Itself "Place for Hate" -- of Traditional Values

Reading about State Senator Jarrett Barrios' selection to head the Mass. Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation made us think about some of the bad programs it supports. Like the campaign to get towns to join the "No Place for Hate" network. Coincidentally, we were just referred to a hateful editorial in Watertown Tab, celebrating that town's admission to this "Limit Free Speech" club called "No Place for Hate". Hate is not defined, of course, by this campaign. As we wrote two years ago:

Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?

The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.

While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.

Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.

Response:
Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster

Sodomy Advocate to Lead Blue Cross of Mass.

This is too much: State Senator Jarrett Barrios set to become head of Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts? A man who celebrates sodomy as a basis for "marriage"?! Add this atrocity to the naming of John Auerbach, ditto, as head of our Department of Public Health. These are guys who (pretend to) think the way to stop AIDS is to hand out condoms and lube as men enter the Fens for anonymous sexual encounters. Men "married" to men. Massachusetts truly is a perverted place. Watch for grants to such groups as Fenway Community Health Center to increase.

Boston Globe: "Barrios to quit state Senate; Will become head of health foundation" (5-23-07).

The Globe reports that Barrios is "father" to two boys. His "spouse" (note: the Globe avoids saying "husband" knowing that's just too much for most of their readers) is Doug Hattaway, Democrat political consultant. Isn't Barrios the same guy who recently stuck his tongue out at a political opponent at the State House -- not in jest, but with deep ill will?

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.

"Sexual Orientation" & "Gender Identity & Expression" Still Undefined

How are "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression" defined? Not at all -- by the propenents of bills declaring criminal any discrimination against them. So states all over the country, and now possibly the federal government, have passed or are passing dangerous laws that protect people who may argue their perverted behaviors are protected by the new non-discrimination laws.

Traditional Values Coalition printed the list of sexual "orientations" that could conceivably fall under new protected status. The list comes from the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. There's ...

... a whole range of sexual orientations that may end up being “protected” by passage of ENDA or H.R. 1592. The list below is from the 2000 edition of the DSM. NOTE: Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582

Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
[Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex]
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573) Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)

Gender Identity Disorders
Homosexual and transgender activists claim that “gender identity” can be different from a person’s biological sex and is inborn. In other words, a man who thinks he’s a woman, should be free to change his sex; a woman who thinks she’s a man should be free to change her sex and be free of alleged “discrimination” in the workplace.

TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” explains how radical transgender activists are working to overthrow the idea that a person’s biological sex is who they are – not what they think they are. Men are not women; women are not men. To think otherwise is to display evidence of a mental disorder and gender confusion. These conditions are treatable. They should not be normalized as “gender variant” behaviors.

TVC’s report, “Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable” discusses the idea of sexual orientation being on a continuum that can change over time.

The DSM still lists transvestism and gender dysphoria (confusion over one’s status as male or female) as mental problems to be dealt with by a psychiatrist.

Definitions Please!

MassResistance has filed a bill, S2095, that would remove "undefined sexual terminology" -- namely "sexual orientation" -- from the Massachusetts statutes. And we're now warning that the new Massachusetts "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 does not clearly define "gender identity and expression" which it proposes to protect. The possible miscarriages of justice are unimagineable if this terminology is embedded undefined in law.

We're not the only ones thinking along these lines. There are some very savvy Congressmen fighting the same battle in D.C. But how do the pansexual radicals get away with such brazen defiance of legal standards? Promoting sweeping "hate crimes" legislation (HR1592) without any definition of the terms central to their new law: "sexual orientation," and "gender identity and expression"!

And why is the establishment "conservative" media not reporting on this? We're reading excellent reports on the D.C. hearings on the new federal transgender "hate crimes" bill HR1592 from Traditional Values Coalition. But no one else seems fully informed on the danger of this Pandora's box about to be opened up. Excerpts from TVC's Rev. Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty's report on the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee:

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill. They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated. The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill. There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans. HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed. Following is their account of the “Markup.” …

Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition. The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation. The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill. They wanted no definitions.

Friends, it was obvious. There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation. Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that. They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc….

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13….

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?” And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct. It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth.

It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.

It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.

African-American Ministers Speak Out on "Gay Rights" Bills

Buried in the Boston Globe story today, "Gay-rights proposals gain in Congress" is a note on how African-American ministers from around the country spoke out against the federal "gay rights bills." We hope that Boston's Black Ministerial Alliance and others in Massachusetts will take a close look at our state version of a "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill, H1722.

Citizen Link also covered the Capitol Hill press conference:

Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, said the law would pave the way to criminalize thoughts and religious beliefs. "We stand today with many in the African-American community who also recognize that one's sexuality can be changed, but one's skin color cannot," he said.

"This legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals. We categorically reject this mindset and reaffirm every American's value and right to equal protection under the law."

Bishop Harry Jackson, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Pastor Marvin Winans, Bishop Larry Brandon and Bishop Liston Paige joined Chambers to speak out against homosexuality being equated with civil rights.

"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms," Chambers said.

From the Globe report :

"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."

Thought Crimes Bills Pending

Congress is about to pass its new "hate crimes" bill, H1592. The federal bill would begin prosecutions of so-called "hate-crimes" based on a person's "sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability." And in Massachusetts, the homosexual lobby has filed H1722, also focused on "transgender rights" and "hate crimes". The implications for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are frightening.

Back in 2000, Robert Knight reported:

"During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Schenck was sitting in the audience next to the Clinton White House liaison for 'gay' issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, 'We're not going to win this case, but that's okay. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots.''

Phony Basis for Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill

Is there an epidemic of transgender bashing? Not according to FBI crime statistics. Yet Rep. John Conyers, who again introduced the federal "hate crimes" bill last week, falsely claims that there is. Let's hope President Bush has the sense to veto this crazy bill.

Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...

From Traditional Values Coalition:

Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.

H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....

Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].

“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.

"Peeing in Peace" at the Mass. State House

The entire homosexual lobby is gearing up to pass the "transgender rights" and "hate crimes" bill this session. According to Bay Windows,

"Several of the supporting organizations have worked directly with MTPC and the lead sponsors of the bill, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), to help advance the bill. Ryan [Mass. Transgender Political Coalition/MTPC] said GLAD [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group behind the homosexual marriage case] and MLGBA [Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Assoc.] drafted the language of the bill, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, education, housing, and credit, and adds hate crimes protections based on gender identity and expression.... MassEquality and the Caucus helped plan logistics for the campaign, including working with MTPC to set up the town hall meetings and reach out to the community, and Ryan said the Caucus will be working with MTPC in the state house to try and pass the bill.

One of the "resources" listed on the MTPC web site is a publication entitled "Peeing in Peace." That means bathrooms are about to be debated in the Massachusetts State House (if they dare to hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights" bill).

The question of toilets is really big. MTPC is holding a seminar called "Toilet Training". Here's the trans "logic":

A man who dresses as a woman has every right to use the ladies' room. And that's because if he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman. Therefore, it's not a man using the ladies' room. It's a woman, even if there's a male organ. So no one has any grounds for complaint. And if you do complain once this bill passes, you'll be guilty of a hate crime.

Ditto a female "identifying" as a male. If she wants to use the men's room, that's fine, because she is a man... according to her/"him". That's all that matters: how that individual "identifies" or "expresses" him/herself.

(But if the unenlighted still complain, and the hate crimes law is not yet in place, at a minimum there will be demands for single-person bathrooms.)

From the MTPC web site:

Does this mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men, and vice versa?
This ordinance will prevent employers and proprietors of public accommodations from requiring people to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity. It will not mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men. All people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities, regardless of their gender identity or expression.

The Boston City ordinances currently permit restrooms and other such facilities to be separated by sex. Nothing in this proposed ordinance will change that. What the ordinance will do is prevent the obvious disruptions and problems that arise when people are required to use bathrooms inappropriate to their gender identity, (for example, when transgender women are forced to share bathrooms with men, or transgender men are forced to share bathrooms with women). This ordinance simply will allow individuals to use bathroom facilities based on the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express." By adding this language, this ordinance will help resolve awkward bathroom situations, not create them.

Allowing individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express" makes sense. There is simply no legitimate way to do "anatomy checks" or "chromosomal checks" before determining who can use what restroom.

Nothing in this proposed ordinance would alter an individual's reasonable privacy and safety expectations in restrooms. Legitimate safety concerns, of course, need to be addressed regardless of who poses them. Proprietors of public accommodations have an obligation to make restroom facilities safe for all people. However, we cannot let legitimate safety concerns become a proxy for bias and prejudice.

"Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Not Defined

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

British Government Dictating Morals to Churches, Business Owners

Coming soon to America, unless people wake up. Britain's new "Sexual Orientation Regulations" will take effect in April, and leaders of both the Catholic Church and Church of England are warning their government and people of its dire effects. (Has this law defined "sexual orientation"? We doubt it.)

We've already seen the Catholic Church in Massachusetts back down after a little pressure from the homosexual lobby and a Governor who favors adoptions by homosexuals who have a "legitimate interest." (And in Massachusetts, we don't even have a law on the books concerning adoption and "sexual orientation" of the adopting couple, just an administrative regulation!)

See the article in LifeSiteNews, "Catholic Church will Drop Schools, Charities and Adoption Agencies if Laws Force Homosexuality, UK Archbishop Warns: Laws would force churches and faith-based organizations to allow to gay groups to use facilities" (11-28-06):

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols has issued a strong warning to the Government over new pro-homosexual legislation, saying the Catholic Church will no longer cooperate with the government on schools, charity programs and adoption agencies if the government attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality.

Archbishop Nichols said the government was "engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework", taking on a role it has “no mandate or competence” to carry out, The Evening Standard reported earlier today. “[T]hose who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors,” Archbishop Nichols said....

The Catholic Church has said it will close down the seven adoption agencies it runs if the law forces the Church to place children with homosexual couples. That threat carries significant weight, the Standard reported, since 1 in 20 adopted children are placed in homes through the Catholic agencies.

The Sexual Orientation Regulations, which will take effect in England in April, are ostensibly aimed at preventing discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. The impact on Christian communities will likely be significant, however, as the regulations would prevent churches and faith-based organizations from refusing to permit homosexual groups from using their facilities. Christian or Muslim businesses could be sued for refusing to accept homosexual clients--hoteliers and printers would not be free to withhold their facilities and services from same-sex couples or clients.

Leaders in the Church of England have warned the measures will leave vicars vulnerable to lawsuits if they refuse to bless a same-sex union. In Northern Ireland , the Sexual Orientation Regulations will be enforced with fines between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence, and up to £25,000 for subsequent offences.

Read coverage from The Evening Standard.

"Bearded Ladies" and Patrick Guerriero

We were watching Fox News Watch on Saturday and the subject came up of the over-the-top coverage of the Jon Benet Ramsey murder suspect. Panelist Cal Thomas observed that one of the things going on there was a sort of "freak show mentality" akin to "paying to see bearded ladies at the circus."

Someone had better notify Thomas that he is displaying his "transphobia" and in just a few years he could be charged with a "hate crime" if he continues to speak like that! Doesn't he know there's nothing freakish about "bearded ladies"? Doesn't he know that some of the most important voices shaping public policy in the years to come will be bearded ladies? (Check out these groups if you don't believe us: BAGLY, Mass Transgender Coalition, GenderCrash, GLAD, Transcending Boundaries Conference Worcester, National Center for Transgender Equality. And see "New England Leads on Transgender Rights," InNewsWeekly, 8-16-06.)

Massachusetts' own Rep. Barney Frank is working hard to get a federal ban on "transphobia". State Rep. Carl Sciortino is poised to file a "transgender rights" bill in the next session. Several Massachusetts localities -- Boston, Cambridge, Northampton -- already have city ordinances targeting transphobia, and Maine has a state law.

The new Executive Director of the Gill Foundation's Action Fund, Patrick Guerriero, is ready to dole out millions to the "trans rights" cause. As a former Massachusetts politician Guerriero has a special interest in our state, and MGLPC (the "gay" lobbying organization) has acknowledged he's working closely with them. A few months ago, while still head of the National Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero signaled his commitment to the trans cause, and named the "male-to-female" leader of the National Center for Transgender Equality as his "personal mentor":

Coalitions with choice and environmental groups and hot button issues like the Schiavo matter represent an evolution in Log Cabin strategy. So too is a stronger focus on transgender rights that Guerriero has introduced in Log Cabin since he took over in 2002.
“I have actually brought a level of discussion of that issue to the organization over the past couple of years,” he explained, saying that Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, has served as “a personal mentor” to him.
“I think we need us all to move forward and we should be wary of leaving anyone behind,” Guerriero said.

So watch out Thomas -- and Massachusetts! No more "bearded ladies" talk allowed!