This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
(Try all links using Firefox first; Search using Yahoo!-Search first!) REASON 1: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT INTIMIDATION “Matt Gurney: California's gay marriage vote sparks retribution (see also page 39 below) Posted: November 14, 2008, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/14/matt-gurney-california-s-gay-marriage-vote-sparks-retribution.aspx “…. Democracy requires voters to sometimes decide painful, contentious issues. An absolute prerequisite to that is being able to rest assured that one may cast their vote – and yes, donate their money – safe in the knowledge that their legally-discharged democratic duty will not expose them to vigilante retribution or political intimidation. Eckern chose to step aside without a fight, and seems genuinely mortified to have caused offence. I cannot help but wonder, though, what would have happened if he'd stuck by his guns and simply stated that how he spent his money was his business? Would the California Musical Theater have championed their employee's right to vote his conscience, or would they have exercised political censorship by finding some way to turf him for supporting Yes on 8? Scott Eckern is an accidental symbol, a man thrust into the spotlight by the vagaries of chance and the realities of instant electronic communication. But there are thousands of others like him who have been left equally exposed to revenge or social stigmatization for disagreeing with another person's opinion. Democracy cuts both ways, and financial supporters of gay marriage are just as vulnerable to retaliation as those who opposed it. The aftermath of this campaign has already turned ugly, and if the situation deteriorates further, lives could well be endangered. When contacted for comment, Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the Yes on 8 Campaign, wrote, "It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is scary. And notable that law enforcement and government leaders stand by silently." California's choice to publish the names, addresses, and occupations of those who donate large sums to political causes is not only dangerous politically, but could quickly become dangerous in the most literal sense possible. With tempers running hot, the shaming of Scott Eckern and his resignation might strike some as a victory. Those who would celebrate should be mindful, however, of the potential ramifications of having opened this particular Pandora's Box. Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8 might soon rue the day that in their earnest and understandable haste to drive the government out of their bedrooms, they pushed themselves into another citizen's voting booth….” REASON 2: AMERICANS WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT VIOLENCE “Prop. 8 supporters suffer vandalism, violence” (see also page 36 below) Associated Press - 11/3/2008 7:15:00 AM http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506 SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become the target of vandalism and violence. Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have been parked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted. Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto was beaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds. "We have boys dying...protecting our freedom in Iraq, while we have our freedom being taken as people rip signs out and destroy them and deface them," says Pastor Garlow. "It's quite an amazing venue to find ourselves in [here] in America." Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure is supported by evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic, and Mormon groups. It is opposed by Unitarians and Episcopalians. REASON 3: AMERICANS WILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT … "Homosexuality is not a Civil Right" by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia ( www.crrange.com/wall34.html ): “…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….” REASON 4: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT A HOAX THAT IGNORES THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual" by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ); “…. All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective. Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too--who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "just doesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no". Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? .... ”
TOWARDS A POLICY FRAMEWORK OPPOSING EFFORTS TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY Previous Context: One of CARICOM's departments, PANCAP, had indicated that it would in November 2008 be recommending to the region's Attorneys-General the decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution. This would have represented an act of folly that ignored all the sociological, scientific/medical, legal and moral facts to the contrary. Pages 25-40 below illustrate the legal and civil forms of terrorism now used by gay militants and supporters. PANCAP used the astonishingly naive imperative that it would facilitate "access" by members of the homosexual community to PLWHA treatment, forgetting that most HIV/AIDS treatment in the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, and that the homosexuality community is associated with a phenomenal and disproportionate incidence of disease (in 1987 responsible for more than 50% of the USA's cases of syphilis, while only representing 2% of the population). The psychosexual/mental disorder, and its definitive manifestation sodomy, fuels the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Jamaica Star Forum gave us an opportunity to share information with the wider Caribbean community and sample pro/con arguments and responses … Roger Williams Updated May 28th 2009 from previous dated November, 2008 Current Context: DemeraraWaves reports on 2/19/2012 the improbable news that “Caribbean Plans Regional Approach to Abolish Gay Laws”. We offered in response a challenge to critique Kathleen Melonakos’ “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?” No takers have arisen! Apart from the obvious factual omission that no CARICOM-summit or Leader has proposed or validated such an initiative as reported by DemeraraWaves (does the UN now set policy initiatives for independent Caribbean states?), the UN’s Special Envoy manages to outline a social policy approach that completely ignores Justice Scalia’s written dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (see pages 26-35 of this document), and the legal, medical, psychiatric and social evidence. Indeed, he offers no authority other than conjecture! He dismisses the CDC-projection of 2-4% suffering from same-sexattraction-disorder, and pulls a figure of 20% out of thin air for the Caribbean! This is irresponsible! Which raises the question ... where, exactly, does the UN Special Envoy get his facts on social policy from, or does his inability to acknowledge or articulate any response to Scalia’s comment below mean that delusion (properly defined as a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact) is currently informing the UN’s epidemiological proposals and protocols for the Caribbean! Does truth, medical remedy or treatment exist in this protocol? This is a serious indictment, made necessary by the absence of detail in his proposal, and the UN Special Envoy should offer sane responses to it, and Justice Scalia’s comment below: “...This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.´ (Scalia, J. dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas). Does the UN Envoy comprehend the import of this statement? Does “gay-rights” signal the end of the law? ... The end of reason? Is it the UN’s job to usher in chaos? Roger Williams Updated February 20, 2012-02-21 From previous dated May 28th 2009
Table of Contents Pg Key policy alternatives 1-6 Key alternative policy outcomes that PANCAP should be aiming at Key issues that will inform a policy opposing decriminalization 1. 2. 2(a). 2(b). 3(a). 3(b). 4. 5. 6 7 8. 9. 10. Is the Judeo-Christian position tantamount to being “homophobic”? Doesn’t the initial medical evidence contradict PANCAP’s position? Is there additional medical evidence? How can we claim that homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to justify its existence? 10 12 13 14 3-9
Was the Judeo-Christian or “common sense” position arrived at by whim and fancy? 18 “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation leads to Children’s sexual Exploitation” What resources can be used to bring citizens up to speed in a short period of time? Is the deliberate avoidance of alternative policy prescriptions a valid position for PANCAP? Deeper, more intense violence that the disorder homosexuality generates in its own community The new craze: legalizing extant crimes … is PANCAP aware of the legal implications? Is PANCAP being manipulated into supporting a 15-year gay-rights plan broadcast in 1993? The legal issues summarized in one page: PART I … HIV/AIDS used in larger deception The legal issues summarized in one page: PART II … The “right to privacy” delusion! 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 37 38 39 40 41 42 44
11. The legal issues summarized: PART III … Justice Scalia’s dissent at Lawrence v. Texas 11(a) Why does PANCAP feel obligated to support gay-militant terror-tactics and madness? 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART I The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART II The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART III The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART I The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART II … the death of the democratic process? End notes: How does Canada define “terror” relative to its “protection” of homosexuality?
End Notes II: What the Bible says in a few words is invariably supported by secular scholarship! 45
Key Alternative Policy Outcomes the Caribbean Should Aim At! Reply # 149 at the Jamaica Star Forum: http://forum.jamaica-star.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1223996118;start=all (Note that despite our objection, the Jamaica-Star forum may have deleted the 2008-thread!) “SEP, there are no easy answers, only intelligent choices, as we develop a policy framework to counter gay militant initiatives that may be unwittingly supported by our regional institutions...” One of the major objectives of this exercise will be to expose readers in the Caribbean to the solid evidence hitherto avoided, and to show that almost every argument posted by pro-gay or gay-militant contributors will, upon closer examination, be seen to have engaged in outright lies, twisted logic, wholesale efforts at deception, or some subtle combination of the three. PANCAP’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, (14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002): "According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority." Reisman goes on … “To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse." … which words, inter alia, would drive one of our contributors below to make the following point: "The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate." (Magnuson, p. 137) While I reserve the right to refine this list later, here are a few possible ideas for sound policy initiatives that reflect the true evidence, and the views, of a majority of the population in the Caribbean: First the wider issues... 1. Gay militants in the homosexual community should be exposed for what they are, sellers of fake goods whose mission seems to be nothing less than the destruction of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian ethic. Persons who are interested in the wider socio-medical implications should read "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. Under the guise of “facilitating access to treatment for MSMs” what PANCAP will essentially be doing is to propose to the Caribbean people a new schema of “gay rights” and “boy-girl-child-prostitutes rights”. Essential reading is the book by lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right:
Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89): “As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown: (1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination … (2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational … (3) … causing substantial injury … (4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status … (5) … which has no element of moral fault.” Gay militancy ... and its horrible hoax ... fail on these criteria! The real tragedy may well be that PANCAP never alerted its constituents to the public policy implications that their decision would have. 2. Secondly, the entire Western world, and those nations that have adopted the Judeo-Christian ethic, should acknowledge the evidence, both secular and Biblical, against homosexuality and gay militancy ... and thereafter repeal the destructive inroads on various creation-structures that gay-militancy has been directly responsible for in our culture: attacks on marriage, manhood, womanhood, sex, family ... A good start for anyone who wants to come up to speed on the essential arguments would be "Homosexuality is not a Civil Right" by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia ( www.crrange.com/wall34.html ): “When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement.” Additional insight into the need to offer redress given the social implications could be had by reading "How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime" by Melanie Phillips ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ):
“The ‘diversity’ agenda, in other words, is a fig-leaf for an attack on Christianity…. But Christianity is still the official religion of this country. All its institutions, its history and its culture are suffused with it; Britain would lose its identity, its values and its cohesion without it. But minority rights are now being wielded against it like a wrecking ball. What started as a commendable desire to ban hatred of the gay minority has morphed into a hatred of the Christian majority. Behaviour which was previously considered to transgress the moral norms of the Bible has now instead become the norm — and it is biblical values that are treated as beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. This is no accident. The sacred doctrine of human rights — which explicitly sets itself up as the religion for a godless age — is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our civilisation, on the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive…. This attack on Christianity is not merely something that seems straight out of Alice in Wonderland. It is not merely a threat to freedom of speech and religious expression. It is a fundamental onslaught on the national identity and bedrock values of this country — and as such will destroy those freedoms which Christianity itself first created.” And now the more direct initiatives... 3. Homosexuality (more correctly labelled Same-Sex-Attraction-Disorder) should be openly acknowledged as what it is ... a mental disorder that should be medically and socially contained with every resource available to democratic populations and governments ... simply because (as mentioned before) it insidiously attacks very vital pillars of free communities ... Manhood, Womanhood, Marriage, Family, Sex, ... and places children in harms way in an unprecedented manner, as well as being responsible for a phenomenally disproportionate degree of incidence and spread of disease and infection in accommodating populations. So, with the PANCAP initiative, has “behaviour modification” and the stricture of epidemiological protocol given way to the inherent inefficiencies of “behaviour accommodation”? “THE AIDS PARDOX DERIVES FROM THE LACK OF A VACCINE AND THE LACK OF ANY PROSPECT OF A SIMPLE CURE. OUR ONLY VACCINE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS KNOWLEDGE. THE ONLY SURE CURE IS PREVENTION, BY BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION. THE TARGET IS THE DECISIONS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THIS BLUE PLANET, TYPICALLY MADE AT MOMENTS PRIOR TO SEXUAL OR DRUG-USE ACTIVITIES. GETTING INTO THE MINDS OF PEOPLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY HAVE THE WILL TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR AND REDUCE THE RISK OF INFECTION IS NOT EASY. BUT IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THE EDUCATIONAL MESSAGES CAN BE EFFECTIVELY SPREAD. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT WIN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE MOST AT RISK. SUCH PEOPLE INCLUDE THE YOUNG INVOLVED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY; HOMOSEXUAL AND BISEXUAL MEN; SEX WORKERS; UNEMPOWERED WOMEN, SPOUSES OF MEN WHO ARE INFECTED; AND INJECTING DRUG USERS.… BUT THE PARADOX IS: IF WE ARE SERIOUS
ABOUT THE CONTAINMENT OF THE AIDS EPIDEMIC, WE MUST ENTER THEIR INDIVIDUAL MINDS AND GET THEM TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR WHICH SEEMS CENTRAL TO THEM TO THE DEFINITION OF THEIR BEING”. (The very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG). Essential reading that should inform the effort to counteract the damage that has already been done is "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual" by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ); “All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective. Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too--who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "just doesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no." Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem?” Additional reading would be: "Why Narth? The American Psychological Association's Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness ; “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” ; and “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy” Just how significant are the resources above to appreciating how far down the road to debauchery we have come? Significant enough to warrant this … “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments: “Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and
fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.” 4. Clinical research, and medical treatment, should be restarted with a view to eradicate homosexuality, not accommodate it as an “acceptable” deathstyle. The Biblical position should be considered an effective guide in this endeavour. No, repeat, no further detraction should be made from the traditional conservative Christian outlook on sexuality. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover at Chirpers 11 and 12 in his book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" details medical AND spiritual advances that have corrected homosexuality. Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002) illustrates the imperative that should guide entire national policies: “Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See also W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83  and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent” The other 2002 law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual will illustrate the grave obstacles we will have to overcome: Youth”, by Judith Reisman,
"Perhaps the most worrisome of these anti-science activities has been the limited amount of governmental research examining the connection between early child sexual abuse and pediatric AIDS. Dr. Laura Gutman, a respected child sexual abuse researcher, and her colleagues found in their preliminary government funded studies that 14.6% of children in the study with AIDS had "been sexually abused . . . . Transmission by child sexual abuse was the most frequent of the proven modes of acquisition of HIV in this population." Twelve males were identified (n=8) or suspected (n=4) of being perpetrators. The lack of funding for such studies may deserve a congressional inquiry. To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse." 5. 6. As effective deterrent, homosexuality/sodomy should remain on the criminal statutes in law-abiding nations. Efforts to subvert these laws should be vigorously opposed and rejected. As first step to achieving (5) above, the OAS and PANCAP should be forced by the community of citizens to respond to initiatives and questions by civil society of the sort in the article “RESPONSE TO THE OAS AND PANCAP ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND DECRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY AND PROSTITUTION” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49683511/Response-toOAS-and-PANCAP-on-Sexual-Orientation-And-Decriminalizing-Homosexuality-and-Prostitution ). It should be unacceptable that gay-rights activists have full access to international organizations, while the Christian community does not.
It is the truth that will set persons free, and our regional institutions should not consider themselves immune from the responsibility to providing sane answers to their constituents’ questions. To not do so is indicative of a heady, and ultimately foolish, elitism that is creeping into the bureaucracy of such organizations. A polite question “How wise the decriminalization of homosexuality?” is asked of PANCAP at http://pancap.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=75&id=1&catid=5&func=fb_pdf (Second Update: Note that Pancap reorganized its website in 2009, and deleted the question) Another polite question “Re: How wise decriminalizing prostitution?” is asked at http://pancap.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=75&id=3&catid=5&func=fb_pdf (Second Update: Note that Pancap reorganized its website in 2009, and deleted the question) Both polite questions remain unanswered at this date. If the above is an indictment from the Judeo-Christian point of view, then a very logical question can be asked: Is homosexuality and gay militancy a concern only to the Judeo-Christian way of life? The essential tragedy for the Caribbean people thus far … and PANCAP has perhaps unwittingly been complicit here … is that they have hitherto been allowed access to that side of the information divide that literally does not represent the views of the majority of its population: “Freedom of thought and speech suffer, however, when one side of a debate is dismissed for not being politically correct or is suppressed by a powerful lobby. We find the Orwellian implications of this academic taboo quite disturbing. Ultimately, the law and society will be the worse for it.” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) So it was with some concern that we viewed the following statement by Arif Bulkan:
“In Guyana, as in the rest of the Commonwealth Caribbean, we inherited as part of the colonial legacy, Judeo-Christian (and) Islamic homophobia and anti-sexuality attitudes which found expression in laws that criminalize private sexual behaviour between men and certain acts relating to commercial sex work.” (“National Assessment on HIV / AIDS, Law, Ethics and Human Rights in Guyana”; Page 4, paragraph 3)
It is symptomatic of Bulkan’s intellectual effrontery that he implies that such criminal statutes were not based on good data and millennia of moral and legal rectitude. His own colossal effort at deception in the statement above is easily recognized by Roger J. Magnuson, lawyer, and author of the book "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy" (this book should be required reading for PANCAP staffers), who makes the point at page 137 that gay militants typically use a fourfold tactical plan in their initiatives at deception: a) They avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay rights measures, b) If debate is imminent, they seek to intimidate opposing voices into silence. c) If debate occurs, they use ad hominem arguments; label opponents as superstituous, insensitive and ignorant. d) If the debate goes beyond ad hominem labelling, they avoid at all costs discussion of homosexual behaviour, and keep the discussion as abstract as possible - civil rights, discrimination, minority status.
Firstly, I would have thought differently to Bulkan’s innuendos given the very compassionate and balanced, but nevertheless eminently strong rejection of homosexuality in at the Islamic website http://www.IslamOnline.net . Secondly, Bulkhan should read the several commentaries under the caption “Homosexuality: The Nature of Perversion” (it IS considered a perversion in Islam) at http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/07/Article02.shtml . Thirdly, since gay activists prefer to deal with the superlatives of “human rights” arguments in an all out effort to distract attention from the reality of their death-style, we should direct you immediately to the article ” Diseases Related To Homosexuality” by Dr. Nadia El-Awady at http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-7.shtml . Dr. El-Awady’s outline of the range of diseases dominating the homosexual community (mental illness, Kapose Sarcoma, Hodgkins Disease, Anal Cancer, Impairment of Immune Response, and Aids) illustrate why the gay-militant community will always, without exception, attempt to seize or control the health sector in activist states. Homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to ensure its longevity. The gay militant strategy idea seems to first limit the epidemiological response, then control the way in which the disease is reported. Fourthly, Islam looks at homosexuality and lesbianism as sexual perversions. In the fatwa styled “Homosexuality and Lesbianism: Sexual Perversions” a group of prominent Muslim scholars deal thoroughly with this serious issue (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp? hFatwaID=100855 ). Fifthly, Dr. Nadia El-Awady concurs with Dr. Nicolosi and briefly addresses the role of gay activists in forcing the removal of the disorder “homosexuality” from the DSM (http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-4.shtml ) We will leave Hindus, and Hinduism, to rationalize its own positions in that regard. Caribbean people should not be surprised to see what comes out of that particular debacle.
KEY QUESTIONS/ISSUES THAT WILL INFORM THE POLICY OPPOSING PANCAP 1. Is it possible, even though in the face of overwhelming evidence of gay-militant subterfuge and deception, that this classic Judeo-Christian position held by a majority of the citizens of the Caribbean is tantamount to being “homophobic”? A “phobia” is properly defined as an irrational fear. What’s irrational about the following? Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease”. (Source: Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, “Homosexual Politics”, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, “Gay Times and Diseases,” The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”, New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, “Gay Men’s Health”, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38;) as cited by Roger J Magnuson … What are the facts for Caribbean states? (Second Update: The UN Envoy does not enlighten us!) Under these circumstances, how does “behaviour accommodation” trump the incentive for “behaviour modification” that the current criminal law provides? Have we put a price to this “accommodation” in the absence of common-sense epidemiological protocol? Who will pay the cost in an environment of global financial contraction? PANCAP’s is therefore a callous and cruel approach, since it indicates a willingness to sacrifice lives in protecting two activities (sodomy / homosexuality) that are medically dangerous, morally repugnant, spiritually destructive, disease ridden, whose population form a major risk factor in tandem with the bisexual crossover to the heterosexual population. Drug-resistant forms of gonorrhea are rising, and then there came MRSA 20 years later in 2008 “ ( “New Bacteria Strain is Striking Gay Men” (Second Update: Readers are urged to copy and save this document, since the NYT may delete it when attention is focused ), with an affinity for the homosexual population 13 times greater than that for the heterosexual population. This is precisely why gay militancy has always focused on influencing / seizing the health and judicial / legislative sectors. Homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to ensure its longevity.
Doesn’t the initial medical evidence contradict PANCAP’s position? PANCAP WILL IN EFFECT BE PROPOSING THE ABOLITION OF EXISTING LAWS AGAINST SODOMY. Their position is perplexing given the hard medical evidence: "The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239). David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage: "The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 … in the article “Hemorrhoids, Anal Fissure and Condylomata Acuminata”; G. Manligit et al., “Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens,” in the Journal of the American Medical Association 251, 1984 … 237-241; See also J. Richards et al., “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science 224 … 1984 … 390-392; G. Shearer and A. Rabson, “Semen and Aids,” Nature 308 … 1984:230)(These and other citations in Roger Magnuson's "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press:) … and to the extent that the homosexual population in the USA circa 1987 (1 to 5% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, PANCAP seems to wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV in an environment characterized by relatively poor medical infrastructure. What are the facts for the Caribbean regarding these diseases? How much more of a strain will outbreaks be on national budgets? And then, again, there is MRSA ... with an aggressiveness of infection 13 times more for homosexual populations. Is PANCAP unwittingly about to open a Pandora's Box for unsuspecting Caribbean populations?
Is there additional medical evidence? Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that PANCAP must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “decriminalizing” argument. The Criminal Law exists for good legal moral and medical reason ... ● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's "HIV Transmission by Risk Category" report. The figures have remained remarkably stable given those for 1996.
“Males who have sex with males account for over half of all HIV infections in the United States, the mid-range estimate being approximately 450,000 cases out of a total of 750,000.” John M. Karon, Ph.D., et al., “Prevalence of HIV Infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992”, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 10, 1996, Table 4. “The estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2002 in the United States is 886,575. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 877,275 with 718,002 cases in males and 159,271 cases in females. Through the same time period, 9,300 AIDS cases were estimated in children under age 13. Estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS is 501,669, including 496,354 adults and adolescents, and 5,315 children under age 15. Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.” Exposure Category Male-to-male sexual contact Injection Drug Use Heterosexual contact Other* Male Female Total 420,790 59,719 20,869
172,351 67,917 240,268 50,793 14,350 84,835 135,628
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719
Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified. (see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international)
● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for the Caribbean? ● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with Herpes virus, CMV, and Hepatitis B. What are the facts for the Caribbean? ● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% . What are the facts for the Caribbean? What can we reasonably expect with decriminalization? Bottom line: with the medical facilities being what they are in the Caribbean, how can PANCAP justify this action?
Is there additional medical evidence? Part II How can we claim that homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to justify its existence? Diseases Related To Homosexuality http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-4.shtml Dr. Nadia El-Awady 17/02/2003
1. Mental Illness In October 1999, the Archives of General Psychiatry published two studies related to homosexuality and mental health. The first, “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men” by Richard Herrel et al, reported that same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures. The study found that men with same-sex partners were 2.4 times as likely as their co-twins to have thoughts about death, 4.4 times as likely to want to die, 4.1 times as likely to have suicidal ideation, 6.5 times as likely to have attempted suicide, and 5.1 times as likely to have any of the suicidal symptoms. After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms (other than suicidality), all of the suicidality measures remained significantly associated with same-gender sexual orientation except for wanting to die. The second study, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness” by J. Michael Bailey, reported on a New Zealand study which followed 1007 individuals since birth. At the age of 21, the 28 subjects classified as gay, lesbian or bisexuals were significantly more likely to have had mental-health problems than the 979 classed as heterosexual. The Archives of General Psychiatry also published in its January 2001 issue a study titled, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)” by Sandfort et al., which found that psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men were 2.94 times as likely to have a 12-month prevalence of mood disorder and 2.61 times as likely to have a 12-month prevalence of anxiety disorder than heterosexual men. Homosexual women were 4.05 times as likely to have a 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders than heterosexual women. More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetimes. It should be noted that Dutch society is a very gay-affirming and gay-friendly society, which may suggest that “society’s oppression” of homosexual people is not necessarily the cause of increased rates of mental illnesses among homosexuals as some people might suggest. 2. Kaposi Sarcoma In an indirect fashion, anal intercourse is implicated in the development of Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the diseases on the AIDS-indicator list of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This is because nitrite inhalant recreational drugs, known commonly as “poppers”, have been popular in the gay community and are used to facilitate this practice through relaxation of the anal sphincter. Researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse have recognized that nitrite inhalant abuse is associated with Kaposi’s sarcoma, and HIV-negative gay men with a history of using poppers have developed this disease. The International Journal of Dermatology explains why homosexuals’ behaviors place them at high risk for this disease, which affects the mucous membranes and the skin of its victims: “In this high risk group [the gay male population], the predominant portal of entry of free and cell-bound HIV as well as the brunt of associated cofactors and opportunistic infections can be traced to both ends of the gastrointestinal tract (mouth and anus) and also the genitalia, which happen to be common sites for KS lesions in addition to their lymphatic watersheds.” Kaposi’s sarcoma has taken a particularly tragic toll on HIV-infected homosexual men, sending them to an earlier grave than their IV-drug user counterparts. AIDS reports:
According to our data, homosexual men had a significantly higher risk of progression to AIDS and shorter survival compared with IDU [IV drug users] and other categories. In a multivariate analysis the increased risk was found to be independent of demographic and clinical characteristics but was accounted for by the higher probability of developing Kaposi's sarcoma. 3. Hodgkin’s Disease Homosexual men suffering from HIV/AIDS also suffer from other cancers and lymphomas. One study published in the Annuls of Medicine noted the connection between homosexual AIDS patients and Hodgkin’s disease. The study concluded, “An excess incidence of Hodgkin’s disease was found in HIVinfected homosexual men.” The Journal of Clinical Oncology published a study that further supports a connection between homosexual male AIDS patients and Hodgkin’s disease. 4. Anal Cancer Homosexual males are also at elevated risk for anal cancer. A likely possibility is that chemicals in the lubricants used to facilitate anal intercourse are a factor associated with this disease. Researchers R.J. Ablin and R. Stein-Werblowsky describe sperm and seminal plasma as capable of promoting cancer, and suggest that this accounts for the increase in cancer among people practicing anal sex. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine commented, "Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only one of 64 controls." The Journal of the American Medical Association also published similar findings: "Epidemiological studies have shown that risk factors for anal cancer include homosexuality, history of receptive anal intercourse, presence of anal condylomata, and smoking." And the International Journal of Cancer stated, "Being single and having practiced anal intercourse appears to be associated with anal cancer and case reports have suggested a recent increase in the number of cases of anal cancer." Another article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that, “…studies indicate that immunosuppressed male homosexuals have a high prevalence of anal human papilomavirus infection and anal intra-epithelial neoplasia, and this population may be at significant risk for the development of anal cancer.” Along the same lines, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded: “Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus.” 5. Impairment of Immune Response Several researchers have concerned themselves with the immune dysfunction consequent to the direct entry of semen into the bloodstream by means of anal intercourse. Joseph Sonnabend has argued that repeated exposures to semen combined with various sexually transmitted disease pathogens result in impairment of immune response. Robert Root-Bernstein concluded that exposure to semen through anal intercourse can initiate lymphocytotoxic autoimmunity. Another researcher who recognizes the pathogenic effects of semen is Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia), author of “Looking Back on the Oxidative Stress Theory of AIDS” published in Continuum volume 5, number 5 - mid-winter 1999. 6. AIDS The CDC reports in its June 2000 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report that men who have sex with men (MSM) account for the majority of AIDS cases in the United States.
AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
EXPOSURE CATEGORY Men who have sex with men Injecting Drug Use Men who have sex with men and inject drugs Hemophilia/coagulation disorder Heterosexual contact Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue Risk not reported or identified * Includes 3 persons whose sex is unknown.
MALE 348,657 137,650 47,820 4,847 27,952 4,920 48,343
FEMALE 51,592 274 50,257 3,746 19,042
TOTAL* 348,657 189,242 47,820 5,121 78,210 8,666 67,387
CDC semiannual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Numbers are based on AIDS cases reported to CDC through June 2000. The CDC reports: In the United States, HIV-related illness and death historically have had a tremendous impact on men who have sex with men (MSM). Even though the toll of the epidemic among injection drug users (IDUs) and heterosexuals has increased during the last decade, MSM continue to account for the largest number of people reported with AIDS each year. In 1999 alone, 15,464 AIDS cases were reported among MSM, compared with 10,138 among IDUs and 7,139 among men and women who acquired HIV heterosexually. Overall, the number of MSM of all races and ethnicities who are living with AIDS has increased steadily, partly as a result of the 1993 expanded AIDS case definition and, more recently, improved survival. (See chart) The World Health Organization in its Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance reports on the epidemiology of AIDS in different countries. Giving the Netherlands as a first example due to its large acceptance of gay practices comparative to other countries worldwide, homosexuals form 68.6% of AIDS cases, whereas heterosexuals form only 15.2%. Intra-venous drug users (IDU) form 11.6% and blood donations 2.3%. In the UK, MSM form 65.8% of AIDS cases followed by 18.1% heterosexuals. IDU form 8.1% of the cases. Those two countries are given as typical examples of what is found in other European countries in general where homosexuality is more commonly practiced. 7. Sexually transmitted diseases Dr. Steven Wexner of the Cleveland Clinic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, stated in a 1990 study published in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum that “up to 55% of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80% of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15% of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus.” The Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1991 stated that “gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge…and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).” This is especially true of gonorrhea of the pharynx. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found, “In homosexual men a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal gonorrhea (15.2%) was observed in comparison with heterosexual men (4.1%).”
Unlike its effect on the genitals, when gonorrhea infects the pharynx and rectal regions, it often emerges without symptoms. And even if it does emerge with symptoms, those symptoms can be easily misinterpreted as simply a sore throat or misdiagnosed as part of a simultaneous ailment such as hemorrhoids. The Journal of the American Medical Association stressed the importance of properly diagnosing these infections: “Detection and treatment of these occult infections are essential, because gonococcal ‘carriers’ represent reservoirs of potential infection in the community.”
The British Co-operative Clinical Group noted that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals. 8. Surgical problems and medical problems Dr. Selma Dritz wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Oral and anal intercourse present physicians with surgical as well as medical problems, ranging from anal fissures and impaction of foreign bodies in the rectum to major diagnostic dilemmas.” Dr. Marlys Witte et al. noted in The International Journal of Dermatology that homosexual male practices such as “receptive anal and oral intercourse and oral-anal contact, recurrent rectal trauma associated with ‘fisting’, and venereal and parasitic infections, lead to many medical problems including tissue inflammation...intense angiogenesis, and progressive fibrosis.” Finally, Dr. Christina M. Surawicz et al. noted that “homosexually active men have frequent intestinal and rectal symptoms resulting from sexually acquired gastrointestinal infections.”
Was the Judeo-Christian or “common sense” position arrived at by whim and fancy? Does it address genuine societal concerns? Regent University’s “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (2002): David Lee Mundy’s editor’s note: ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) “We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing.” “Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University of South Carolina School of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine. And the list goes on.” “We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children….”
“From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation leads to Children’s sexual Exploitation”. http://www.witherspoonfellowship.org/index.cfm?get=item&b=7&item=WT02G1# “Cultural conservatives, having observed with horror the precipitous decline in public decency over the last generation, must ask with an even greater dread: What comes next? Mary Eberstadt, writing in The Weekly Standard, provides an unsettling answer in her two articles, “Pedophilia Chic” and “Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered”: “The social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents . . . is apparently eroding,” she notes, documenting her claim with a disturbing survey of recent literature, science, and social commentary arguing for, or insinuating the normality of, adult sexual contact with teenagers and even prepubescent children.”
What publications inform the “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series? What resources can be used to bring a citizen up to speed in a short period of time? Resources: “An Initial Critique of Guyana’s National Assessment” www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf Barbados Evangelical Association: “Faith, Hope, Love and Human Sexuality”
“From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation“ http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right”, by Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier. Exposes the illogic of arguments about “discrimination” and issues about “civil rights”. (http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html) Regent University’s “Homosexuality: Truth Be Told” Law Review Series -
Foreword by David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief, Editor, Regent University Law Review Series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) Selling Homosexuality to America, by Paul Rondeau, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 443 (2002). (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc ) Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy. By Ty Clevenger. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2clevenger.doc ) Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267 (2002) Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth, by Judith Reisman. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002 ) Why Narth? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness; by Ben Kaufman. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002) Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?, By Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen. Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review, by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus.
“Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining sex Using Objective Criteria”, Mathew Staver
Is “systemic bias” and “political correctness” important enough to fault PANCAP’s position? Is the deliberate avoidance of alternative policy prescriptions a valid position for PANCAP? Source: “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger “Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School, are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance. While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary. At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as “too politically correct” and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into “conversion therapy” (therapy to change one’s sexual orientation) and had tried to label it “unethical” a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy. The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation). Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals. This creates a rather bizarre contrast. On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adultchild sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it’s unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man.”
Do we have credible information that, in an environment of much “tolerance”, gay activist claims of “violence” against the homosexual community have been deliberately used to hide the deeper, darker, more intense violence that the mental disorder generates within its own community … and that Jamaica has been targeted as the trump card of gay-militant deception because of intense national feelings against homosexuality? THE OAS RESOLUTION OF JUNE 3, 2008 WAS PASSED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF "VIOLENCE" AGAINST THE GAY COMMUNITY. HOW REAL IS THIS? WHAT IS THE REALITY OF INTER-HOMOSEXUAL VIOLENCE? (See the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002) ; pp 9-11 of 60 ) C. Hiding Dirty Laundry “The biases of the media are revealed as much by what is not reported as what is reported. Homosexual authors David Island and Patrick Letellier attempt to expose inter-gay violence in their book, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, estimating that up to "650,000 gay men" are annually battered; "a gay man is [domestically] abused . . . every 90 seconds." How many of these battered men die at the hands of other homosexuals? There were 3327 cases of gay-on-gay "domestic violence" reported by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in 1997 — three times the number of "anti-gay" "intimidation" or assaults alleged upon homosexuals that same year. Island and Letellier document inter-gay battery as the primary homosexual health problem after 1) AIDS (males), Cancer (females) and 2) drug abuse. They write, "The Director of the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project . . . in San Francisco stated that domestic violence may affect and poison as many as fifty percent of gay male couples." "We believe that far too many [heterosexual] husbands . . . are violent, but that their proportion is closer to twenty percent." "Domestic violence is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than in gay male relationships." Approximately 21,000 Americans are murdered every year, an average of 58 each day, compared to two killings allegedly based on "sexual orientation" in 1996. These hard data find "gay" men to be at far greater risk of harm from other gay men and from outraged, often former boy abuse victims, than from homophobic rednecks. Yet Island and Letellier find establishment media and the homosexual media will not print the truth about inter-gay violence. Why?
It "would be just plain bad press for gays and . . . all bad news needs to be suppressed. . . . [G]ay men truly . . . . have a proportionate share of violent individuals in their midst who bash other gay men [and boys] in startlingly high numbers." "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white, educated, ‘politically correct’ gay men batter their lovers." The Advocate, the premier magazine for homosexual readers, reports that a minimum of seventy-five percent of its readers admit to engaging in violent sex; twenty percent engaged in sadistic "bondage and discipline"; and fifty-five percent engaged in other sex acts using painful objects. Compared to heterosexual distrust or dislike, the rare assault inflicted on someone at a bar and the singular, although horrible, aberrant murder, it is fair to say that the on-going, most significant "hate crimes" against homosexuals are, as Kirk and Madsen noted, inflicted by homosexuals. In 1987, "the San Francisco police responded to no fewer than 100 calls per month for gay and lesbian domestic violence. . . . [T]here are thousands upon thousands of victims of gay men’s domestic violence in the United States each month." In 1981, the homosexual press reported that about ten percent of San Francisco’s homicides resulted from homosexual sadomasochistic abuse, a finding that would be in keeping with the Reisman & Johnson data (discussed hereinafter), and that of several homophile researchers who cited self-confessed sadism among upscale homosexual Advocate readers." WHAT ARE THE FACTS FOR THE CARIBBEAN? HOW DID THE OAS AND PANCAP MEMBERS IGNORE THESE FACTS? DOES PANCAP KNOW WHAT IT IS GETTING INTO?
The new craze: legalizing Crimes … is PANCAP aware of the legal implications? Do the OAS and PANCAP really understand the gravity of their misguided decisions?
Relative to discrimination, shelter, and accommodation, most National Policies already make provision for nondiscrimination, and there should be no further legislation in this regard. PANCAP has erred grievously in mixing up the legitimate concerns of PLWHA with protecting homosexuality and bisexuality, legalizing buggery/sodomy and prostitution, and ignoring common-sense medical imperatives. To go further in indirectly supporting “gay rights” ordinances, “antidiscrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation would be to court the following legal disasters: “The combination of a broadly worded ordinance and strong enforcement provisions are the stuff of which legal nightmares are made. Such ordinances give to homosexuals and take away from society at large. They take away, among other things: (1) (2) (3) The right of parents or school districts to control the moral calibre of the person who teaches their children; The right of an employer to determine whether an applicant’s moral character will affect his job performance; The right of churches and other religious entities to exclude, or refuse to hire, someone whose lifestyle is contrary to their religious convictions.
(PANCAP’s action will in fact be the sequel to another astonishing act of irresponsibility on the part of the OAS on June 3, 2008 (See RESPONSE TO OAS AND PANCAP ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND DECRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY AND PROSTITUTION; http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-and-pancap-onsexual.html ). Most of the proposed gay rights ordinances technically provide legal protection for more than just homosexuals. They typically provide protection to anyone, regardless of sexual preferences. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for example, the possible protected behaviours under a gay rights ordinance … * A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care centre that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law. A motel owner could be sued if he refused to rent a room to an unmarried couple. This would be discrimination in the use of “public accommodations”. This would also be discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”, in this case their sexual preference for unmarried people or for people married to someone else. Such an ordinance would contradict state public policy by protecting behaviour declared criminal under state law. An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses” because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal. A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution is a crime under (state) law. A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the making and selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law. Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography, and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour declared criminal under state law. Those who think such results unlikely need only review the surprising interpretations courts give broadly worded laws.” (Are Gay Rights Right? By Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon 97266; 1990; Pages 98-100)
How many of the following gay rights would PANCAP have unwittingly accommodated? Is PANCAP being manipulated to achieve a 15-year plan promulgated in 1993?
The goals of the gay militant agenda! These have always followed the “rights” argument! Source: (Gay Pride March on Washington DC April 25, 1993)
1. Demands for the repeal of all laws regarding sodomy! 2. Demands for the legalization of all forms of sexual expression including paedophilia! 3. Demands to change the age of consent to allow sex with minors! 4. Demands for public funding to cover Aids patients medical expenses! 5. Demands for public funds to cover sex-change operations! 6. Demands for the legalization of same-sex marriages! 7. Demands for legalization of adoption, custody and foster care within the same-sex marriage structure! 8. Demands for the inclusion of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders in education and childcare! 9. Demands for public funding of artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals! 10. Forbid religious (now artistic) concerns regarding homosexuality from being expressed … already the case on radio/TV in Canada (and now England). This is done through “anti-discrimination” and “hate-crime” legislation. 11. Ban prayer in public schools. 12. Remove God from civic life! 13. Demands that the Boy Scouts and Army be required to accept homosexuals! Source: (Gay Pride March on Washington DC April 25, 1993)
The legal issues summarized in one page: PART I Wasn’t PANCAP supposed to be aware that HIV/AIDS was simply being used in a larger deception?
Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense Of The Controversy!”; p.93 – 102) has, as a lawyer, documented the insidious pursuit of these goals that led to the misguided decision in Lawrence v. Texas. It is clear that the judiciary all over the USA is now heavily influenced by gay militancy, since the issue has been settled with some certainty long before. Poor law is the result (see ALSO Scalia J. dissenting at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html at pages 20-29 of this document ). “…. One long term goal of the homosexual movement has been to repeal laws prohibiting sodomy. Although gay rights activists have concentrated on promoting gay rights ordinances, they have not abandoned their attack on existing sodomy statutes. As long as their behaviour remains criminal, it is hard for them to argue that that they deserve special protection for it. When challenging sodomy statutes, homosexuals argue that there is a “right to privacy” in the Constitution that protects private acts of consensual sodomy. In making that argument, homosexuals rely on cases that interpret the Constitution as forbidding government interference with private decisions. And so, for example, a consensual “right of privacy” has been held to protect decisions about education and child-rearing, marriage, and more recently contraception and abortion [Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade 410 US 1113 (1979)]. Homosexuals have argued from these cases that just as the law cannot unconditionally forbid a couple to use birth control, it cannot forbid two consenting adults to commit sodomy in the privacy of a bedroom [Oklahoma City School Board v. National Gay Rights Task Force 727 F.2d1270 (10th Cir., 1984; US, 1985)]. Although homosexuals had some initial success in state and federal courts using such arguments, the Supreme Court settled the question in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 US 186, 1986). Mr. Hardwick had bought suit in federal district court , challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia statute that criminalized consensual sodomy. He lost at the district court level, but won on appeal to the Court Of Appeals, which held that the Georgia statute violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme court disagreed. In a vigorously written opinion, Justice White pointed out that any fundamental liberties protected by a right to privacy must be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, or deeply rooted “in the nation’s history and tradition.”. Because sodomy was traditionally a criminal offense in all states, to find that a right to engage in anal or oral sodomy was deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition or is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” would be “at best facetious”. Summing up, the Court said: “And if Respondent’s submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult to , except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest and other sexual crimes, even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Burger pointed out the moral dimension: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” Justice Burger’s opinion paralleled a recent circuit court decision from the District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals which had approved the discharge of a homosexual from the military. Finding homosexuality “a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed traditionally condemned,” the court held that its decision would be based on constitutional principle, not on shifting public opinion [Dronenberg v. Zech 741 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir., 1984)]. Such federal decisions have left homosexuals two options: convince state courts that there is a right to commit sodomy under the state constitution, or convince legislators to repeal the statute. Because homosexual activists have been unable to convince the courts that their sexually deviant behaviour should be given special protection, they have tried to work harder on Congress, state legislatures, and city councils. The passage of gay rights laws would inevitably lead to the repeal of sodomy laws.”
The legal issues summarized in one page: PART II The “right to privacy” issue … the “consensual sex” argument … the “victimless crime” delusion!
How far has gay militancy come in corrupting good law over the past 50 years? They prey on people's ignorance of the
legal issues involved... "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!" By Roger J Magnuson; Multnomah Press "The US Supreme Court has recognized that centrality of the family. In an opinion on the right of privacy, Justice Harlan (Poe v. Ullman; 367 US 492, 52, n.3; 1961; J. Harlan dissenting) said: ""The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal inquiry, however privately practiced ... but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected." "Homosexuality, on the contrary, is essentially antifamily. It encourages promiscuous sexuality, a self-centered morality, and socially irresponsible behaviour that exacts huge costs from society. The law has every right to discourage people from entering into paths that are demonstrably destructive, -- physically and psychologically -- first to themselves, then to society itself .... (Magnuson pp. 102-103) "... The law itself has never adopted the concept of a victimless crime. Some libertarians rally around slogans that suggest the law has no place intruding into the privacy of a person's bedroom. Like most slogans, it is better chanted than analysed. In fact, the law always had a discrete interest in private bedrooms: * What goes on in the bedroom: If what goes on in the bedroom has detrimental social consequences -- incest, for example, or statutory rape -- the state has a right to intervene, regardless of whether there was consent. * Who can use the bedroom with protection of marriage laws: The State is unashamed to set rules on who can get married and who can get divorced. * The consequences of bedroom activity: The law allows courts to inquire of acts inside bedrooms, after the fact, to determine the paternity of children, to enter private homes to determine custody and guardianship of children, and to set appropriate visitation rights conditional on fulfilment of requirements the court finds necessary. * The business bedroom: The criminal courts are interested in what goes on in a brothel behind pulled curtains because it can affect individuals, , community health, and families, and impose substantial social costs on society. * The number of wives in the bedroom: Few societies are willing to sanction polygamy, no matter how private and consensual. While courts have recognized a legitimate zone of privacy, they have never accepted the simplistic appeal to leave unanalyzed private, consensual sexual activity. They know better". "For the same reason, the law cannot ignore the influence of sodomy. The existence of a public homosexuality in our times has a powerful on the kind of society that we have -- the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the preaching we hear from our pulpits, the treatment given our children, the lives lived by homosexuals themselves. We live, as philosopher Richard Weaver once said, in an increasingly effeminate culture. Homosexual author Dennis Altman has called the influence so great that it amounts to "the homosexualization of America…." (Magnuson 130-131). BACKLASH: A "HUMAN RIGHTS" LAW AND A "RIGHT TO PRIVACY" SHOCKS EVERYONE (IN 2008): “Judge criticised over privacy law” Monday, November 10, 2008 10:50 pm , ITN "…Now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen..." http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081110/tuk-judge-criticised-over-privacy-law-dba161 8.html
The legal issues summarized: PART III Didn’t anyone at PANCAP read the dissenting opinion at Lawrence v. Texas? Credits: Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/ (Highlights below are mine) Scalia, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT [June 26, 2003] Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 844 (1992). That was the Court’s sententious response, barely more than a decade ago, to those seeking to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The Court’s response today, to those who have engaged in a 17-year crusade to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is very different. The need for stability and certainty presents no barrier. Most of the rest of today’s opinion has no relevance to its actual holding–that the Texas statute “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify” its application to petitioners under rational-basis review. Ante, at 18 (overruling Bowers to the extent it sustained Georgia’s anti-sodomy statute under the rational-basis test). Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante, at 4, and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce … a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U.S., at 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”–which it undoubtedly is–and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. Ante, at 3. I I begin with the Court’s surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today’s opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish–or indeed, even bother to mention–the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today’s majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant
preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it: “ Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe[,] … its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry… . [T]o overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason … would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.” 505 U.S., at 866—867. Today, however, the widespread opposition to Bowers, a decision resolving an issue as “intensely divisive” as the issue in Roe, is offered as a reason in favor of overruling it. See ante, at 15—16. Gone, too, is any “enquiry” (of the sort conducted in Casey) into whether the decision sought to be overruled has “proven ‘unworkable,’ ” Casey, supra, at 855. Today’s approach to stare decisis invites us to overrule an erroneously decided precedent (including an “intensely divisive” decision) if: (1) its foundations have been “eroded” by subsequent decisions, ante, at 15; (2) it has been subject to “substantial and continuing” criticism, ibid.; and (3) it has not induced “individual or societal reliance” that counsels against overturning, ante, at 16. The problem is that Roe itself–which today’s majority surely has no disposition to overrule–satisfies these conditions to at least the same degree as Bowers. (1) A preliminary digressive observation with regard to the first factor: The Court’s claim that Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra, “casts some doubt” upon the holding in Bowers (or any other case, for that matter) does not withstand analysis. Ante, at 10. As far as its holding is concerned, Casey provided a less expansive right to abortion than did Roe, which was already on the books when Bowers was decided. And if the Court is referring not to the holding of Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, ante, at 13 (“ ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life’ ”): That “casts some doubt” upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law. I do not quarrel with the Court’s claim that Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), “eroded” the “foundations” of Bowers’ rational-basis holding. See Romer, supra, at 640—643 (Scalia, J., dissenting).) But Roe and Casey have been equally “eroded” by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997), which held that only fundamental rights which are “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ ” qualify for anything other than rational basis scrutiny under the doctrine of “substantive due process.” Roe and Casey, of course, subjected the restriction of abortion to heightened scrutiny without even attempting to establish that the freedom to abort was rooted in this Nation’s tradition. (2) Bowers, the Court says, has been subject to “substantial and continuing [criticism], disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions.” Ante, at 15. Exactly what those nonhistorical criticisms are, and whether the Court even agrees with them, are left unsaid, although the Court does cite two books. See ibid. (citing C. Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution–A Firsthand Account 81—84 (1991); R. Posner, Sex and Reason 341—350 (1992)).1 Of course, Roe too (and by extension Casey) had been (and still is) subject to unrelenting criticism, including criticism from the two commentators cited by the Court today. See Fried, supra, at 75 (“Roe was a prime example of twisted judging”); Posner, supra, at 337 (“[The Court’s] opinion in Roe … fails to measure up to professional expectations regarding judicial opinions”); Posner, Judicial Opinion Writing, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1421, 1434 (1995) (describing the opinion in Roe as an “embarrassing performanc[e]”).
(3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .” Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2 What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails. Not so the overruling of Roe, which would simply have restored the regime that existed for centuries before 1973, in which the permissibility of and restrictions upon abortion were determined legislatively State-by-State. Casey, however, chose to base its stare decisis determination on a different “sort” of reliance. “[P]eople,” it said, “have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” 505 U.S., at 856. This falsely assumes that the consequence of overruling Roe would have been to make abortion unlawful. It would not; it would merely have permitted the States to do so. Many States would unquestionably have declined to prohibit abortion, and others would not have prohibited it within six months (after which the most significant reliance interests would have expired). Even for persons in States other than these, the choice would not have been between abortion and childbirth, but between abortion nearby and abortion in a neighboring State. To tell the truth, it does not surprise me, and should surprise no one, that the Court has chosen today to revise the standards of stare decisis set forth in Casey. It has thereby exposed Casey’s extraordinary deference to precedent for the result-oriented expedient that it is. II Having decided that it need not adhere to stare decisis, the Court still must establish that Bowers was wrongly decided and that the Texas statute, as applied to petitioners, is unconstitutional. Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.
But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause, though today’s opinion repeatedly makes that claim. Ante, at 6 (“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice”); ante, at 13 (“ ‘ These matters … are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’ ”); ante, at 17 (“Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government”). The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of “liberty,” so long as “due process of law” is provided: “No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Amdt. 14 (emphasis added). Our opinions applying the doctrine known as “substantive due process” hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called “heightened scrutiny” protection–that is, rights which are “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” ibid. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303 (1993) (fundamental liberty interests must be “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) (same). See also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (“[W]e have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a ‘liberty’ be ‘fundamental’ … but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society”); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (emphasis added)).3 All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Bowers held, first, that criminal prohibitions of homosexual sodomy are not subject to heightened scrutiny because they do not implicate a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause, 478 U.S., at 191—194. Noting that “[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots,” id., at 192, that “[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights,” ibid., and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy, id., at 193, Bowers concluded that a right to engage in homosexual sodomy was not “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” id., at 192. The Court today does not overrule this holding. Not once does it describe homosexual sodomy as a “fundamental right” or a “fundamental liberty interest,” nor does it subject the Texas statute to strict scrutiny. Instead, having failed to establish that the right to homosexual sodomy is “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” the Court concludes that the application of Texas’s statute to petitioners’ conduct fails the rational-basis test, and overrules Bowers’ holding to the contrary, see id., at 196. “The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” Ante, at 18. I shall address that rational-basis holding presently. First, however, I address some aspersions that the Court casts upon Bowers’ conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a “fundamental right”–even though, as I have said, the Court does not have the boldness to reverse that conclusion. III The Court’s description of “the state of the law” at the time of Bowers only confirms that Bowers was right. Ante, at 5. The Court points to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481—482 (1965). But that case expressly disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine of “substantive due process,” and grounded the so-called “right to privacy” in penumbras of constitutional provisions other than the Due Process Clause. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), likewise had nothing to do with “substantive due process”; it invalidated a
Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons solely on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. Of course Eisenstadt contains well known dictum relating to the “right to privacy,” but this referred to the right recognized in Griswold–a right penumbral to the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and not a “substantive due process” right. Roe v. Wade recognized that the right to abort an unborn child was a “fundamental right” protected by the Due Process Clause. 410 U.S., at 155. The Roe Court, however, made no attempt to establish that this right was “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ ”; instead, it based its conclusion that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” on its own normative judgment that anti-abortion laws were undesirable. See id., at 153. We have since rejected Roe’s holding that regulations of abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S., at 876 (joint opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.); id., at 951—953 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part)–and thus, by logical implication, Roe’s holding that the right to abort an unborn child is a “fundamental right.” See 505 U.S., at 843—912 (joint opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.) (not once describing abortion as a “fundamental right” or a “fundamental liberty interest”). After discussing the history of antisodomy laws, ante, at 7—10, the Court proclaims that, “it should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter,” ante, at 7. This observation in no way casts into doubt the “definitive [historical] conclusion,” id., on which Bowers relied: that our Nation has a longstanding history of laws prohibiting sodomy in general–regardless of whether it was performed by same-sex or opposite-sex couples: “It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.” 478 U.S., at 192—194 (citations and footnotes omitted; emphasis added). It is (as Bowers recognized) entirely irrelevant whether the laws in our long national tradition criminalizing homosexual sodomy were “directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter.” Ante, at 7. Whether homosexual sodomy was prohibited by a law targeted at same-sex sexual relations or by a more general law prohibiting both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy, the only relevant point is that it was criminalized–which suffices to establish that homosexual sodomy is not a right “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition.” The Court today agrees that homosexual sodomy was criminalized and thus does not dispute the facts on which Bowers actually relied. Next the Court makes the claim, again unsupported by any citations, that “[l]aws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private.” Ante, at 8. The key qualifier here is “acting in private”–since the Court admits that sodomy laws were enforced against consenting adults (although the Court contends that prosecutions were “infrequent,” ante, at 9). I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by “acting in private” is “on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered,” it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a “fundamental right,” even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized. There are 203
prosecutions for consensual, adult homosexual sodomy reported in the West Reporting system and official state reporters from the years 1880—1995. See W. Eskridge, Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet 375 (1999) (hereinafter Gaylaw). There are also records of 20 sodomy prosecutions and 4 executions during the colonial period. J. Katz, Gay/Lesbian Almanac 29, 58, 663 (1983). Bowers’ conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” is utterly unassailable. Realizing that fact, the Court instead says: “[W]e think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Ante, at 11 (emphasis added). Apart from the fact that such an “emerging awareness” does not establish a “fundamental right,” the statement is factually false. States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults “in matters pertaining to sex”: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography. Sodomy laws, too, have been enforced “in the past half century,” in which there have been 134 reported cases involving prosecutions for consensual, adult, homosexual sodomy. Gaylaw 375. In relying, for evidence of an “emerging recognition,” upon the American Law Institute’s 1955 recommendation not to criminalize “ ‘consensual sexual relations conducted in private,’ ” ante, at 11, the Court ignores the fact that this recommendation was “a point of resistance in most of the states that considered adopting the Model Penal Code.” Gaylaw 159. In any event, an “emerging awareness” is by definition not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition[s],” as we have said “fundamental right” status requires. Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct. The Bowers majority opinion never relied on “values we share with a wider civilization,” ante, at 16, but rather rejected the claimed right to sodomy on the ground that such a right was not “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” 478 U.S., at 193—194 (emphasis added). Bowers’ rational-basis holding is likewise devoid of any reliance on the views of a “wider civilization,” see id., at 196. The Court’s discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since “this Court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.” Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990, n. (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). IV I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence–indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know–that it requires little discussion. The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review. V Finally, I turn to petitioners’ equal-protection challenge, which no Member of the Court save Justice O’Connor, ante, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment), embraces: On its face §21.06(a) applies equally to all
persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, §21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex. The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was “designed to maintain White Supremacy.” Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241—242 (1976). No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers– society’s belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” 478 U.S., at 196. This is the same justification that supports many other laws regulating sexual behavior that make a distinction based upon the identity of the partner– for example, laws against adultery, fornication, and adult incest, and laws refusing to recognize homosexual marriage. Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor. “While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.” Ante, at 5. Of course the same could be said of any law. A law against public nudity targets “the conduct that is closely correlated with being a nudist,” and hence “is targeted at more than conduct”; it is “directed toward nudists as a class.” But be that as it may. Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality. Justice O’Connor simply decrees application of “a more searching form of rational basis review” to the Texas statute. Ante, at 2. The cases she cites do not recognize such a standard, and reach their conclusions only after finding, as required by conventional rational-basis analysis, that no conceivable legitimate state interest supports the classification at issue. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 635; Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448—450 (1985); Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534—538 (1973). Nor does Justice O’Connor explain precisely what her “more searching form” of rational-basis review consists of. It must at least mean, however, that laws exhibiting “ ‘a … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ ” ante, at 2, are invalid even though there may be a conceivable rational basis to support them. This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas’s interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: “preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.” In the jurisprudence Justice O’Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as “preserving the traditions of society” (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as “expressing moral disapproval” (bad).
*** Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653. One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment NonDiscrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not
believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so. The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.
1. This last-cited critic of Bowers actually writes: “[Bowers] is correct nevertheless that the right to engage in homosexual acts is not deeply rooted in America’s history and tradition.” Posner, Sex and Reason, at 343. 2. While the Court does not overrule Bowers’ holding that homosexual sodomy is not a “fundamental right,” it is worth noting that the “societal reliance” upon that aspect of the decision has been substantial as well. See 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (“A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces … if … the member has engaged in … a homosexual act or acts”); Marcum v. McWhorter, 308 F.3d 635, 640—642 (CA6 2002) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed fundamental right to commit adultery); Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 793—794 (CA9 1995) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a grandparent’s claimed “fundamental liberty interes[t]” in the adoption of her grandchildren); Doe v. Wigginton, 21 F.3d 733, 739—740 (CA6 1994) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a prisoner’s claimed “fundamental right” to on-demand HIV testing); Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (CA9 1991) (relying on Bowers in upholding a bisexual’s discharge from the armed services); Charles v. Baesler, 910 F.2d 1349, 1353 (CA6 1990) (relying on Bowers in rejecting fire department captain’s claimed “fundamental” interest in a promotion); Henne v. Wright, 904 F.2d 1208, 1214— 1215 (CA8 1990) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claim that state law restricting surnames that could be given to children at birth implicates a “fundamental right”); Walls v. Petersburg, 895 F.2d 188, 193 (CA4 1990) (relying on Bowers in rejecting substantive-due-process challenge to a police department questionnaire that asked prospective employees about homosexual activity); High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 570—571 (CA9 1988) (relying on Bowers’ holding that homosexual activity is not a fundamental right in rejecting–on the basis of the rational-basis standard–an equal-protection challenge to the Defense Department’s policy of conducting expanded investigations into backgrounds of gay and lesbian applicants for secret and top-secret security clearance). 3. The Court is quite right that “history and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry,” ante, at 11. An asserted “fundamental liberty interest” must not only be
“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997), but it must also be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” so that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed,” ibid. Moreover, liberty interests unsupported by history and tradition, though not deserving of “heightened scrutiny,” are still protected from state laws that are not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. Id., at 722. As I proceed to discuss, it is this latter principle that the Court applies in the present case.
11(b) WHY DID WE ALLOW THE TERRORIST MADNESS TO BEGIN? Why does PANCAP want to support the madness? “ENDORSING THE SYMPTOMS OF SOCIAL DISTRESS AS NORMAL” Homosexuality in Psychiatry
Until the early 1970s, the U.S psychiatric establishment classified homosexuality as a mental illness. Homosexuality appeared before this in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official reference book for diagnosing mental disorders in America and through much of the world, listed as a sexual disorder. Under growing political pressure from homosexual activists, a task force was set up to review the status of homosexuality; but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. Riots were organized at scientific meetings by gay activists in order to increase the pressure on the Psychiatric Association….
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-4.shtml “A CRAVEN CAPITULATION TO THE POWER OF THE MOB”
“At The frequently somnolent Convocation of Fellows of the APA, homosexual activists stormed the meeting, grabbed the microphone, and denounced the psychiatrists, seeking to intimidate them from even discussing homosexuality. As one homosexual leader declared, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You make take this as a declaration of war against you.” Some of the psychiatrists viewed the homosexual militants as nothing more than “Nazi storm troopers.” The psychiatric profession had never before seen forged credentials, physical intimidation, and brutal rhetoric used at a scholarly meeting. The object of the homosexuals’ fury was, of course, a long-held tenet of the psychiatric profession: homosexuality, based on a wealth of evidence, is a pathological condition, not a normal outlet of sexual expression. Homosexuality had long been listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Mental Disorders (DSM-1). It was, therefore, a “mental disorder.”As Dr. Karl Menninger had written several years earlier, “Whatever it be called by the public, there is no question in the minds of psychiatrists regarding the abnormality of such behaviour.” It would have been difficult for Beiber to believe that such brutal, unsophisticated, and unscholarly assaults could change the results of scholarly research. But the homosexual objective was clear. The wanted homosexuality deleted from DSM-II. And shockingly, as a “craven capitulation to the power of the mob,” the APA decided to delete homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Many dissenters were outraged. The profession had “disgraced itself.” Another observer said, “it now seems that if groups of people march and raise enough hell, they can change anything in time … will schizophrenia be next? And one psychiatrist wrote: “The Board of trustees [of the APA] has made a terrible, almost unforgivable decision which will adversely affect the lives of young homosexuals who are desperately seeking direction and cure. That decision … will give [them] an easy way out.” “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy”; Roger J. Magnuson; Multnomah Press; pgs 22-24 … “The power of language”.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART I
Prop. 8 supporters suffer vandalism, violence
Associated Press - 11/3/2008 7:15:00 AM http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506 SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become the target of vandalism and violence. Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have been parked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted. Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto was beaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds. "We have boys dying...protecting our freedom in Iraq, while we have our freedom being taken as people rip signs out and destroy them and deface them," says Pastor Garlow. "It's quite an amazing venue to find ourselves in [here] in America." Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure is supported by evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic, and Mormon groups. It is opposed by Unitarians and Episcopalians.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART II
Prop 8 Supporters Lie Low as Demonstrations Continue
By Ted Chen: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/PROP-8-SUPPORTERS-LIE-LOW-ASDEMONSTRATIONS-CONTINUE.html Updated 5:44 PM PST, Tue, Nov 11, 2008 As demonstrations continue against Proposition 8, the measure approved last week by California voters to ban same sex marriage, Prop 8 supporters have been staying relatively quiet, yet still standing firm in their belief that voters did the right thing A demonstration against Prop 8 was planned for 5 p.m. Tuesday at the Santa Monica Pier. It was the latest in a series of demonstrations since voters approved the measure last week by a 4 percent margin. More than 40 state legislators are supporting lawsuits to have Prop 8 overturned. Prop 8, however, had overwhelming support among African Americans, gaining nearly 70 percent support. But two African American churches declined to go on the record Tuesday because they say they feared retaliation. California's churches have been the target of protests and, in some cases, vandalism, apparently by Prop 8 opponents. Many churchgoers in the African American community say they voted for Prop 8 because they believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman. They rejected comparisons of the struggle of gays and lesbians to the civil rights struggles of the 1960's.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART III
Matt Gurney: California's gay marriage vote sparks retribution
Posted: November 14, 2008, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland While America marked the dawn of the Obama era last Tuesday, in California, homosexual rights advocates were coming to terms with the passing of Proposition 8, which calls for the state's constitution to be amended to explicitly make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Amid the protests and reports of churches being vandalized, one man has come to serve as a focal point for the anger of Proposition 8's opponents. Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of the California Musical Theater, made a $1000 donation to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. This donation, part of California's public record, was discovered by a business associate, who published the information online. From there, news of Eckern's donation was quickly spread by various blogs, including the tremendously popular perezhilton.com celebrity gossip site. A storm of controversy rapidly developed around Eckern's donation in support of banning gay marriage, with calls for a boycott of Eckern's theater and expressions of shock and betrayal by those who had worked with him. This sense of betrayal was apparently rooted in the notion that as someone involved in theatre, Eckern must have worked closely with gays and should therefore be sympathetic. Taken aback by the public outcry, Eckern quickly fell on his proverbial sword, issuing a statement apologizing for having hurt anyone's feelings, stating that his sister was in a lesbian relationship he was supportive of, and promising to make a donation of equal size to the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay advocacy group. Eckern, a Mormon, stressed that he was opposed to discrimination, and that his support of Proposition 8 was simply an expression of his political opinion that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. He then offered his resignation, which was accepted. The situation he found himself in is disturbing. A seemingly upstanding citizen exercised his political right to donate his legally-earned money to a campaign that was close to his heart and in accordance with his personal religious faith. While every citizen of the United States has the right to disagree with Eckern's opinion, the public shaming of this apparently decent man, to the point that he quit a job he was presumably good at, is deeply troubling. By California law, all political donations of $1,000 or more are a part of public record. This has opened up supporters of both sides of this issue to the possibility of retaliation, while stripping them of their right to vote their convictions in privacy. Jeff Flint, Campaign Manager of the "Yes on 8" campaign, released a statement stating, "We teach our children that getting involved in the political process, as a voter, volunteer, or donor, is a good thing. Civic involvement and participation in democracy is at the core of our nation's most cherished freedoms. The unruly mob that has emerged out of the failed No on 8 campaign is attacking all of these freedoms and values." Democracy requires voters to sometimes decide painful, contentious issues. An absolute prerequisite to that is being able to rest assured that one may cast their vote – and yes, donate their money – safe in the knowledge that their legally-discharged democratic duty will not expose them to vigilante retribution or political intimidation. Eckern chose to step aside without a fight, and seems genuinely mortified to have caused offence. I cannot help but wonder, though, what would have happened if he'd stuck by his guns and simply stated that how he spent his money was his business? Would the California Musical Theater have championed their employee's right to vote his conscience, or would they have exercised political censorship by finding some way to turf him for supporting Yes on 8? Scott Eckern is an accidental symbol, a man thrust into the spotlight by the vagaries of chance and the realities of instant electronic communication. But there are thousands of others like him who have been left equally exposed to revenge or social stigmatization for disagreeing with another person's opinion. Democracy cuts both ways, and financial supporters of gay marriage are just as vulnerable to retaliation as those who opposed it. The aftermath of this campaign has already turned ugly, and if the situation deteriorates further, lives could well be endangered. When contacted for comment, Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the Yes on 8 Campaign, wrote, "It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is scary. And notable that law enforcement and government leaders stand by silently." California's choice to publish the names, addresses, and occupations of those who donate large sums to political causes is not only dangerous politically, but could quickly become dangerous in the most literal sense possible. With tempers running hot, the shaming of Scott Eckern and his resignation might strike some as a victory. Those who would celebrate should be mindful, however, of the potential ramifications of having opened this particular Pandora's Box. Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8 might soon rue the day that in their earnest and understandable haste to drive the government out of their bedrooms, they pushed themselves into another citizen's voting booth. email@example.com; National Post Matt Gurney is a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University.
The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART I “Judge
criticised over privacy law”
Monday, November 10, 2008; 10:50 pm http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081110/tuk-judge-criticised-over-privacy-law-dba161 8.html ITN
A newspaper editor has accused a High Court judge of bringing in a privacy law by the back door. Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre said the "arrogant and amoral" judgements of Mr Justice Eady were "inexorably and insidiously" imposing a privacy law on the British press. Mr Justice Eady had used the privacy clause of the Human Rights Act against newspapers and their freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places, Mr Dacre told the Society of Editors annual conference in Bristol. "If Gordon Brown wanted to force a privacy law, he would have to set out a Bill, arguing his case in both Houses of Parliament, withstand public scrutiny and win a series of votes," Mr Dacre said. "Now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen." Two years ago, Mr Justice Eady had ruled that a cuckolded husband could not sell his story to the press about another married man - a wealthy sporting celebrity - who had seduced his wife. Mr Dacre said: "The judge was worried about the effect of the revelations on the celebrity's wife. "Now I agree that any distress caused to innocent parties is regrettable but exactly the same worries could be expressed about the relatives of any individual who transgressed which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that nobody could be condemned for wrongdoing.
"But the judge - in an unashamed reversal of centuries of moral and social thinking - placed the rights of the adulterer above society's age-old belief that adultery should be condemned."
In the case brought by Formula One boss Max Mosley against the News of the World, Mr Dacre said Mr Justice Eady "effectively ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the multi-millionaire head of a multibillion sport that is followed by countless young people to pay five women £2,500 to take part in acts of unimaginable sexual depravity with him".
The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART II Is this the death of the democratic process, and the maturity of gay terrorism? Justice Scalia’s prophetic words become true! http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 30 above) “It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 32 above) AND NOW THIS (NOTE HIGHLIGHTS BELOW)
Court will hear appeal of same-sex marriage measure
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/gay.marriage/index.html November 20, 2008
“(CNN) -- California's Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear the appeal of a challenge to Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure outlawing same-sex marriage. In a written statement, the court said it will not block the implementation or enforcement of the law in the meantime. Proposition 8 passed with about 52.5 percent of the vote, making California one of several states to ban same-sex marriage in the November 4 elections. But unlike the other states, California had already been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since May, after a state Supreme Court ruling legalized the unions. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed legal challenges to the vote, asking the high court to rule the ballot-initiative process was "improperly used" to strip away a right protected by the state constitution. The court said arguments in the case could be heard as early as March. In its May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes. The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process." In the hours after the proposition's apparent passage, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Los Angeles and other cities across California in protest.”
16 (a) UPDATE MAY 27, 2009 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES 6-1 TO UPHOLD PROPOSITION 8 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/ “….Proposition
8 superseded the Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that legalized same-sex unions by amending the state constitution to outlaw them. In that decision, the court invalidated California's marriage statutes, holding that denying samesex couples the right to wed amounted to state-sanctioned discrimination. In a 136-page majority ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the justices said it was not their job to address whether the ban was wise public policy, but only to decide whether it was constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values." Drawing on California's long history of citizen-initiative amendments, the court rejected arguments that the ban was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval. "The constitutions of a number of other states contain express provisions precluding the use of the initiative power to amend portions or specified provisions of those states' constitutions," George wrote. "In contrast, the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation …."
Second Update: February 7, 2012 What price judicial Tyranny? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html ) “...A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year. The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal. The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California….” *************************************************************************************** (See the lower part of page 25 in lawyer Roger J. Magnuson’s prophetic summary of the legal issues) “...Finding homosexuality “a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed traditionally condemned,” the court
held that its decision would be based on constitutional principle, not on shifting public opinion [Dronenberg v. Zech 741 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir., 1984)]...” Such federal decisions have left homosexuals two options: convince state courts that there is a right to commit sodomy under the state constitution, or convince legislators to repeal the statute....”
Justice Scalia’s own prophetic words in Lawrence v. Texas become true! http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rationalbasis review.” (Scalia, J. dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas at page 31 above) “It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.” (Scalia, J. dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas at page 33 above)
End notes: How does Canada define “terror” relative to its “protection” of homosexuality? Is this what we want for the Caribbean? If not, we must reject it by every legal means necessary!
“Only a few defended the teacher”
TED BYFIELD -- Edmonton Sun, May 18, 2003 http://www.strangebusiness.com/content/item/24380.html
“Two things will, no doubt, dumbfound historians when they come to look back on the Canada of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. One is the fact that we very gradually converted the country into the most authoritarian state in the western world. The other is that so few Canadians objected to this when it was happening. One instance that may intrigue them, for example, is the appalling case of Chris Kempling - appalling, anyway, to Kempling. Nobody else seems much interested in it. Kempling is (or was) a school teacher and counsellor in Quesnel, B.C. He was suspended for one month by the B.C. College of Teachers for writing letters to a newspaper criticizing the B.C. sex-ed courses. The courses failed, he said, to show that homosexual relationships are demonstrably unstable, that homosexual activity poses a health risk, and that many religions consider homosexual conduct immoral. Kempling made no such comments in class. There were no parental or student complaints about his writing the letters to the editor, nor were there complaints from other teachers. In other words, his activity in this regard was entirely off-campus. He was addressing the public on a public issue, and expressing an opinion. The College of Teachers ruled that all this was irrelevant because "Mr. Kempling used his status as a teacher to give credibility to his views." In short, when the teachers college takes a position on a moral question, all members of the profession are thereupon bound to either echo the view or shut up. Any violation of this rule will bring suspension. In vain, Kempling looked around to see who would help him. His union, the British Columbia Teachers Federation, beyond providing some initial legal help, turned him down flat. "His views are antithetical to our position about the inclusion of gays, lesbians, transgendered and two-spirited people in our society," says the president. Neither would the B.C. Civil Liberties Association take up his cause. He should be fired as a school counsellor, says president John Dixon. That the college could find no specific impact on his students didn't matter. "If there are gay students in that school and you can bet your bottom dollar there are - they're going to keep their heads down and they certainly aren't going to resort to Mr. Kempling for advice." Kempling is a Christian, said Dixon, and as a counsellor he favours his religious conscience over his duties. How Dixon was in a position to know what Kempling might do in pursuing his duties, Dixon did not explain. Presumably, he believes no person with religious beliefs should be employed as a school counsellor because this danger would always exist. Atheists only need apply. Kempling's church came to his help and contributed $30,000 to his defence fund. A few voices in the media spoke up. The Victoria Times-Colonist found it strange that the College of Teachers could become so zealous in protecting homosexuality. "Yet it can't bring itself to get rid of demonstrably rotten teachers, and can only issue reprimands to some who have had improper relationships with students, or, in one recent case, flashed them." In The Vancouver Province, columnist Susan Martinuk called the college "a supposedly enlightened bunch" who sought to refuse to certify teachers from Trinity Western College because they might be Christians and therefore "homophobic." Kempling says the ruling will ruin his career, since the college's decision will be circulated to every school division on the continent. Meanwhile, a Commons committee is considering a bill that would make the reading of biblical injunctions against homosexuality in a church a "hate crime" under the Criminal Code. Another court fines a parent for spanking his teenaged son with a belt, while yet another court endorses the action of a social worker in seizing a whole family of kids because their parents were known to occasionally spank them. Throw in other endeavours by courts and governments and you see emerging the western world's No. 1 totalitarian state, all developed in the name of human rights. Yes, it will be very hard for future historians to understand.”
End Notes II: What the Bible says in a few words is invariably supported by secular scholarship!
The Congressional Record of May 1996 writes that “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” is … the best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime! One comment in Satinover’s book that should concern us is this: “Homosexuality is but one of the many forms of ‘soul sickness’ that that are innate to our fallen natures!” As inferences go, therefore, there is another book that attains an even higher standard than Satinover’s. Sometimes we mistakenly believe that arguments fashioned in our hand make sense in the face of sin's oppression. So try these words ... from the source Himself! Rom 1:16. Rom 1:17. Rom 1:18: Rom 1:19: Rom 1:20: Rom 1:21: Rom 1:22: Rom 1:23: Rom 1:24: Rom 1:25: Rom 1:26: Rom 1:27: Rom 1:28: Rom 1:29: Rom 1:30: Rom 1:31: Rom 1:32: I have complete confidence in the gospel; it is God's power to save all who believe, first the Jews and also the Gentiles. For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end. As the scripture says, "The person who is put right with God through faith shall live." God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen. Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing. Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, he has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them. (The Good News Bible)
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.