"Fisting [forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex
By Brian Camenker
and Scott Whiteman
May 2000

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "professional development credits." Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were also there.

To say that the descriptions below of workshops and presentations of this state-sponsored event for educators and children are "every parent’s nightmare," does not do them justice. It is beyond belief that this could be happening at all. One music teacher who attended out of curiosity said that she could not sleep for several nights afterwards and had nightmares about it.

"Queer sex for youth, 14-21"
In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The purpose appeared to be to train adults who are running the student clubs.  The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were:

o Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education

o Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education

o Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health

The workshop syllabus included:

o "What’s it like to be young, queer and beginning to date?

o "Are lesbians at risk for HIV?…
"We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met."

The workshop opened with the three public employees asking the children "how they knew, as gay people, whether or not they’ve had sex." Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was "sex," to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, "If that’s not sex, then the number of times I’ve had sex has dramatically decreased, from a mountain to a valley, baby." Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old:

Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?"

Student:  [hesitation]

Michael Gaucher: "Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it."

Student: "Your mouth."

Michael Gaucher: "Okay."

Student: "Your ass."

Michael Gaucher: "There you go."

Student: "Your pussy. That kind of place."

But since sex occurred "when an orifice was filled," the next question was how lesbians could "have sex." Margot Abels discussed whether a dildo had to be involved; when it was too big or too small; and what homosexual resources students could consult to get similar questions answered.

Role playing and "carpet munching"
Then the children were asked to role-play. One student was to act the part of "a young lesbian who’s really enraptured with another woman, and it’s really coming down to the wire and you’re thinking about having sex." The other student played the "hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to." The "counseling" included discussions of lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or "carpet munching," as one student put it. The student asked whether it would smell like fish. At that point the session turned to another subject.

"A lesson in fisting?"
There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What’s fisting?"

A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the ass or pussy" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don’t make a fist like this. It’s like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.

Margot Abels told the students that "fisting" is not about forcing your hand into somebody’s "hole, opening or orifice" if they don’t want it there. She said that "usually" the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.
At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting "often gets a really bad rap," it usually isn’t about the pain, "not that we’re putting that down." Margot Abels informed him and the class that "fisting" was "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." When a child asked the question, "Why would someone do this?" Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to "put them into an exploratory mode."

"Rubbing each others’ clits…"
Michael Gaucher presented the next question, "Do lesbians rub their clits together?"

Michael Gaucher and Margot Abels asked the kids if they thought it was possible and whether someone would do a "hand-diagram" for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who looked about 15 or 16 then stepped up to the board and drew a three foot high vagina and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and "put up inside the ‘G’-spot." While drawing, Michael Gaucher told her to use the "pink" chalk, to which Margot Abels responded, "Not everyone is pink, honey." All of the children laughed.

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked on the size of the "clit," and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then Margot Abels informed all of the young girls that, indeed, you can rub your "clitori" together, either with or without clothes and "you can definitely orgasm from it." Michael Gaucher told the kids that "there is a name for this: tribadism," which he wrote on the board and told one girl who looked about 14 to "bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford." Julie Netherland informed the children that it wasn’t too difficult because, "When you are sexually aroused, your clit gets bigger."

"Should you spit after you suck another boy (or a man)?"
Michael Gaucher read the following from a card: "Cum and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns." Gaucher informed the children that although he didn’t know the calorie count of male ejaculation, he has "heard that it’s sweeter if people eat celery." He then asked the boys, "Is it rude not to swallow?" Many of the high school boys mumbled "No," but one about the age of 16 said emphatically, "Oh no!" One boy, again about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex by not brushing your teeth or eating course food for four hours before you "go down on a guy," "because then you probably don’t want to be swallowing cum."

Another question asked was whether oral sex was better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, "Yes," to which all of the children laughed. Michael Gaucher said, "There you have it" and stated something to the effect that the debate has ended.

Use a condom?  It’s your decision, really.
One often hears that there is an aggressive HIV/AIDS prevention campaign, but the session ran 55 minutes before the first mention of "protection" and safer sex came. In the context of the "safer sex" discussion, however, it was pointed out that these children could make an "informed decision" not to use a condom. Outside in the conference hall, the children could easily obtain as many condoms, vaginal condoms and other contraceptive devices as they wished from various organizations which distribute such.

Well, yes…it really is about sex!
Another popular session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was called, "Putting the ‘Sex’ Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators."
The workshop included:

What does it mean to say "being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn’t about sex?…How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us?  How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth?…This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA’s….additional strategies will be discussed."

The three presenters now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about "queer sex" with their students.

Tired of denying it
Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex… We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."

Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few "campaigns" that have been used to demonstrate to queer youth how to best "be safe" while still enjoying homosexual sex.

The campaign, "Respect yourself, protect yourself," was thought to be good in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn’t protect themselves feel bad, it ultimately was a poor message. Michael Gaucher pointed out that children "with an older partner that they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don’t respect themselves?"

The campaign, "No sex, no problem," was ridiculed, as the campaign assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, the campaign made those children who had already had sex feel bad or think they had a problem, since they had had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Margot Abels described the project she works on. The "Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project" goes to five different schools each year conducting up to eight "HIV prevention sessions" in that school’s gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for "fisting" were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct the same workshops for their students.

Bringing homosexuality into the middle school
One participant remarked half-way through that Margot Abels just wasn’t "talking to" her, since she, the participant, was a lesbian, middle school teacher. She wanted to know specifically what she could do to facilitate discussions about homosexuality in middle school. This was solved in another session entitled, "Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum."  Christine L. Hoyle, Special Education Teacher and workshop presenter, told the story of how she turned the holocaust portion of her curriculum into a gay affirming section. Ms. Hoyle allowed the group at the conference to watch a video which she had her students produce and which was narrated by a seventh grade girl. This girl told the audience that ancient Greeks "encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover." Thus, this teacher informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.

Finally, the handouts
An enormous amount of very disturbing material, most of it aimed at children, was distributed at the conference. Much of it encourages young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. The Sidney Borum Community Health Center table was giving out a cassette sized "pocket sex" kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic "moist" towelettes, and six bandages, which were for "when the sex got really rough" according to the high school volunteer behind the desk. There was a countless supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which were for the taking by any child who wanted them.  One could see children as young as 12 or 13 at the conference participating and receiving "information" and materials.

It shocked this reporter.

For the reporter and the music teacher, this "conference" was a shock that words can barely describe. One wonders whether it was similar to the experiences of American GIs when they first approached the concentration camps. They had heard stories and rumors, but no one could imagine it was like this. It was a mind-numbing experience.

But most shocking of all was that none of the adults seemed to be bothered by any of it.  In fact, there was an eerie sense of solidarity in the air, against "those bigots, those homophobes who would stop our progress."

After our paper was delivered to 250,000 homes across the Commonwealth and after our Internet site carried the news around the country, many citizens expressed their shock and anger. When talk show host, Jeanine Graf of 96.9FM, spent three hours every evening for two weeks on the issue, many more expressed their outrage. When all of this pressure hit, the Dept. of Education terminated the two employees and apologized to the state. But the homosexual activists did not want copies of this tape to be heard by the public. So they went to a judge in secret the night before a rally of parents was to be held and asked him to issue an emergency order stopping anyone from talking about the scandal or distributing a tape recording of what had happened. The unconstitutional order that was issued shocked the entire nation, but not Massachusetts.

The following stories were on the daily Internet site of The Massachusetts News.

After receiving terrible publicity from across the country, Judge van Gestel removed the press from his unconstitutional Order, but he did not remove Brian Camenker or Scott Whiteman. This is an editorial that was written by Massachusetts News.

Judge van Gestel ­ Please Read the Constitution
July 2000

Judge van Gestel said yesterday that he saw the editorial in the Boston Herald on Tuesday which questioned whether he’s read the Constitution lately.
Although the judge assured everyone that he has read the Constitution, it isn’t only the Herald that is wondering.
The judge told lawyers for FOX News that if they didn’t like the wiretap law, they had to go back to the state legislature. He said the language of the law was very broad and could be understood to include the press. "That is the law they gave me to uphold."
What a Dumb Statement!
That is not the law they gave him to uphold. It is only because of how he has interpreted the law that makes it facially unconstitutional.
There are two elements that he must decide. 1) Did the law forbid what Scott Whiteman did? 2) If the law does forbid it, is the law permissible under the First Amendment?
#1 Does Law Prohibit Scott Whiteman from Taping?
As to issue #1, it is not at all clear that the legislature intended to stop Whiteman from taping this public Conference. It is very clear in the Preamble that the law was enacted primarily to protect the public against organized crime and to allow the police to wiretap their conversations. At the same time, the legislature was not opening the door to unlimited wiretapping by anyone.
The lawmakers said they were concerned about the "uncontrolled development and unrestricted use" of "modern electronic surveillance devices." (This hardly sounds like a pocket tape recorder.)
Clearly, this law does not stop anyone from taping a public meeting such as a town meeting, a school board meeting or similar event. But a judge could look at the explicit words of the law and say that it does prohibit taping those events if the judge doesn’t have any common sense. And one of the first things most people learn in law school is that a judge has to construe a law so that it will not be unconstitutional if it is possible for him to do so.
But Judge van Gestel is construing the law in defiance of common sense and with a determination to make it unconstitutional. He told FOX News, "That is the law they gave me to uphold." But that is not true. He is totally misconstruing what they gave him.
There have been very few court opinions on this particular law, but the few that we have indicate that what Whiteman did was not unlawful. But Judge van Gestel did not encourage any discussion from the attorneys before making his decision. Very few judges are so authoritarian as to enter a Restraining Order like this before any trial has been held without meticulously discussing the law and the facts of the case with the attorneys.
#2 If Law Does Forbid Whiteman,  Is It Unconstitutional?
If the judge is correct that this law does prohibit what Scott Whiteman did, it is clearly unconstitutional.
This was a public meeting where everyone had been invited to hear public employees instruct teachers and students. Even the judge agrees that Whiteman had a right to be at the meeting and to report what was said. The only problem is that no one believed what he told them. He (and many other parents) had been rebuffed time and time again by state and local employees.
It was necessary that he report this information totally and accurately. The judge agrees Whiteman could have gone to shorthand class and then transcribed the session and no one could complain. He could have hired a court stenographer and no one would have complained. But neither of those would have been as accurate as a tape recording.
Judge’s 17-Year-Old Daughter
This judge was a member of a silk-stocking law firm for 35 years before becoming a judge and obviously has very little contact with the real world.
He said at the hearing that he has a 17-year-old old daughter and, "I feel very strongly about someone secretly taping my daughter and selling it on the State House steps."
He obviously has no idea what went on that meeting. Perhaps he should listen to the tape before he rules on it. Wouldn’t that be a sensible idea? This was criminal conduct by public employees who were corrupting the morals of children by promoting dangerous and harmful practices to their bodies. This was not instruction about AIDS prevention. The practices of fisting, oral sex and many others that were promoted would cause disease, not prevent it. And it does not bother this judge that other people’s 12-year-olds are being subjected to this without their knowledge or consent? In addition, the tape has been altered so that no voices are recognizable.
Is the judge really so naïve that he would believe Camenker and Whiteman are making money from this? What a stupid idea!! These people are parents who are making a tremendous sacrifice to alert other parents ­ including Alan van Gestel, parent ­ as to what is happening in the schools of Massachusetts.
He doesn’t have the common sense to believe them even with the tape. We’re lucky that most parents are smarter than he.
Why Didn’t Boston Media Complain?
It’s strange that the Boston media did not complain about this serious abridgement of their First Amendment rights. Many people across the country are worried about this historic infringement upon the rights of the press. And yet the media in Boston were strangely silent.
One possibility or explanation that anyone must consider is that they knew the judge was going to rule in their favor and lift the ban. Their reporters certainly have contacts and friends all across the city, including the courthouse. And they have lawyers who are probably friends with this judge.
If they did know in advance, it would certainly explain their lack of concern.

Even the state Senate was forbidden by Judge van Gestel from
discussing what had happened at the sex conference, one of the most bizarre occurrences in the Constitutional history of our country. Yet, almost no one in the state knows it occurred.

Judge Forbad Debate by State Senate
July 2000

As a Result, Senate Refused to Cut Gay Funding During Yet Another Nighttime Session

While an Emergency Restraining Order was in effect, which prohibited anyone from discussing the graphic sexual instruction given to school children by Department of Education employees at a Conference in March, the state Senate refused on Monday night to discontinue the funding of homosexual programs in the state’s schools.

The entire legislature was sent an email by Rep. Jarrett T. Barios (D-Cambridge), an open homosexual, warning them that they could not mention anything that had occurred at the March Conference that has led to the firing of two state employees.

The Senate session was labeled an "emergency."
The judge who issued the Order last week was scheduled to consider lifting the Order yesterday, the day after the emergency Senate action.

The radio talk show host who had alerted the state to the problem was scheduled to go on the air at 7 p.m. on Monday to warn the state that the Senate was moving to consider this matter. Therefore, the Senate called an emergency and passed the measure shortly before the time when Jeanine Graf was scheduled to begin broadcasting at 96.9FM.

Press Does Not Report It
Even though Attys. Alan Dershowitz, Harvey Silverglate and many other lawyers denounced the court’s attempt to muzzle the legislature, neither the Boston Globe nor the Boston Herald reported anything about the unusual and historic, unconstitutional event.

The Globe reported on Tuesday that, "The state Senate yesterday rebuffed an effort to slash funding for gay and lesbian teen suicide programs…" It said the action came on the first day of debate on the Senate’s debate on the budget.
But it did not report that the Senate had been unconstitutionally gagged by a state judge from debating the subject.

The Globe wrote that Sen. Edward J. Clancy Jr. (D-Lynn) wanted to cut the item from $1.5 million to $1 million but was satisfied when the money was specified for suicide prevention and not for sex education.

But Brian Camenker, President of the Parents Rights Coalition, which has been spearheading the parents’ outrage over the scandal, said, "This is a lie. The same funding remains. There was no ‘gay sex education’ money to start with. All of it that was used to pay for the March 25 Conference was so-called ‘suicide prevention money.’ This won’t change a thing."

Camenker also noted that it was a lie that the Conference was not funded by the state. "Through various sources, it was almost entirely state funded," he said.
The Boston Herald noted that the Senate had banned the use of money in sex education workshops but it did not report anything about the ban on debate that the court had imposed.

Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg (D-Amherst) also expressed concern during the debate, according to the Herald. "The inappropriate use and abuse of the program cried out for some recognition and articulation," he said. But the measure apparently passed unanimously.
Judge Gags Everyone

The gag Order was imposed in secret by Judge Allan van Gestel on Wednesday afternoon at the request of lawyers for one of the Department of Education employees, Julie Netherland, who had been fired because of what she did at the Conference. She told the judge that she was instructing the children in prevention of HIV/AIDS.

"She told the judge a lie. She was not instructing the children in preventing disease," said Camenker. "All of the sexual instruction she gave in ‘fisting’ and other kinky sex is terribly dangerous to their health in many ways, including AIDS."

Netherland also told the judge that, "The distribution of this tape recording would cause irreparable harm to me as an HIV/AIDS educator regardless of where I work." To which Camenker responded, "She should have considered that before she dumped on those innocent children."

The other person who requested the Order was a high school junior from Watertown who was concerned that her voice might be recognized on the tape.
But Camenker explained that all voices had already been altered and could not be recognized. "I really am perplexed how these people can tell us they are concerned about the privacy of the children and reveal this girl who was at the Conference," he said.

One of the most striking aspects of the scandal was the way the Boston Globe misinformed the public about what was happening. It is a classic case of how that newspaper uses its power to push its own agenda. We demonstrated that in this story.

Boston Globe Misleads About Sex Scandal
July 2000

Although Judge Allan van Gestel has overturned the draconian Order which gagged everyone from talking about the sex scandal which caused the firing of two state workers this month, this wasn’t even mentioned in the article that appeared in Friday’s Boston Globe.

The judge had been under severe attack from all across the country for his violation of the First Amendment. Some of the severest criticism came from liberal lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Harvey Silverglate; FOX News dispatched a lawyer to the hearing. But the Globe never mentioned any of that. It printed a headline, "Ruling halts parents group on workshop tape."

The Globe’s first paragraph was, "A Superior Court judge yesterday barred a group of parents from disseminating secret tape recordings of Department of Education workers having a graphic sexual dialogue with teenagers at a recent workshop."

But the judge dropped everyone from the Order except for the parents who made the tape. The Globe was incorrect when it said that the judge barred the parents in his Friday ruling. He merely continued his old Order against them. But all of the media are now free to distribute tapes to anyone they wish.

The judge had warned the homosexual plaintiffs during oral argument, that if he dropped the Order against the media as they requested, it wouldn’t be a victory for them. It would mean that the audiotapes of the March 25 sex Conference would be open to everyone. But he followed their request.

Moreover, the judge did allow the parents more latitude in that, in contrast to his previous Order, they can discuss any part of the sessions that they can remember without referring to the tape.

But the Globe did not report it that way. It reported it as a victory for the homosexual group which sponsored the Conference.

Judge van Gestel sits as a Superior Court judge in Suffolk County.

The Boston Globe mounted an intensive attack on the parents. It was not concerned about the teaching of explicit homosexual sex to children. On just one day, June 2, it printed two stories side-by-side on the front page of the Metro section. We responded on our website with the following.

Globe Reporters Are Ignorant About Law
July 2000

Will someone please tell the Boston Globe that no one has decided whether the audiotapes that were recorded by parents were in violation of wiretap laws?

Despite this, the Globe continues to tell everyone that the judge has already held that the parents violated the law.

The Globe did it again on Friday, when it reported, "A state Superior Court judge  has since barred the group from distributing the tapes, ruling at the request of a gay advocate that they were made in violation of wiretap laws."
It is obvious that the Globe desperately wants the judge to hold that way, but they should report the truth. The judge has not made any decision in the matter.
Explain It to the Globe

What has happened is this.

Homosexual lawyers went to the judge in secret, just before the parents held a big rally at the State House. Because the judge believed the homosexual lawyers, he issued a draconian, unconstitutional order which gagged the entire world from discussing anything about the scandal ­ and learning what the homosexuals had taught the children.

This attack by a judge upon the U.S. Constitution shocked the entire country. Fox News sent lawyers to protest. Even Boston’s liberal lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Harvey Silverglate expressed their shock and dismay.
Incredibly, even the state legislature was told that it could not discuss the issue when it debated funding of $1.5 million for homosexual groups to use in our schools last week.

When he realized how wrong he had been, the judge, Allan van Gestel, was in a very embarrassing situation. He had made a ruling that made him a laughing stock across the country. He couldn’t reverse himself without looking even more foolish. So he removed his gag order on anyone who was powerful, particularly the press.  The only ones that he continued to bar were the two parents who were responsible for the taping. After all, they don’t have much money and the judge didn’t look as foolish if he continued the order against them.

He had a welcome ally in the Globe which has continued to misrepresent the truth.

But Didn’t Parents Violate the Law?
The judge has not yet ruled whether the wiretapping law was broken. He does not have the power to do so. That will be decided at a trial by jury. (We still have trials in Massachusetts.)

All the judge has done is to decide that the plaintiffs have a possibility of winning the case. But he cannot make a decision without a trial. Even he agrees he was wrong in the first Order that he made. Who knows what he will decide after he has had time to research the matter.

(He has yet to ask the defendants’ attorneys what they think about the law. This is very unusual procedure because all judges except for Judge van Gestel would do much more research into the matter before issuing Orders such as this which restrain the civil liberties of these parents so drastically.)

Editor Says Boston Globe ‘Lacks Talent’
This is another example of what Metro Editor Peter Canellos wrote in a memo to senior management last year when he said that the majority of his reporters at the Globe lack talent and can’t even be edited.

"The major obstacle, as with many priorities in Metro," he wrote, "is the lack of talent on the staff. Most of the Metro staff ­ perhaps three-quarters ­ is not capable of writing a marquee Sunday piece. Most of the editors aren’t capable of editing them…"

Canellos could start by seeing that his people cover this story accurately.

The new editor of the Editorial Page at the Boston Globe got into trouble almost immediately, by making people question her morals and wondering where she grew up.

New Editor of Globe’s Editorial Page Is In Trouble
July 2000

The new editor of the Editorial Page at the Boston Globe is in trouble and it’s only her first week on the job. She used to be Political Editor at the Boston Phoenix and she’s already displaying the morality of her former employer.
She, Renee Loth, published a childish editorial last Saturday about the Department of Education scandal and the meeting held at Tufts University on March 25 where graphic homosexual sex was to taught to students.

She denied that the session could lure children into homosexual sexual activity. But in the next sentence, she said, "To judge from the questions, most were already sexually active." But if "most" had already been corrupted by previous sessions, that means there must have been some who had not.

And, in fact, some students were obviously not yet into this behavior because they asked why anyone would want to do some of those foolish things. How many students were hearing this dangerous instruction for the first time? It could have been one, three or ten students. We don’t know and she doesn’t either. But she agrees there were some.

But she really gave away her background when she said, "They [the teenagers] were asking the sorts of things teenagers ask every day…"

These questions are asked by students every day!?

Where did she grow up? Who did she ask about "fisting" as a child? Or "do lesbians rub their clits together," "should you spit after you suck another boy or man," "whether oral sex was better with tongue rings," etc.

Regardless of where she has lived in the past and whom she has associated with, she is happy that the children get accurate information instead of "inaccurate or dangerous answers from their peers." This information that was presented by Department of Education was about as dangerous as it can get.
As a person who has been many places in a long lifetime and seen many things, I’d much rather put my trust in the "inaccurate and dangerous answers" from my peers than I would from these dirty, old people from the state.

And if you read any erudite editorials in the future about our policy on nuclear weapons or whether we should continue to occupy the Balkans, remember who is writing them.

Note how the activists always go to "safety" and "suicide" when talking about our vulnerable youth. This caused Massachusetts News to rerun a previous story on this subject.

Governor’s Commission Lies
Continually About ‘Safety’ and ‘Suicide’
July 2000

The Governor’s "Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth" is once again trying to fight the concerns by parents over their agenda by talking one more time about the "safety" and "suicide" of homosexual students in the Commonwealth.
Therefore, we reprint a story from our October issue which addressed this canard.

A speech by a homosexual activist in 1995 revealed that he had used "safety" to delude Gov. Weld and the state legislature into adopting the homosexual agenda for the schools of Massachusetts. The speech was titled Winning the Culture War and was given by Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of the "Gay and Lesbian and Straight Teachers’ Network," at the "Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference" on March 5, 1995.

"If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language ­ ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example ­ is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids.’ We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term ‘pro-life’ allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.

"In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card ­ safety ­ and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report "Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth," we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.

"Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common.
"In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves’: this allowed us to set the terms for the debate.

"In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real-live stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More importantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result."

"It’s a ‘statistic’ that’s been repeated innumerable times: A gay teenager is some three times more likely to commit suicide."

That was the first paragraph in an article in the Boston Herald in 1997 by the Newhouse News Service. It pointed out that nearly ten years after the original publication of the widely discredited statistic by Paul Gibson, a social worker in Chicago, the figures were still being used even though many organizations had stated that there is no evidence that they are true.

Those organizations include The Center for Disease Control, The National Institute of Mental Health, the American Association of Suicidology, the American Psychological Association, and some gay advocacy groups.
Even Joyce Hunter, the one time president of the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association, has said it is unknown if there is a connection between homosexuality and teen suicide.

Peter Muehrer, chief of the Youth Mental Health program in the Prevention and Behavioral Medicine Research branch of the National Institute of Mental Health and recent winner of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Award for Distinguished Service, has analyzed the original studies on which the Gibson review was based and determined that the conclusions can not be supported by the data.

He wrote, "There is no scientific evidence to support this data." Joyce Hunter said she agrees with mental-health researchers that most gay and lesbian teens, like teens overall, are emotionally resilient people who "go on to develop a positive sense of self and go on with their lives."

Nevertheless, the scientifically baseless claim was the catalyst for the creation of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Gay/Straight Alliances in the schools. William Weld claimed that this suicide figure was a clear indication that our schools are unsafe for homosexual youth. Since the creation of the Commission, schools have been encouraged to start Gay Straight Alliances, again under the presumption that schools are currently unsafe for homosexual students.

Approximately 5,000 teens commit suicide in a year. There is no evidence to link those suicides to homosexuality.

Globe Reveals the ‘Truth’ About Jeanine Graf
She Might Be a Christian!
July 2000

In the ultimate ‘hate piece,’ the Boston Globe revealed the truth yesterday about Jeanine Graf, talk show host on 96.9FM: she is suspected of being a Christian.

Although it’s difficult to believe that the Globe really wrote those bigoted remarks, you can check it in their print paper on page E8, June 1. The Globe wrote, "Already, protesters…are commenting on Graf’s background."

What is that dangerous background?

The Globe gave us the answer. "About ten years ago, she did in fact work for a Christian station, Salem Broadcasting’s WEZE-AM (590) in North Quincy."
The paper didn’t report whether it had confirmed that she actually is a Christian. But it did express its concern that she might be. The article was titled, "Graf must be accountable, too."

They also revealed that her reporting of the Children’s Sex Conference Scandal was very successful and reached a lot of parents. They didn’t realize they were telling how successful she was when they attacked her motive as trying to boost her ratings. This drew a comment from the publisher of Massachusetts News, J. Edward Pawlick, "They obviously thought that parents and other people were very interested in this news and they are troubled that she was getting high listenership."

Some of the other glitches in the very long article about Graf were the following:
o It said the taping of the explicit sexual meeting by parents was done "illegally." But there are many lawyers who would love to challenge that statement. This is a very new law which was enacted to hamper organized crime, not to harass parents who are taping school employees in a public meeting to show what is being taught to children as young as 12-years-old.

o They never reported that many homosexuals called Graf and agreed that the meeting should not have taken place.

o The goal of the meeting, according to the paper, was to "lower the rate of teen depression and suicide." But the Globe never revealed how explicit sexual instruction in "fisting," "oral sex" and other such topics would prevent depression or suicide. In fact, many persons have pointed out that such instruction will increase the incidence of AIDS and other STDs and depression.
o According to the reporter for the Globe, she spent "a few nights" listening to the Graf show and found a "disturbing" fact. She learned that many listeners believe the purpose of the meeting was to encourage children to experiment in homosexual sex. "It’s a specious idea that comes up repeatedly," said the Globe. It complained that "Graf does not contradict or correct her callers." But the problem with the Globe’s comment is that anyone who listens to the tapes or reads the transcripts can quickly see that the purpose of the meeting was to encourage the children to try the sex. Nevertheless, the Globe went on to attack Graf saying, "It’s an idea rife with homophobia that can be used to rationalize all kinds of bigotry, including violence. Although Graf won’t speak for her callers, she says she is not homophobic." It’s a standard Globe practice, said Pawlick. "They set you up with a terrible accusation and then ask you to deny it. No matter what you say they have already covered you with their slime."

o There’s a serious problem with how they closed the article. The Globe never gave one example of "hate" or "fables" on her show and yet the following was printed by them: "Whether or not she agrees with the callers who go on air with hate-filled rhetoric or homophobic fables passed off as fact, she ought to take responsibility for what her listeners hear. To let lies go uncorrected is to be complicit in the bigotry they spread, which damages rather than promotes her legitimate discussion about the rights of parents. She’s the adult here. She should recognize the implications of context as well as content."


The Boston Globe mounted a full-scale attack against parents by defending the role of militant homosexual activists. The newspaper published three major stories in one day. This is about one of them.

Globe Attacks Parents On Sex Scandal
July 2000

Sen. Cheryl Jacques ‘Outs’ Herself As Lesbian
Sen. Cheryl Jacques "outed" herself as a lesbian yesterday in a Globe opinion piece she wrote with the headline, "No retreat from programs that protect gay teenagers."
She was writing in response to the scandal about Fistgate, which resulted in the firing of two state employees and has caused many to question the $1.5 million that is given each year by the state to homosexual activists to organize the schools of the state.
Jacques concentrated on the old canard that 32.8% of homosexual students in 1999 said that they had attempted suicide. But this was an answer to a questionnaire that was given to the students who knew exactly what their homosexual advisors wanted them to say.
A more important question is how many suicides took place of homosexual students in 1999?
Even more important, how does a knowledge of "fisting," oral sex and similar activities which were taught at the Sex Conference stop a child from committing suicide? These activities which were taught by our public employees will increase the rate of unhappiness and suicide, not decrease it.

Religious Wrong’ Exposed at Fistgate
By Tom Duggan
A workshop about "The Religious Wrong" was conducted by gay activist Leif Mitchell at "Fistgate," where state teachers taught graphic sex to teenagers and teachers from across Massachusetts.

Mitchell is the Community Educator/Trainer for Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and he is on the National board of GLSEN. He trains teachers and children about sex education in the classroom and how to integrate homosexuality into the curriculum of public schools.

Mitchell told the audience he follows the Religious Wrong "religiously" and has been infiltrating religious groups for many years.

The program guide stated: "This workshop will explore ways to counteract the messages used by the Wrong. Participants will learn exactly what the Wrong is saying about ‘us’ (and who that includes) as well as develop strategies to tackle opposition..."

After his brief introduction, Mitchell showed a video to the audience containing hate speech against Christians and other people of faith. "The video was very disturbing," one teacher told Massachusetts News. "They showed various images and quotes from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to give the impression that their views were shared by all religious adversaries. It was an attack on all people of faith. Anyone who disagreed with Mr. Mitchell was labeled a homophobe and compared to Robertson and Falwell. Mr. Mitchell concluded after the video ‘This is who we are fighting! This is the religious right!’"

The teacher said she thought the conference was supposed to be about safe schools and stopping discrimination. "To think that David Driscoll and the Department of Education would be preaching religious hatred to students and teachers under the pretense of safe schools was frightening. And they were using our tax dollars to endorse it. This was nothing more than a government- sponsored attack on religion and anyone who disagrees with the gay political agenda on the far left," she said.

At one point in the video they said ‘Studies show that lesbians are the best mothers in America. Are you interested in the truth Pat (Robertson)?’ The teacher says she was shocked. "I have been teaching for over 25 years and I’ve been studying these issues for over a decade. I have never seen a study that lesbians make better mothers. I was traumatized by what I was seeing. What was really appalling to me was that no teacher in the room seemed to be bothered by what Mitchell and the video was saying. They just took it all in and accepted it as fact."

Mitchell then asked the audience to break up into small discussion groups. The teacher recounts: "We were told to discuss our experiences and strategies on how to deal with religious opposition to gay activists in our communities. It didn’t sound like tolerance to me. This sounded more like hate speech. If I had spoken of any of the things that they directed at traditional religion, only said them about homosexuals instead, I would be called a hate monger and a homophobe. But when God-fearing people are labeled and attacked, it is not only tolerated, our government sanctions it."

Mitchell said he considered himself a "spiritual person but not religious" and labeled religious followers as "those people." A teacher in the audience asked Mr. Mitchell if he couldn’t make an argument for free speech on the other side, for the religious people who feel differently. Mitchell became very adamant and didn’t even let him finish his question. ‘There is no argument." Mitchell charged. "We are right and they are wrong." The teacher responded that he "didn’t think we were going to get very far with that kind of reasoning."

Mitchell then turned to the audience and explained the need to combat such questions by using safety and suicide prevention issues as their mantra. Several times during the discussions Mitchell told the participants when they get in trouble during such discussion with the public or the press to: "Just keep bringing it back to safety in the schools. That’s the message."

Comparing ‘The Religious Wrong’ to Hitler!
Mitchell then talked about a website which compares religious people to Hitler and the Nazis. The website contains headlines such as:

"Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech vs. Religious Right Anti-Gay Speech: Are They Similar?"  The site shows a side-by-side comparison of Nazi propaganda against Jews during WWII with the "Christian anti-gay movement" of today saying:

"...are fundamentalist Christians using anti-gay arguments that echo back to the Nazi era?" This page compares quotes from The Eternal Jew with Christian conservatives’ modern-day quotes about gay Americans.

Mitchell spoke of religious people, hatred, homophobia, religion and the religious wrong as though each word were synonymous, interchanging religion and the Religious Wrong with Hitler, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and even the murder of Matthew Sheppard.

Strategies to "Combat the Religious Wrong"
Mitchell outlined his strategies on combating the Religious Wrong "in your community."

1) Focus on Violence Prevention. Always go back to the issues of safety to explain why Gay/Straight Alliances need to be formed. "Violence helps us!" he said.

He said violence in the schools helps because that means there is more of a need for safety education. One teacher said, "That means they get to have more of these seminars, more money from the government and more government sponsored political activism. Just imagine having a workshop to combat violence and then telling young children to be activists and concluding with, ‘Violence helps us.’"

2) Focus on Legal Perspectives, He used the 1996 lawsuit which was settled for $900,000. The suit was about Jamie Dboznia who was not protected from gay bashing by his school. "Focusing on legal perspectives also helps to bring the focus back to safe schools," he said.

3) Put a Face on Homophobia. "Matthew Sheppard  is a good example," Mitchell said. "But he is not the most diverse person you can use. He only got all that the publicity because he was white."

4) Use Statistics Effectively. "Just the Facts was sent to all Superintendents in the country," Mitchell said. "Now the opposition has a response, ‘Just the Facts on Just the Facts,’ but they have no credible organizations or data to support them in this, unlike the original which came from the Center for Disease Control and the Youth Risk Survey."

5) Build Coalitions Proactively with Like-minded Groups. "Be prepared and come together," he said. "Use the Coalition for Democracy, use the NAACP, The Anti-Defamation League and Planned Parenthood."
"Remember," Mitchell told the audience, "It is very important to tie the Religious Right to hatred."

Jennings Also Attacked Religion
The keynote speaker, Kevin Jennings, co-founder of GLSEN, also attacked religion and even used the Gospel to do so. He used the story of the widow’s mite to motivate children in the audience to give all they can give to the gay and lesbian community.

"This is ridiculous," exclaimed one teacher in utter disbelief. "I know that Bible passage and it is a direct reference to giving all you can to God. How ironic that GLSEN is preaching hatred towards religious people, attacking religion as ‘wrong’ and at the same time they are quoting Jesus and twisting the scripture. Why doesn’t David Driscoll know what he is promoting? If he really doesn’t know what is happening at these workshops maybe we need a Commissioner who will pay more attention to what’s going on."

A handout attacked religion and people of faith. It promoted a book by a lesbian activist who claimed to expose "The Right and THEIR Agenda; The Right’s overall goals, the targets of their organizing efforts, the strategies they employ, and who benefits from their agenda."

Another publication which was handed out included an article entitled: "Teaching Outside the Curriculum: Guerrilla Sex Education and the Public Schools" from the Radical Teacher, which listed its sponsor as "The Coalition for Positive Sexuality," which promotes the idea, "Just Say Yes." The article stated emphatically :

"We hope that students do get ideas from our booklet - ideas about how to talk about sex as well as how to do it, how to get pleasure with their bodies as well as how to take care of them."

The Minuteman Library Network, which is composed of 34 suburban towns from Cambridge and Brookline out to Holliston and Medway, recommends to students that the best Internet site to learn about sexuality is "The Coalition for Positive Sexuality" which tells them to, "Just Say Yes" to sexual intercourse.

Former Homosexual Was Personally Attacked
By Ed Oliver
July 2000
A nationally known author and former homosexual, John Paulk, was personally attacked by Leif Mitchell.

Paulk and his formerly lesbian wife were characterized as probably "unhappy people" because they abandoned homosexuality and are now married with children.

Mitchell said that the Paulks were born homosexual. He explained to his class that the Paulks have chosen to identify with the heterosexual community and now their sexual behavior reflects that. But they are probably not happy people because of it.

Reached for comment, Mitchell confirmed for Massachusetts News that he made those statements about the Paulk family. When asked if he’d ever met or spoken to Paulk, he said he never had.

Paulk told Massachusetts News, "I think the comments that Mr. Mitchell made reveal the ignorance that members of Planned Parenthood and GLSEN have about persons such as myself and tens of thousands of other men and women across the country who’ve made the very difficult decision to walk away from homosexuality.

"It’s very typical of individuals such as him to claim to know who we are or what we’re all about, when they’ve never met us or even spoken to us. To say that we’re not happy fulfilled people is completely false."

‘Sexuality-Ed 101’
Mitchell presented at the workshop what he called his "Sexuality-Ed 101" course. He said there are three factors to sexuality:
o Orientation. Your true feelings which cannot change.
o Sexual Identity. The sexual group you choose to identify with. (This can change, but orientation cannot.)
o Sexual Behavior. What someone actually practices.
Mitchell said that when all three factors line up, you are a happy person. But in the case of someone like the Paulks who, Mitchell said, were born homosexuals, those three factors don’t line up and they are probably not happy people.

One teacher who attended that course said she was appalled that Mitchell presented as fact his theories about human sexuality. "I sat there asking myself, where is his research and where is his data? Has he even spoken to John and Anne Paulk? He presented as fact that people are born homosexual. He never stated that this was his theory.

"I felt like I was being trained to be a ‘change agent’ in the public schools. If Leif Mitchell is lying about this, what else is he lying about? That workshop was pure propaganda for Planned Parenthood and GLSEN."

Massachusetts News asked Mitchell if he presented the lesson about the three sexuality factors, if he believes people are born homosexual, and does he have research to back it up. Mitchell acknowledged he gave the lesson about the three factors. He said research is available that could be used to prove either side of the question about being born homosexual. He did not know of any specific studies when asked what he used as the factual basis of his workshop. 
He said only that there are studies out there.

Paulk commented on Mitchell’s theory about him. "To simply answer Mr. Mitchell’s statement: when I was homosexual, I was unhappy. My orientation, identity and behavior did not line up when I was in a homosexual lifestyle. Now those three do line up. That’s why I am more than just happy, I am fulfilled to the soul. I’ve been married for eight years to a beautiful wife. I have two sons and a joy that I never had before in my promiscuous homosexuality."

Asked to comment on Mitchell’s theory about being born with a specific orientation that cannot be changed, Paulk said that is where science is in our favor. "Believe it or not, in the last 10 years studies that attempted to prove a genetic cause of homosexuality have failed miserably. Often times, even the liberal press says there is significant evidence to the contrary. The evidence shows there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. But Mitchell and others within GLSEN and the pro-gay organizations still trump up as fact that homosexuality is genetic. If it is something that is genetic, then it cannot be changed, like skin color. We are here to say it can be changed. It’s not genetic and there is no evidence to prove that it is."

Because he is a former homosexual activist, Massachusetts News asked Paulk if he had any insights into the homosexual agenda aimed at schoolchildren. He said GLSEN’s specific agenda is to normalize homosexuality to children, as young as kindergarten through grade 12, and to put homosexuality on an equal level with heterosexuality. He added that GLSEN is accomplishing this by establishing gay/straight alliance clubs in the schools.

Fifteen minutes into the conversation Massachusetts News had with Leif Mitchell about the "Religious Wrong" workshop, Mitchell became nervous about the increasingly detailed questions which we were asking. His answers became more evasive until he said, after the fact, he does not give his permission to use anything he said. He said Massachusetts News could arrange another interview with him at a later time. After an attempt to do so, Mitchell wrote in an e-mail that Jim Anderson, the Director of Communications for GLSEN, is handling all interviews about the GLSEN Boston Teach Out.

Featured on National Media
The Paulks have been featured in major television and print media, including the cover of Newsweek, and named among the 100 most influential people in the United States on the topic of homosexuality. They have authored two books titled, Not Afraid To Change, and Love Won Out.

John Paulk leads seminars around the country for Focus on the Family that is the antithesis of the publicly endorsed GLSEN workshops. He informs educators, pastors and other leaders how to offer an alternative to homosexuality for teens. Paulk hopes to come to Boston next spring to present an all-day conference to educate people about the homosexual agenda. He is searching for a church in Boston willing to host him that can seat about a thousand people. "We really want parents there because we want to tell them what GLSEN and other organizations are attempting to teach their children," he said.

Paulk is also the Chairman of the Board of Exodus International, the nation’s oldest organization aimed at helping men and women overcome homosexuality.
The public school teachers who attended the Conference earned six "professional development points" for attending the all-day, homosexual GLSEN conference.

Lesbian Senator Glorified for Fighting Parents
July 2000

The day after the Globe printed an opinion piece by state Senator Cheryl Jacques in which she "outed" herself while defending the funding of homosexual activists in the schools, the newspaper followed up with a large "puff" story and picture about her on the front page of the Metro section.

It said, "She cares about protecting a school support program for gay and lesbian teens…"

The newspaper continued, "Jacques considered the program a critical suicide prevention tool, and found herself on the forefront of the Senate debate, brokering deals with opponents and defending the funding in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. It worked…"

Although the Globe has printed numerous pieces attacking the parents, they have yet to write a story from the parents’ point of view. In this story about Jacques, Brian Camenker, one of the parents, was brought into the middle of the story in order to bring "diversity" to it. He received only a few paragraphs and was surrounded with quotes against him and the other parents.

The Globe never asked, what were the "deals" that were "brokered" to get other Senators to vote for this homosexual activism in our schools?

If Cheryl Jacques wishes to continue unusual and unhealthy sex practices, she should do so, but how did this become a Constitutional right that should be glorified in our major newspaper?

Globe Discovers Republican
With Lesbian Daughter
July 2000

The Boston Globe is excited because it has found a Republican, former state Senator William Saltonstall, 73, who has a lesbian daughter.

But this is not an exciting story ­ it’s a sad one about two lonely, elderly people.
Saltonstall and his wife have lost two of their four children. They now have two children, both of whom live in Alaska. Their son is an "itinerant doctor." A lesbian daughter, Abigail, has two children she has adopted.

The Saltonstalls are obviously alone now that their only two children are in Alaska. They wish to have grandchildren. But they have none except for Abigail’s adopted children. They have been "estranged" from their daughter, and they are now trying to put the family back together. His wife says it is a "work in progress."

The daughter urged Saltonstall last winter to write a letter to the Globe. It took her a while to convince him. According to the Globe, "He isn’t quite as comfortable talking about The Letter..."

When he finally did send a letter to the paper, it was posted prominently on May 5 under a headline, "Why I Can’t Support GOP National Ticket."
It promptly drew praise from another letter writer and the paper decided to write a major story about it yesterday.

It appears that Abigail’s partner has an adopted daughter who is 32 years old, who also has two young adopted children. So when the three women come to visit the Saltonstalls, they bring four young children with them, who are the only "grandchildren" that the Saltonstalls have.

His daughter believes it is her 10-year-old son, who she says is "on fire" to end oppression and to defend his lesbian parents, who changed her father. "I think my father’s love for his grandchildren has really motivated him," she says. The young boy recently traveled to Washington with his mother and her partner to march in the gay rights march.

It’s clear from reading the story that a desire and love for the grandchildren is a big factor in the matter.

It’s sad that either the Saltonstalls have been misled as to what causes homosexuality or they want to hide from the reality.

But the Globe is not sad about the tragedy. It is exuberant. After all, it has promoted the homosexual activists and taken a swipe at George Bush all in one blow ­ and not on the Editorial pages.

The paper began this "feature story" with the following headline, which is a statement from Saltonstall: "The GOP ‘takes the position that no gay people should adopt….I regard this as a direct attack on my family.’"

They finished the "story" with the following editorial comment:
"There is one thing that Bill Saltonstall won’t discuss publicly, and that’s who ­ if anyone ­ will get his vote in the 2000 presidential election. But you can be sure it won’t be George W. Bush."

Health Problems Plague Homosexual
Community: Do Our Children Know?
July 2000

Two health problems of  homosexual men are acknowledged in the recent issue of Bay Windows.

o Harvard University says that if homosexual men are screened for anal cancer, it will save lives.

o The use of drugs in clubs is an epidemic. "The casual use of these drugs has become so commonplace among gay club-goers that the Gay and Lesbian Medical Society…recently felt compelled to declare the situation an epidemic," says the newspaper.

Are our children being taught these truths about the health problems they will face in a homosexual lifestyle?

Or are they learning from activists some glorified stories about this lifestyle such as fisting, oral sex and other sexual activities that were taught to them at the 
Children’s Sex Conference Scandal which resulted in the firing of two employees at the Department of Education?

We should be telling them the truth.