Exodus: Live Out Loud

Mississippi Education Chief Rejects Special Rights for Homosexuals

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200406\CUL20040630b.html

By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 30, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Mississippi's superintendent of education defended his state's school safety and anti-bullying laws Wednesday. He was responding to a report that criticized Mississippi for not affording special rights to homosexual students.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, known as GLSEN, ranked Mississippi as the worst state for homosexual students based on its lack of sexual orientation and gender identity laws. States were graded based on a point system; Mississippi scored a negative 3, which put it in last place.

"Bullying for any reason is unacceptable," said Henry L. Johnson, the state superintendent of education for the Mississippi Department of Education, in a statement released to CNSNews.com.

"Mississippi has one of the statistically safest school systems in the U.S.," Johnson said. "Mississippi does, in fact, have some of the strongest school safety and anti-bullying laws in the U.S. In fact, it is a misdemeanor to bully a student to the point that student is afraid to attend class for any reason . We have had 6 prosecutions under this law in the last 3 years."

Virginia Voters Outraged At George Allen’s Support of Pro-Homosexual Legislation

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5883/CFI/family/index.htm

6/29/2004
By Rebecca Jones

Senator votes to add “sexual orientation” to federal hate crimes legislation.

On June 15, Sen. George Allen (R-Virginia) horrified his constituents when he cast a vote against family values by adding “sexual orientation” to the Federal Hate Crimes Act.

Sen. Allen’s support of the homosexual lobby directly contradicts his promise during his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2000 to oppose pro-homosexual legislation.

The “hate crimes” legislation politicizes law enforcement and offers federal bribes to police departments to reclassify crimes as “hate” crimes, thereby setting the stage for additional, more intrusive, hate crimes legislation. In addition, this bill is the first step on a road that leads to the situation in Canada or certain European countries, where it can be considered a criminal act to express moral objections to the practice of homosexuality.

Family Policy Network(FPN) reports on its Web site that Allen recently lent his “name and signature to pro-homosexual lobbying efforts among the legislators in the Virginia State Capitol.” Additionally, Sen. Allen declined to sign a resolution supporting tolerance for ex-gays, which Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX ) proposed. Despite Allen’s claims to represent Virginia voters, it appears that his support of the homosexual movement is increasing.

Study: Over One-third of Population Unaware of FMA's Existence

http://www.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=society&id=797

Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 Posted: 9:47:26AM EST

More than one-third of all adults don’t even know about the constitutional marriage amendment, according to a newly released nationwide survey conducted by The Barna Group based in Ventura, California. The study also suggested that although many adults favor a traditional marriage, decisions regarding a homosexual marriage should be left up to individuals due to the lack of conviction of absolute morality.

Conducted during the last week of May, the survey of 1618 adults revealed that 37% of voting-age citizens have never heard of the amendment, reported Barna.

The constitutional marriage amendment is also known as the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

Over half of non-whites respondents and over half of adults not registered to vote were not aware of the proposed constitutional amendment. 45% of individuals aligned with a non-Christian faith were likely to be unfamiliar with amendment. Other people groups that were not in touch with the issue included women (40% unaware), adults under the age of 40 (41%), parents of children under 18 (42%), and residents of the South (42%).

People groups that were most likely to be aware of the amendment were gay and lesbian adults (94% aware). 89 % of evangelicals knew the marriage amendment existed. Other segments of the population, which exhibited high awareness percentage, included Republicans (77%), conservatives (77%), people likely to vote in the November election (76%), college graduates (75%), and residents of California (75%).

Barna also reported the divisions on the constitutional marriage amendment among the 37% who were previously unaware of the amendment. 37% supported such a change in the constitution after hearing a description of the amendment while 45% opposed it. 18% were undecided.

Small niches in the population also had the loudest voices, according to the survey. Although an alleged 4% of the adult population represents homosexuals, 78% oppose the FMA. Christian evangelicals represent 7% of the population but have over 80% of whom strongly favor the amendment.

Outing the Bible: the New Queer Theolgians

http://www.cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-25june04.html

NOR's New Oxford Notes..........
25 June 2004

About 25 to 35 years ago there was a paper called The Berkeley Barb, a hip paper for der Lumpenbürgerstand (the scum bourgeoisie) which specialized in free sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and pseudo-radical politics. While The Barb eventually folded, it’s been replaced by similarly hip papers catering to the same clientele, but now vastly expanded due to the permanent cultural revolution dating from the Sixties. Politely called "bourgeois bohemians," they’ve got lots of money to throw around. The replacement papers are thick with ads — the advertising revenues are so abundant that the papers are free. Just about every restaurant and shop carries them, and you’ll find them on the newsstands along with the San Francisco Chronicle and The New York Times.

One such paper hereabouts is the East Bay Express. We rarely peruse it. But the front cover of the February 11-17 issue had a huge picture of Jesus with the accompanying headline "Outing the Bible: The New Queer Theologians Don’t Need Your Approval" by Malcolm Gay. We suspected it would be about the glories of homosexuality at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley — and it was! But before getting to that, you should know about the ads in this issue. They range from Cingular Wireless, Pet Food Express, and Altoid Mints (title of ad: "The Root of All Evil") to gobs of sex ads such as Nicole’s Dirty Talk, Strictly Sex! (Gay? Bi?), and The Kit Kat Guest Ranch in Carson City, Nevada ("Safe Sex/Legal Sex") — and, oh, let’s not forget the Santa Clara University School of Law.

The article by Malcolm Gay begins: "One thing is clear: 2003 was without a doubt the Year of the Queer…. The year’s crowning moment came on November 2, when the Episcopal Church ordained Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop…. But this…didn’t appear out of thin air. Its intellectual and physical roots have been growing just beneath the surface for years. In seminaries across the country, at both the parish level and within whole dioceses, homosexuals have been preaching, studying, and remaining sexually active…. ‘What’s the difference between a Jesuit rec room and a gay bar?’ asked former Jesuit Robert Goss, who said his sexual experiences at bathhouses mirrored his early days at Harvard Divinity School. ‘Only the location.’… Christianity is changing. And nowhere is this change more apparent than at Berkeley’s Graduate Theological Union [GTU]."

'Sex-Drenched' Bill 'Subsidizes Promiscuity,' Pro-Life Group Says

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200406/POL20040630a.html

By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
June 30, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A pro-life group is blasting Democrat John F. Kerry and Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) for co-sponsoring a bill that the group says "subsidizes promiscuity, perpetrates immorality and promotes abortion."

The $1.2 billion measure, called the "Putting Prevention First Act" (S.2336), was introduced in the Senate on Planned Parenthood's 2004 Congressional Day of Action. The Senate version has seven other sponsors. The House companion bill (H.R. 4192) has 112 sponsors.

"This sex-drenched omnibus bill steamrolls several bad ideas from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion entities into one big promiscuity-promoting nightmare," said Ed Szymkowiak, national director of American Life League's STOPP International project.

IRS offers ruling on same-sex marriage

www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/business/20040629225729.shtml

By Howard Gordon
Special to The Desert Sun
June 30, 2004

The Internal Revenue Service recently weighed in on the same-sex marriage debate, issuing a letter stating that same-sex couples are prohibited by federal law from filing joint tax returns even though a state may recognize a union of two people of the same sex as a legal marriage.

The IRS determination was based on the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" for purposes of administering federal law, which would include federal tax laws, as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The letter went on to indicate that it further defines a "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

A group called Public Advocate had requested this letter. Eugene A. Delgaudio, president of the group, said his organization was concerned that same-sex marriages could present a significant potential for federal and state income tax evasion. His organization’s website indicated this is "a victory for the American family" and quoted excerpts from the IRS letter.

On the issue of possible income tax evasion, the people at Public Advocate probably have little need to worry. According to a study that was done in January 2000 titled "Wedding Bell Blues: The Income Consequences of Legalizing Same Sex Marriage," there really is no tax benefit to same-sex couples filing a joint return. This report, done through a number of universities, indicated that many couples -- especially two earner couples with similar incomes -- actually pay a marriage tax that is higher than if they were single. They estimated that, at that time, legalizing these marriages for income tax purposes would actually lead to an annual increase in the federal government income taxes of between $300 million and $1.3 billion a year based on the percent of homosexual relationships and the percent of couples who might marry.

'Down low' revelations stir fear, caution

www.chicagotribune.com/features/women/chi-0406300055jun30,1,3337616.story?coll=chi-leisurewomannews-hed

By Ytasha L. Womack
Special to the Tribune
Published June 30, 2004

The secrets that men keep can break more than a woman's heart.

That was the consensus of the 30 women and one man who came out to the eta Creative Arts Foundation's theater on the South Side recently to hear J.L. King talk about his life on the "down low," a term that describes men who hide their sexual relations with men from family and friends, and the women they date and marry.

Discussing his book, "On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep with Men" (Broadway Books), a current New York Times best seller, King held his listeners spellbound with tales of his clandestine sexual affairs.

"I had no clue," about down low behavior, said Shirley Whitmore, a sixtysomething South Side grandmother who counsels teenage mothers. Saying she missed King's much-talked about interview on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" in April, Whitmore came to the talk to get details about a topic that has gripped the black community.

"It's really devastating," she said, referring to the rising rates of HIV infection among black women, which health officials believe is rising as a result of men who have sex with both men and women. After she reads King's book, Whitmore said she wants to have a candid discussion with her longtime boyfriend.

For Whitmore and many other women, what has them talking--and listening--is the growing awareness that the down-low subculture is more widespread than they ever imagined.

Real Gay History

www.richardmullenax.com/?page=columns&art=32789

Rob Tong

June 24, 2004

June is Gay History Month, so I'm told.

In honor of this time, I'd like to inform you about some 'gay history' as well...the information the homosexual community doesn't want you to know. It is this backroom information that shines the most light. And in understanding real gay past, it will help you get a better understanding of real gay present...and prepare you for action against the real gay future.

Ready? There will be a test at the end.

In 1973, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatric professor at Columbia University, spearheaded the American Pyschiatric Association's decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental-health disorder. Despite that landmark change within psychiatric circles, society still did not accept homosexuals, even through the 80s. Without societal acceptance, psychiatric acceptance meant nothing. Therefore, in 1987, two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote a manifesto called "The Overhauling of Straight America" that described how the homosexual movement was to swing public perception. Kirk and Madsen outlined six steps; I have recategorized them into three steps for brevity. All quotes below are from that manifesto unless otherwise indicated.

1. Capture the media.
Kirk and Madsen noted that the American public needed to be "desensitized" to the issue of homosexuality and homosexual rights. In other words, the public needs to "view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion" with the goal of having American attitudes go from loathsome to shrugging their shoulders.[1] To this end, one of Kirk and Madsen's tactics was to "talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible" because "almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances." But swinging public perception of homosexuality via one-on-one evangelism would take decades, if not longer. So what was the homosexual movement to do?

St. Philip's Episcopal Church OKs same-sex unions

www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-496055.html

BY FLO JOHNSTON : The Herald-Sun
[email protected]
Jun 29, 2004 : 10:09 pm ET

DURHAM -- The governing board of an Episcopal church in Durham voted unanimously this month to allow the blessing of same-sex unions among members of its congregation.

Over the past year, the 12-member governing board, or vestry, at St. Philip's Episcopal Church has been discussing the question of same-sex unions, which has sharply divided the national Episcopal Church. On Tuesday, a spokeswoman in the office of the Episcopal Diocese in Raleigh said that office was not aware of any other church in the diocese that had made the same decision.

St. Philip's vestry started the public discussion at its Jan. 25 annual meeting with a report to the congregation. Since then, there has been a parishwide conversation, with the congregation encouraged to discuss the issue among themselves, with members of the vestry and with the clergy.

What's at stake in marriage debate

www.townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/rh20040630.shtml

Rebecca Hagelin

June 30, 2004

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts visited The Heritage Foundation last week, right after addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of same-sex "marriage." He presides over the one state where such unions are legal – and knows all too well that his state is currently Ground Zero in the great cultural debate of our time.

He says – and I, along with millions of other Americans, strongly agree – that Americans have a clear and compelling interest in preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman and in rejecting all other arrangements. We must encourage and protect the family arrangement that does the best job of ensuring a decent upbringing for our children, one that imbues them with the values of their forefathers – the values that made their society what it is – not purposely create families that are void of a mother or father from the outset.

Gov. Romney accurately says that allowing this court ruling to stand would force numerous other changes. School textbooks, for instance, would have to be rewritten so as to show no bias in favor of heterosexual over homosexual relationships in family matters. The military would have to change. Current insurance structures and wills would be challenged. The list is endless. In Massachusetts, homosexual activists are already demanding that the state's birth certificates say "parent A" and "parent B," rather than "father" and "mother." The good governor is fighting this effort – but who knows where and how it will end?

Woe unto us, quite frankly, if we allow our generation to be the one that lets Massachusettes' legal slip into unbridled selfishness and mayhem go uncorrected.