Still Guilty: Kevin Jennings Mishandled “Brewster” Case

Defenders of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings like to dismiss as insignificant the fact that he failed to report his student Brewster’s sexual activity with an adult male met at a Boston bus station. They don’t defend it by saying “it’s all about love,” but they do get hung up on the boy's age. Brewster was 16 at the time, and therefore at the legal age of consent in Massachusetts. (Jennings, however, also referred to the boy as 15 … so by his own frame of reference he should have done something.) Jennings had no qualms about this sexual relationship as long as the boy “knew how to use a condom.” 

But Massachusetts law was still violated even if the boy was 16 or even 17, and Jennings had a duty to report it. That is because (as even the Wikipedia entry notes) an adult “inducing” a child under 18 to have sex is breaking the law. Since Brewster had just met the man in a bus station, then went back to the man’s home to have sex, we can say with assurance that this was not about “love” or a “committed relationship.” So it seems safe to say that the man “induced” Brewster to have sex, as the boy was apparently not a prostitute (and therefore would fall under the characterization “of chaste life,” as stated in the law).

Now the only “wiggle room” here might be that sodomy is not considered “sexual intercourse” in Massachusetts. Rather, it is called a “crime against nature” -- but that, too, would be breaking the law. So however the defenders of Jennings wish to look at this situation, the sexual act between the adult stranger and the 16- or 17- year-old was illegal.

And this would be why the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has joined forces with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation to overturn “archaic” sex laws and lower the age of consent.

Massachusetts General Laws

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

Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse

Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Chapter 272: Section 34. Crime against nature

Section 34. 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.

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 23. Rape and abuse of child

Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished …

Kevin Jennings' Own Lesson Plan on Harry Hay: Doing It in the Bushes as "Civil Right"

I know, I know... I've just posted so much original info on Kevin Jennings it's hard for you all to keep up! So... I wanted you to look again at KJ's very own high school LESSON PLAN presenting anonymous anal sex in the bushes as a "civil right" to fight for... See my October 19 post: 

Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay, and Pornography

excerpt:

... So when we examine Jennings’ gay and lesbian history teaching aids for high school and college classes [Becoming Visible, One Teacher in Ten, and Telling Tales Out of School], we shouldn’t be surprised that he focuses those young minds (as early as 13 years old!) on Harry Hay’s campaign against “police brutality” and “oppression” of homosexuals in “entrapments.” (See Becoming Visible, Chapter 11, “Harry Hay and the Beginnings of the Homophile Movement.”).  A 1952 California “entrapment” case (where coincidentally the accused was named Jennings) became a focus for the new gay activist movement, and is held out to children (along with the Stonewall riots) as a heroic moment in American history. Having anonymous sodomy in restrooms is a “right” to be fought for, according to Hay – and Jennings -- and any attempt by society to enforce traditional norms is called “oppression”....

In his introduction to the unit on Hay, Jennings generates sympathy with the young readers, excusing Hay’s “idealist” membership in the Communist Party as “driven by a desire to better things for disadvantaged Americans.” Gays were victims, and Hay’s genius was to see an opportunity for a political movement fighting for his “oppressed minority”. “Growing oppression often creates growing resistance,” wrote Jennings.

Jennings’ student discussion topics on Hay include the police “entrapment” of a gay man involved in "cruising" for sex -- gay men engaging in anonymous sodomy in public bathrooms or public parks.  Students are told that such arrests amount to “financial and emotional lynching” of gays. Imagine what this topic would actually mean in a classroom discussion with children as young as 13.

When Jennings taught in Concord Academy (just prior to his editing this book), “no stories were forbidden.” His organization GLSEN held Boston conferences where children discussed fisting and tribadism (“Fistgate” in 2000) and handed out the pornographic Little Black Book (2005) to minor children. His Seattle GLSEN chapter linked children directly with pornography on their web site. So Jennings' pattern of leading children to age-inappropriate, hard-core sexual subject matter is clear.

What were Jennings’ suggested discussions for high school students in his chapter on Harry Hay? Here are the terms they needed to know, and some of the suggested topics (pp. 178-180): 

·       Harry Hay

·       Daughters of Bilitis 

·       Mattachine Society

·       Kinsey Report

·       Police entrapment 

·       1. Recreate the scene in the apartment the night Harry Hay first gets the idea for a gay-rights organization. This can be done by: writing a “sales pitch” that Hay delivers to prospective members; role-playing the parts of Hay and the partygoers; or writing diary entries from the point of view of Hay and others, as if you have just gotten home from the party. 

·       5. Hay’s most important contribution in the eyes of many was his notion that gays were a “cultural minority.” What does this mean? Why would it be important? (You may want to look at the life of Ulrichs in Chapter 7 for a comparison.) 

·       9. The key argument Hay came up with in the groundbreaking [Dale] Jennings [entrapment] case was that Jennings had been homosexual but not “lewd or dissolute.” What made this a dramatic new argument at the time?

·       12. Every minority group has debated the “assimilation or resistance” question. Put yourself in the late 1950s and imagine you are a member of Mattachine or DOB [Daughters of Bilitis]. Justify your group’s political strategies. Others can represent a more “resistance” point of view. [Act Up for example?] After a debate, vote on which argument would be more convincing, given the conditions in the United States for gays of that period.

Note the technique of drawing the student -- whether “gay” or straight -- into a gay or lesbian identity in these exercises. And clearly, students are forced to engage in vivid thinking and discussion about gay sex practices. What, after all, was the accused doing when the policeman arrested him? Further, extremist political activism is held up as worthy of emulation, and students are directed to think along those lines.

Jennings never really answers his own question (in his Introduction to Becoming Visible), “Why teach gay history?” He does say, “it is intellectually dishonest not to do so” (whatever that means), and it will “help our students create a better society.” He equates gay history with African-American history and women’s history, totally ignoring the fact that homosexuality is not an innate characteristic (as are race and sex), and that the subject deals with the morally sensitive issue of sexual behavior. 

Perhaps the honest answer to his question was that Jennings was “filled with rage.” From his introduction:

“I thought back over my twelve years in North Carolina public schools and my four years at Harvard University, sixteen years when I never once learned anything in a classroom about gay people or gay history, and I was filled with rage. Denying me that history had nearly cost me my life, for gay invisibility had helped create the feelings of isolation that had made me want to end it all.”

Jennings refers to himself as an “historian” (in his introduction). It appears he’s more of a propagandist for a sorry cause: the moral perversion of youth, and the spreading of a myth that our “heterosexist” culture is to blame for all the psychological, emotional and physical sufferings of gays and lesbians.

Kevin Jennings' GLSEN-Boston MySpace Leads Children Directly to Adult Perverts

Another Kevin Jennings/GLSEN outrage: Go to GLSEN-Boston's MySpace page (which attracts their teen audience). The  "friends" include the expected GLBT organizations: Human Rights Campaign, Bisexual Resource Center, BAGLY, Lambda Legal, PFLAG, Translate Gender, Boston Dyke March. These are bad enough! But it also links kids directly to very sketchy adults with no organizational affiliation who are clearly cruising for sex. Outrageous. 

As the women in the 2008 Boston Dyke March chanted:

"Ten percent is not enough! Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!" 

"Safe Schools czar" Kevin Jennings knew (and knows) exactly what his organization GLSEN was (and is) doing. It was (and is) recruiting young teens to the "dark underbelly" of the GLBT and pansexual community. It sends kids to events and groups where they mingle with adult perverts. In Massachusetts, GLSEN holds annual conferences where children have been taught how to fist and were given pornographic how-to booklets on dangerous and revolting "gay" sex practices.

Here are a few examples of adults advertising themselves on GLSEN-Boston's MySpace "friends" pages right now. (We've saved the web pages in case they're removed after this post.):

Jeff, 23, Manchester, NH (p. 2)


Richard Lewis, 56, Boston (p. 2)


HipzNthighZ* ("lucious bootay"), 21, Haverhill (p. 1)
No time for 2 faced c*nts.... THIS IS A DRAMA FREE ZONE.... boys/girls LOVE you.... And keep me out of your mouth Cus i ain't a D*ck!!


1-800-CALL-ERIC, 29, Boston (p. 2)

Well I'm shameless, when it comes to lovin' you. I'de [sic] do anything you want me to, I'de [sic] do anything at all...

(MY AGE) Massachusetts Youth Activists Group for Equality Statewide, MA US, Founding Director.

"Mr. Gay South Shore" 2006 (p. 1)


Della [drag performer], "Miss Gay South Shore" (p. 2)


We've warned about the GLSEN-Boston MySpace before. Was anyone listening?

From the MassResistance blog, May 18, 2007:
GLSEN Boston MySpace Pushing Pornography on Kids

[5-21-07 Note: Over the weekend, the "friend" site linked below removed some of the worst pornographic and other disturbing images. We did save the original page, however, should we ever need to bring it to the attention of the public. The name and site is still vile, and GLSEN should be ashamed.]

Look at GLSEN Boston's MySpace (their web presence appealing to teens). The second "friend" is nothing more than disturbing images, some horribly pornographic. We can't even print its title (C***vomit).

But wait ... We thought the GLBT activists were concerned with making "safe places" for "GLBT youth"!? We even asked the organizer of the BAGLY prom at Youth Pride how this pornography could possibly be linked to their ally's MySpace -- if their groups were all about promoting safety. And posted notice of its presence on that site two weeks ago. It's still there. Those in charge of GLSEN's MySpace would block it if they wanted to.

Since GLSEN is the organization that . . .

- put on the Fistgate seminar (teaching young teens about that very intimate practice of "fisting") in 2000;
- handed out the Little Black Book at its conference at Brookline High School in 2005;
- sponsors the Day of Silence;
- helps the GSAs (gay clubs in the high schools);
- promotes the concept of "Safe Schools"

. . . have they linked this pornography intentionally?

GLSEN Boston's MySpace also links to their friends at Boston Dyke March. It was at the Dyke March that the infamous photo of the young women with their breasts cut off, bearing their scars, was taken (by Bay Windows). We assume this means GLSEN Boston is recommending young teen girls consider all such possibilities Dyke March lists: 

"Who I'd like to meet: lesbians - dykes - bi-women - boychicks - tomboys - grrrls - lesbian moms - femmes - butches - transwomen - androgs - queer women - gay girls - womanists - sororitygirls with pearls who are sleeping together - dykes on bikes - lesbian crones - african american lesbians - rural dykes - poly girls - amazons - hippy chicks - lipstick lesbians - asian dykes - deaf dykes - dykes in wheelchairs - wise old lesbians - leather dykes - babydykes - YOU!!!"

Check out GLSEN Boston's MySpace "friends" for other groups luring teens in.

Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills

in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"

and decriminalization of sodomy.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

Sodomy:
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

GLAD: Perversion, Public Sex and Censorship

So -- now that this blog has made history as possibly the first to be semi-blocked by Google for “objectionable content” -- what exactly is it that is so effective on this blog? First, we publish only facts, “uncomfortable truths,” not rumors or personal attacks. And obviously, our photos reveal the ugly truth. Then, we identify those public figures who are twisting the law to enable public perversion and subversion of our youth and culture.

Jennifer Levi (on right) – GLAD's transgender

rights attorney [GLAD photo]

How did we earn the "objectionable" award? Who's gunning for us? We're sure GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is very unhappy with us (along with their co-conspirators on the GLBT blogosphere). Since we recently posted on GLAD's transgender rights bill [here, here, here & here], we assume it riled quite a few individuals on its staff.

Ms. Lee Swislow, GLAD Executive Director, used to head a transgender/transsexual clinic. [GLAD photo]

GLAD -- the legal advocacy group behind “gay marriage” and “transgender rights” – has a rich history of defending public perversion. The organization was founded to defend the right of homosexuals to have sex in restrooms at the Boston Public Library. That was in 1978. They brag about this on their web site. Bay Windows tells the story [Ethan Jacobs, “GLAD turns 30,” 1/16/08]:

Back in 1978, about 30 years before Larry Craig and his "wide stance" had pundits and late night comedians buzzing about bathroom hook-ups, Boston police launched a sting operation targeting gay men cruising at Boston Public Library (BPL). They sent in undercover cops to solicit and arrest men, and in two weeks they made 103 arrests. Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), said that such arrests had been common in Massachusetts and around the country and that most men arrested under those circumstances opted to handle the matter quietly, forgoing legal representation and accepting whatever deal police or district attorneys were willing to offer. But the BPL sting triggered an outpouring of anger in Boston’s gay community, and activists organized demonstrations in front of BPL, accusing police of entrapment. The protests also convinced a young attorney named John Ward to found GLAD, which would go on to win marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, secure disability protections for people living with HIV across the country, and win numerous other legal victories on behalf of LGBT people and people living with HIV/AIDS throughout New England.

GLAD has gone on to intimidate the Massachusetts State Police into allowing all sorts of public sex – in the Fens (in Boston’s Back Bay), in historic Minuteman Park in Lexington, in Estabrook Woods in Concord (where an informant told us they recently even had mattresses in the woods, left undisturbed by the police), in public lavatories across the state. If the sex is taking place behind a bush or lavatory door, that’s “private” so it’s OK, thanks to GLAD! (We hate to imagine what’s going on in the Boston Public Library lavatories these days.)

Mary Bonauto, the GLAD attorney who argued the State Police case, later argued for "gay marriage" before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, and is now challenging the federal Defense of Marriage law (DOMA).

Mary Bonauto, GLAD attorney who argued for

“gay marriage” in Mass before SJC;

now leading lawsuit against federal

Defense of Marriage law (DOMA). [GLAD photo]

(GLAD is now pushing to decriminalize even more open public sex. They had a forum in January 2008 called "Sex on the Margins." We heard the discussion was "out there.")

If GLAD gets its way on “transgender rights,” this blog won’t just contain a warning from Google. Its author will be slapped with a criminal discrimination charge, and Google will have its green light to begin censoring all blogs standing for traditional values. Get ready.

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.

What High School Boys Don't Learn

There are serious health risks our high school boys never learn about when they're told to celebrate homosexuality in their GSAs and diversity assemblies. See Americans for Truth on what really happens to males who practice sodomy:
"Truly SCAAARY ‘Gay’ Health Quotes for Young Men; Why Aren’t Teenage Boys Warned of These Health Risks?" (10-31-07). This includes quotes from a book by a homosexual M.D. on just a few of the serious effects of anal sex.

Why the Focus on Homosexuality?

Another excellent piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, "Homosexuality: What's all the fuss?" (WorldNetDaily, 11-1-07). He addresses one of the most annoying taunts thrown our way: Aren't you hyperfocused on homosexuality? But most of us fighting this battle never gave homosexuality much thought prior to November 2003. But then, crazy judges in Massachusetts pushed our faces into the poop, forced us to lick and declare it good. Since then, as Barber says, "we find ourselves – back against the ropes – in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for." Excerpt:

... A particularly heavy focus on the sin of homosexuality by "Christians as a whole" is not at all gratuitous. There is such emphasis, not because we intentionally and specifically chose to target this particular sin, but rather, because strident moral relativists demand that, in contrast to the other sins you address, the sin of homosexuality not only be "tolerated," but celebrated. That's what the euphemistic slogan "celebrate diversity" supposes.

Sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual behaviors – by force of law – through federal edicts such as "hate crimes" legislation and the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite – the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness – do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."

Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous – as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." ... Read more.

Not Easy for Women to Catch HIV/AIDS

Thanks to Janice Crouse at CWA, and Pete LaBarbera for posting this!

HIV/AIDS: Anybody Can Get It?
October 29th, 2007
Janice Shaw Crouse of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute deals with the elephant in the room in this excellent article, reprinted from Concerned Women for America’s website. Crouse is one of the few public policy experts to puncture the latest propaganda theme pushed by ‘AIDS activists’ — i.e., “heterosexual women” as the leading growth group for contracting the disease. As she states, “The fine print reveals that the heterosexual category includes persons who have had sex with bisexual men and drug users.” In other words, reckless behaviors including anal sex — not heterosexuality — are the problem... –Peter LaBarbera

Anybody Can Get It?
Published by Concerned Women for America, Oct. 17, 2007

Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."

Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."

That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.

The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.

See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).

... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...

... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."

Medical Facts Not "Hate Speech"

Now that the Sodomy Lobby has taken control of the Massachusetts State House, it may be time to review some of the public health concerns homosexual practices entail, before such a discussion is punished as "hate speech". The leftist response to the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General is a warning that such intolerance is gaining faster than anyone could have predited.

"The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum." Medical fact, or "hate speech"?

That is from Holsinger's review of medical facts on homosexual health risks, written in 1991 for his church. But this is now considered controversial and hateful by the left. Why? Does anyone disagree that smoking is a health threat? Why is it doubted that rectosigmoid tearing characteristic of anal intercourse, fisting, and other practices (involving insertion of large objects into the anus) is unhealthy? Soon only the "gay" pornography sold in Borders bookstores will be allowed to reference such practices.

See Americans for Truth on the controversy over Dr. James Holsinger's nomination, and read his paper, "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," written in 1991. Excerpt:

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).

Boston Globe: Civil Unions = Homophobia

Today's Boston Globe editorial on New Hampshire's recent legislative approval of civil unions admits what everyone should realize by now: "Civil unions" are just a way station on the road to full-fledged sodomy "marriage". To paraphrase the Globe: Civil unions are insulting to "gays", and nothing short of sodomy "marriage" will do. State bans on sodomy "marriage" are shameful. Civil unions are demeaning and insulting to "gays". Therefore, civil unions are a form of homophobia.

(We've noted that GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is arguing in Connecticut that civil unions are bad because they render homosexual couples second-class citizens -- but at the same time, Connecticut's legalization of civil unions is an argument for homosexual "marriage". So how can anyone still fall for the line the legalization of civil unions protects real marriage?)

From the Globe:

"Live free and civilly united" (4-28-07)
The circle of tolerance widened Thursday, as the New Hampshire Legislature gave final passage to a bill authorizing civil unions in that state. The state's Democratic governor, John Lynch, has vowed to sign the measure, which will take effect in January....

Civil unions are an awkward creation. It is demeaning to gay couples to recognize by law that they are fit for most or all of the rights of marriage -- and then deny them the single word that best describes their partnership....

In time, we believe, people in states with laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage will come to see those provisions as a mark of shame. States that offer marriage to straight couples and marriage-lite to gays will recognize the absurdity of the situation -- and the insult to gay couples inherent in it.

Who Controls the Massachusetts Legislature?

Left: House Speaker DiMasi (on left) consulting with Bill Conley, recently arrested "gay" lobbyist.

Right: "Gay" lobbyist Bill Conley (in center) giving marching orders to Representatives including David Linsky (on right) of Natick. Linsky filed a bill in the last session to decriminalize bestiality (and sodomy).

Sal DiMasi, Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, would like us to believe that he is giving the orders at the State House. But it appears that the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC) is pulling many of the corrupted strings in this state. And now that one of Massachusetts' own, Patrick Guerriero, is running the Gill Foundation (which doles out millions for the most radical GLBT causes), we can expect to see more of our legislators bending over for that lobby.

For years, Bill Conley (lobbyist for MGLPC and MassEquality) has been a favorite visitor to DiMasi's office. Conley, recently arrested for soliciting UMass college boys for oral sex, continued to lobby at the State House through July -- for weeks after his arrest -- against the marriage referendum and for homosexual programs in our public schools. And DiMasi was guest of honor at a Back Bay fundraiser for MGLPC (which pays Conley's salary) -- almost three weeks after Conley's arrest.

DiMasi has the utmost respect for Conley. Here's what DiMasi said at that fundraiser (InNewsWeekly, 8-2-06):

The House speaker also spoke personally of his Italian immigrant heritage and his legal training, all of which easily brought him along the yellow brick road of gay equality. DiMasi said his grandfather taught him that "everyone in America has equal opportunity." [Would his Italian immigrant grandfather have thought "equal opportunity" included sodomy "marriage"?] He added, "That's what everybody deserves." DiMasi also offered words of encouragement for the battle ahead to preserve marriage equality. "The battle will be won by each and everyone of you going out, proving to everyone that you are a good human being, a valued member of the community," he said. "Guess what?" the House speaker said. "You have been extremely successful in creating [that kind of] goodwill." Added DiMasi, "I may have given you the opportunity but you really made the difference."

. . .Grace Sterling Stowell ["male-to-female trans" person, busy pushing transsexuality on our school children], executive director of Boston Area Gay and Lesbian Youth, or BAGLY, said she came to thank the Caucus for its continuing support for youth funding. [Note: BAGLY identifies itself as the "Boston Alliance for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Youth."]

And did Speaker DiMasi give Grace a little peck on the cheek after her talk?

Write Sodomy Into the Constitution -- By Any Means?

What will the Legislature do tomorrow, July 12, 2006 -- the date set for the state Constitutional Convention? On its calendar are two proposed marriage amendments, #19 (Sen. Barrios' ploy), and #20 (VoteOnMarriage's). Any of these things may happen:

• Senate President Travaglini will postpone until November or December (then somehow it will just never come up before December 31). Question #20 will die at the end of the session. "It's time to move on."
• Travaglini will call for a vote to adjourn. (The bad guys have the majority.)
• A quorum will not show up. (The bad guys have the majority.) The ConCon won't even happen. Maybe the Governor will try to force them back into session; maybe not.
• Question #19 will be taken up (originally our proposed bill to define marriage and ban "civil unions" in statute, illegally transformed through shenanigans involving Senators Barrios and the Senate President into an "amendment"). Since this would require a majority of the Legislature to pass, it will surely fail, since that many of our legislators have sold their souls to the CULTURE OF DEATH / GLBT Lobby.
• Question #20 -- VoteOnMarriage's flawed amendment, which we do not support -- would not be taken up if #19 is. The GLBT lobby /Travaglini will say, "Why consider the definition of "marriage" twice? It's time to move on. We've discussed this subject enough!" (Leaving aside that #20 only needs 50 votes to pass on to the required second year's ConCon, and has entirely different wording than #19.)
• VoteOnMarriage's amendment will come to a vote, and will get its 50 needed to pass on to next year's second, required ConCon.

Whatever happens, even the UNLIKELY final scenario, the VoteOnMarriage amendment is going to go down in flames eventually. It may take a few years, but it will happen. What better way to suck the blood of their opponents than to string them along over the next few years, exhausting their time, energy, money, good faith, hope. The GLBT strategy is to get the innocent VoteOnMarriage supporters to continue to focus on their amendment -- rather than defending our Constitution, removing the judges responsible for the Goodridge ruling, holding Romney responsible for unnecessarily issuing marriage licenses and ordering state officials to perform weddings, and dealing with the homosexual propaganda taking over our schools.

It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.

If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.

Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.

But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they

... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.

Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.

"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."

The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:

"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."