Trashing the Moral Matrix

An American Church in Decline

The Episcopal Church is a spare shadow of its former glorious self. Its membership is in steep decline.

A recently convened emergency panel called the Lambeth Commission struggled with the question of how to keep the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion from bursting apart. Their report was dominated by the challenge of homosexuality which intensified in November 2003 with the ordination of the cheerily homosexual V.Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Many traditionalists among the 38 autonomous churches of the Anglican Communion believed this ordination to be a direct attack on 2,000 years of Christian teaching and a flippant disregard of biblical black-letter law.

“We are not in crisis,” said the Rev. Martin Reynolds, a spokesman for the liberal Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. “It is the people who find homosexuality unacceptable who are in crisis.” He has a point, sort of. What many traditionalists cannot accept is the paradigm of homosexuality as the new normalcy. Anglican conservatives far outnumber liberals. A 1998 conference of all Anglican bishops flatly declared homosexual behaviors “incompatible with Scripture” and opposed gay ordinations and same-sex blessings by a vote of 526 to 70, with 45 abstentions.

The recent report by the Anglican Communion’s Lambeth Commission advised American Episcopal bishops to stop their priests from blessing same-sex unions. The report declared that the American Episcopal Church should express regret for consecrating an actively homosexual person as a bishop and should not appoint as bishops anyone “living in a same-sex union” until a church consensus emerges. That’s not going to happen any time soon.

The emergency Lambeth conference report was commissioned a year ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is the titular spiritual leader of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, after a heated gathering of church leaders at Lambeth Palace in London at which many churchmen threatened to sever all ties to the Episcopal Church, as the Anglican Church is called in America, because of the consecration of V.Gene Robinson.

The Lambeth report made no judgments about the morality of homosexuality. Its criticism was aimed at the wayward actions of the American Episcopal Church, which were beyond the horizon of any church consensus on homosexuality and were, therefore, damaging church unity. In the words of the report: “The consecration [of Robinson] has had very prejudicial consequences. In our view, those involved did not pay due regard, in the way they might and, in our view, should have done, to the wider implications of the decisions they were making and the actions they were taking.” In other words, consecrating as a bishop a now-openly gay male who had hoodwinked an innocent woman into a bogus marriage, fathered children, and then popped out of his weird psycho-sexual closet to announce his “liberation” as a proud homosexual, was a spectacularly stupid public relations blunder by the gay-loving American Episcopal Church.

The 93-page report said that the people who consecrated Robinson, a gang that includes the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, should consider “withdraw[ing] themselves from representative functions” of the church until they express regret. The report went on to lament the decision of the Canadian province of New Westminster to approve of blessings for homosexual unions. The report made clear that flouting its recommendations could result in expulsion from the Anglican Communion.

In response to the report, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold, penned a terse masterpiece of political mumbo jumbo, saying that his American Episcopalians cared for their communion with other Anglicans and that he regrets “how difficult and painful actions of our church have been to many provinces of our Communion, and the negative repercussions that have been felt by brother and sister Anglicans.” In other words, Griswold is regretful that his progressive actions caused distress to the backward rubes in the African bush and to all those primitive folk who have yet to catch up to his fast-moving avant-garde. Conspicuously absent from Griswold’s letter was any acknowledgement of the Lambeth report’s recommendation to stop blessing the union of homosexuals.

The Rev. Liz Kaeton of the Church of St. Paul in Chatham, New Jersey, who had voted to support Robinson and the blessing of homosexual unions in her capacity as a member of the Newark diocese’s House of Deputies, acknowledged that the American wing of the Anglican church had misjudged the depth of feeling about homosexuality on the rest of the planet. “We had no idea that it was going to cause this kind of pain around the Communion,” said the clueless Reverend Kaeton. “I’m certainly willing to say that for causing that kind of pain, I certainly regret that and I’m sorry for it, but I don’t regret that he was consecrated.”

The Reverend Kaeton’s regret is just as shallow as that of Bishop Griswold. To all of these liberals Gene Robinson is the perfect model of a modern major Episcopal leader. They can’t imagine why anyone might see Robinson as a blundering, self-serving, manipulative, woman-abusing, sexually-confused, bumbler whose life-long dishonesty utterly disqualified him as the spiritual leader of any normal human. He talked pretty; he seemed earnest; he grinned constantly; that was good enough for the progressives.

The Reverend Brian Laffler of St. Anthony of Padua of Hackensack, NJ, said the report “is like putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhage.” His church was the first in New Jersey to request spiritual guidance from another bishop in another diocese. “I don’t think it’s addressed the larger-reaching question, that there are two entirely diametrically opposed ideologies that are pretty much irreconcilable.” That’s right, and one of the two is a newfangled and whimsical ideology.

The Dawn of the Global South

Christians are a large and varied family. Some people place the spiritual center of their faith in Rome, some in Canterbury, some in Istanbul or Salt Lake City, but one fact is incontrovertible: the population center of global Christianity has shifted to somewhere in the vicinity of Timbuktu. The center of gravity of this faith is moving ever southward. By the year 2100 it should have settled somewhere in northern Nigeria. In the future, the Anglican Communion, and most of all Christian groups, will be energized by the rapidly growing churches of the global south. The demographics are irresistible. Over half of the world’s Anglicans are African, and that percentage will swell to 70% by the year 2025, and that’s just the African portion of the global south.

Christianity began in the Holy Land, crept westward into Europe and then turned south around the year 1900 thanks to the efforts of European missionaries. By the year 1970 the demographic balance of the Christian world had tipped into Africa and was moving southward. In the decade from 1990 to 2000 the growth rate of Anglicanism in Africa was a robust 2.95 percent, better than Asia’s 1.97 percent. By contrast, the European growth rate was a meager 0.13 percent and in North America a sorry negative 0.33 percent. The American Episcopal Church is withering. Within a century the 2.8 billion Christians south of the equator will number more than three times the 755 million in the global north. These south-of-the-equator Christians are overwhelmingly conservative in their religious perspective, which means that liberal American congregations will become increasingly estranged and isolated from most of the Christian world in the future.

At a recent General Conference meeting of the United Methodist Church, this declining denomination increased its membership by one million, all of them from the Ivory Coast. Almost every African delegate to this meeting spoke approvingly of continuing that church’s ban on homosexual clergy. In Sweden, conservative Lutherans who disdain homosexual wedlock have established a breakaway diocese which is overseen by a Kenyan bishop. There is speculation among Catholics that the next pope could be an African; some are betting on Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria.

American conservatives are saying that the African churches have a firmer grasp of Christian essentials than does the ever-accommodating liberal West. Traditionalists smile at the rich irony of Africa sending missionaries to America.

The Anglican Rev. William Thompson, pastor of All Saints’ Church in Long Beach, CA, sought to shelter his congregation under a Ugandan bishop. Three Southern California parishes have ditched the Diocese of Los Angeles, have dropped the word Episcopal from their names, and have sought the spiritual guidance of the Ugandan bishop. Said the Rev. Thompson: “The American church is going to have to come to grips with the vitality and strength of the global South if it’s going to survive as an Anglican entity in any meaningful way.”

The Reverend Ian Douglas, professor of world mission and global Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., asks, “Do I believe that churches in the global South live with a deep awareness of being part of the gift of a worldwide family of churches? I think they do, and they do it better than we do. That’s one reason why we got ourselves into this hot water.”

Traditionalists who were chagrined by the consecration of the flagrantly homosexual V.Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire now look to Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola and prelates in Malaysia and Argentina for spiritual guidance. Akinola has stated clearly that neither his church nor American traditionalists would accept the Episcopal Church’s embrace of the gay social agenda. “We no longer need to look to Canterbury to become Christians,” explained Akinola while on an American tour. “If they want to create a new religion, good luck to them, but we don’t want a new religion. What we have already is good enough for us.”

Peter Akinola is the leader of almost half of the world’s Anglicans, more than 17 million. He is also the chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces, which embraces more than 37 million members. The global Anglican Communion includes about 77 million members, of which American Episcopalians are a mere 2 million.

“I didn’t write the Bible,” said the archbishop. “It’s part of our Christian heritage. It tells us what to do.” To the argument that there was no understanding in biblical times that homosexuality was inborn, and not a mere lifestyle choice, Peter Akinola responded that this approach to the Bible broadcast the offensive message that the Bible “is only for the primitive people.”

He further contended that the head of the American Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who had led Robinson’s consecration ceremony, could have used his influence to reverse course, but instead made the conscious choice to promote an invasive infiltration of gay countercultural values into the church; “he is a promoter of this whole agenda,” Akinola said. “He is accountable to nobody. All that Frank and these people have today is confusion, and they’re creating a new religion.” One gay group within the church has already estimated that as many as one in three Episcopalian clergy are homosexuals.

Thus it has been demonstrated how the transformation of a once great church by a determined program of gay colonization has set that church on a course to marginalization and declining membership. The Episcopal bishop at the center of the Anglican Communion’s global battle over homosexuality, V.Gene Robinson, said the Lambeth report “took my breath away.” He would not admit that his consecration ceremony had been staged by a cabal of like-minded radical revisionists, but claimed instead that he would not consider stepping down because, he said, he believed his election to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Robinson declared the language of the report to be “nuanced” so that priests could continue to bless gay couples in private. “So there’s some wiggle room there,” Robinson said.

Archbishop Peter Akinola did not want to hear any mincing chat about “wiggle room.” “Where is the language of rebuke?” asked the archbishop. “It [the report] fails to confront the reality that a small, economically privileged group of people has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers.” Indeed. And an institution that at one time could be relied upon to solidly support and encourage traditional family life has become an institution that considers traditional family life to be just one of many equally okay New Age lifestyle choices. Thank God for the Africans.

How the Clergy Legitimizes Homosexual Relationships

The power of the clergy to legitimize human pair bonding is solidly established in the popular psyche. It is for this reason that most marriages include a religious ceremony, even though the couple may have already been joined in a civil ceremony. It is also for this reason that homosexuals, including a large and growing gay clergy, are pushing hard to popularize the blessing of homosexual unions.

A glowing article in the New York Times tells us that many gays are “sidestepping the debate over legal rights and seeking to consecrate their unions in churches and synagogues,” and “they are seeking to have their relationships blessed not by the government, but by God.”

The article goes on to explain how ministers and rabbis are eagerly responding to the demand for gay blessings. We are informed that the United Church of Christ is holding workshops for clergy who want to learn how to stage consecration and legitimization ceremonies for homosexuals. The article helpfully adds that a rite for blessing homosexual unions was carefully crafted by the Episcopal Church of New Westminster, British Columbia, and is being widely shared by non-Episcopalian clergy using e-mail. This rite is used as a model for gay-friendly liturgies. The Times tells us that “members of the clergy across the country said in interviews that the ceremonies were becoming more common in their churches and synagogues.”

Says Rabbi Sharon Gladstone, “I was ordained last year, and the first marriage I officiated at was a marriage of two women. I think that more and more rabbis are officiating, certainly in the Reform and Reconstructionist movements.” The Rev. Terry Fitzgerald of the United Congregational Church in Worchester, Mass., confides that of the almost 20 gay-union ceremonies at his church, seven took place in 2003 alone. Says the Times: “Even some members of the clergy who do not have the permission of their denominations say they are quietly officiating at ceremonies in defiance of their church leaders.” It doesn’t occur to them that in the very act of consecrating and legitimizing homosexual relationships they are inventing a new religion. More to the point, the Times relates that “Although denominations that do permit these rituals formally refer to them as holy unions, same-sex blessings, covenants, or commitment ceremonies, more and more of the couples and members of the clergy are simply calling them marriages.” [Emphasis added]

These services are often “nearly identical to the marriage rites traditionally used for heterosexual couples.” These are marriage parodies; nonetheless they work to legitimize the notion of homosexual wedlock in the popular mind. They are parody as propaganda. The Reverend Fitzgerald says that, “In most cases, we use the same vows and prayers, the same scriptural references. The only thing we change is that we say ‘partners’ instead of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.”

Those denominations that gladly perform these mock weddings include the ever-elastic Unitarian Universalists, the Disciples of Christ, the United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Churches, and the Reform and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism. Dioceses of the Episcopal Church have been experimenting with gay-blessing rituals. The Presbyterian Church in America allows unlimited blessings of homosexual unions so long as no one actually calls them marriages out loud. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Community Churches says that they perform about 6,000 “marriages” for same-sex couples each year.

So the clergy are now enthusiastically advancing the gay agenda: they are hell bent to expand the gay comfort zone; they are conforming to the game plan of Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill by “muddying the moral waters” and “making gays look good.” No thought is given to the fact that gays, collectively, comprise a counterculture whose common values are inimical to a healthy heterosexual society. By legitimizing these unusual relationships the clergy, as exemplars of what is proper, are distorting the moral matrix, that interdependent constellation of nurturing institutions which was created to nurture traditional marriages and families.

The Gay Agenda Goes to College

Our schools have always been places of moral instruction, even as contemporary educators deny that they are teaching morals. Every school is a culture unto itself and every culture has its peculiar values. In the interest of self-preservation we should inquire about the values being taught to our society’s young people in our schools.

Many colleges have begun recruiting efforts aimed specifically at what one Newark Star Ledger article called “the increasingly visible gay and lesbian student market.” We are told that “schools from San Jose State to Brown and Harvard” are conducting such targeted recruitment; some prominently feature homosexuals in their brochures. Other colleges, such as American University in Washington, DC, “have carefully cultivated a reputation among high school counselors as being comfortable for gay students,” according to the Star Ledger.

Almost 40 New England colleges attended the first-ever college fair for homosexual students, held in Boston. The acknowledged “bible” of college admissions officers, the Journal of College Admissions, featured a cover article about recruiting homosexuals.

Homosexuals have historically chosen colleges based on word of mouth or the visibility of gay and lesbian groups on campus. But with an ever more permissive environment encouraging gays to identify themselves at ever younger ages, colleges have begun getting inquiries about the vitality of gay life on campus. Enter the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network with their college guide for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. Their first printing of “Finding an LGBT-Friendly Campus” vanished almost as soon as the ink was dry, as students and counselors snatched it up. The Network’s public policy director, Mary Kate Cullen, says that gay students who have come from supportive high schools expect a similar atmosphere at college. So these students come to college with a sense of entitlement; they expect the campus culture to accept their signature quirkiness.

The Network encourages gay students to ask how many openly gay students, professors and administrators are on campus and whether there are gay-studies courses or majors offered. Gays are instructed to ask whether there are support services for homosexuals and whether the campus includes active clubs and student organizations for gays and lesbians, which can be used to exert influence on the administration.

No college in America is more accepting of all things gay than Drew University in Madison, NJ. Drew placed first in the Princeton Review’s national student survey, narrowly edging out Boston U, Wesleyan, Wellesley and Vassar as havens for homosexuals. Every year Drew celebrates National Coming Out Day and bombards its students with seminars titled “Everything You Wanted to Know About Being Gay But Were Afraid to Ask”, which unfold in the freshman dorms. Speaking of the Princeton Review’s assessment of his school, Drew spokesman Tom Harris demurely says “We almost never use those rankings for marketing.” Gee, why not, Tom?

According to an article in the Boston Globe (5/21/02), college admissions officers believe that students who have gone through the coming-out process in high school have more self-confidence, more leadership abilities, more cultural awareness and other superior qualities than so plain old run-of-the-mill heterosexual kids. The Globe quoted Judith Brown, director of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center at Tufts University: “Schools are inviting these students because they question norms…They make people question their own assumptions, and that’s key to learning and growing as people.”

And yet…, norms and shared assumptions are central to the stability of a shared culture which, in turn, is vital to the preservation of a nurturing civilization. Gays are a splinter-group sexuality or, more correctly, a group of splinter-group sexualities. Their challenges to society’s norms are the yap of peevish misfits; their desire to restructure our society could easily be ignored if it weren’t for the liberals, who were born to pander. For example, . . .

The Dawn of the Coed Dorm Room

First came the coeducational college, then came coed dormitories, followed by the mixed-gender bathroom. Now, in a gush of gay friendliness, comes the mixed-gender dorm room. The New York Times (5/11/02) informs us that this departure from tradition “is less about sex than sexual politics – and the increasingly powerful presence of gay and lesbian groups on campus”; groups nurtured by the colleges themselves.

It seems the big push to abolish prohibitions against mixed-gender dorm rooms came from homosexuals who declared such traditional decorum to be “heterosexist.” That was all the liberal administrators at places such as Swarthmore and Haverford College needed to hear; it was like an incantation they could not resist. And the problem? Gay students were uncomfortable sharing living space with a roommate of the same sex.

The campaign at Haverford was begun by a 2000 graduate named Josh Andrix who explained: “Straight men who live together often have a locker-room mentality, with a lot of discussion about dating girls, having sex with girls, saying which girls are attractive. Introducing a homosexual into that environment is uncomfortable. When I looked for housing, all the people it made sense for me to live with were women.” So, a male who isn’t really a man feels uncomfortable in the culture of men. He disparages their banter as reflective of a “locker-room mentality.” Are women displaying a locker-room mentality when they chat about dating and cute guys? Josh doesn’t say.

“In three to five years coed housing will be an option on most campuses,” says Myrt Westphal, Swarthmore’s director of residential life. She adds, “Students like the option.” No surprise there.

So, to accommodate some uncomfortable homosexuals, schools will demolish the last barrier to on-campus mixed-gender cohabitation. The change is made to please a few oddballs, and the moral consequences for young heterosexuals, who comprise the overwhelming majority of students, is momentous. The colonization of campuses by politically savvy gays has warped the moral matrix in which all heterosexual students will live in the future.

On some campuses homosexuals have preferred to isolate themselves in housing all their own. The University of Hartford offers separate housing for students involved in Spectrum, its group for lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students. At the University of Massachusetts the same sorts live on the “Two in Twenty” floor. Wesleyan University offers Open House, which the school calls a residence for the “queer, questioning, and those interested in queer culture.” Got that? Queer culture, which is something distinctly alien to the culture of almost everyone else.

Young people, and especially young women, who are away from home for the first time, were better served by traditional campus living arrangements, in a time when college administrations behaved like adults who understood that the decorum of heterosexual norms was an exercise in hard-won wisdom.

Schools in the Twilight Zone

The razor’s edge of weird campus activism is brought to us by the transgender students who have convinced colleges to accommodate them with private bathrooms and showers, specialized housing and specialized sports teams on which players need not identify themselves as either male or female. Four East Coast colleges, including Wesleyan, Smith and Sarah Lawrence, have already rolled over for the trannies.

Transgender folks are uncomfortable with the gender of their birth. Some transgender students may also be simulacra, surgically-altered replicas of the gender they imagine themselves to be, in which case they may also be called transsexuals. Some students are only part way through this remodeling process.

The transgendered have abandoned themselves to a thought disorder: they imagine themselves to be some gender other than the one their naked selves says that they are. They have a problem with gender identity, which is distinct from sexual orientation. Sexual orientation pertains to whom you are sexually attracted, not to what you imagine your own gender to be. A goodly number of transgender students prefer to remain parked somewhere between identifiable genders and prefer to call themselves “gender queer.”

At Wesleyan, students who were born female but who have affected male dress and mannerisms may have a genuine male roommate. The school’s former women’s rugby team dropped the word “women’s” from its name so that several born-female transgender folk would feel more comfortable. The campus health clinic no longer requires that students check off an M or an F box on the clinic health form.

At Brown University, freshmen are allowed to elect a gender-neutral option on the housing questionnaire. They can sequester themselves in dorms with lockable bathrooms that accommodate only one person. This is the school’s solution to girls who think that they are guys but who aren’t usually accepted as such in the big bathroom with the urinals.

The New York Times regales us with tales of several gender-bending females and the colleges that enable their fixations, in an article titled “On College Campuses, Rethinking Biology 101.” Here we meet “Zachary”, a strapping lass who can’t pass for male despite her best efforts. She says she suffered harassment at her Pittsburgh high school. “I ended up threatening to sue the school for not protecting me,” she whines. It never enters her close-cropped head that her deliberately provocative deportment had predictably prompted commentary from her adolescent peers. It never occurs to her that her insistence that she too is a man is an insult to every genuine man to whom she says it. A man is a vessel of masculine virtue; a pushy female transgender freak is an empty suit.

Next we are introduced to Paige, whose efforts to look masculine have only made her look middle-aged. She rooms with a male who is “extremely respectful.” When referring to Paige he uses only pronouns approved by the transgender community: “ze” instead of “he” or “she,” and “hir” instead of “him” or “her.”

The one thing all of these wishful dreamers have in common is their desire to have the whole world be exquisitely attuned to their emotional needs. Only in the synthetic utopian theme parks called American colleges would so many people work so hard to cater to their weird desires. Wesleyan’s medical director of student health services, Dr. Davis Smith, says that “On this campus transgender students are real opinion leaders.” No doubt.

At Smith, a women’s college, students chose to eliminate all female pronouns from the student constitution at the request of transgender students. The words “she” and “her” were tossed out in favor of “the student.” The students did this as a gesture of good will, to be nice. But the true import of the gesture was not lost on sophomore Esi Cleland who exclaimed, “It contradicts the whole point of having a women’s college. I am opposed to it, because there’s something to be said for a women’s college, and a lot of us come here because we choose to be in an environment where women are the primary focus.”

Exactly! A women’s college should nurture feminine virtue, women’s values, women’s culture. Why on Earth would they mutilate their constitution to accommodate a handful of females who imagine themselves to be men? It’s a creepy gesture, a sort of symbolic female circumcision. Once again a perfectly healthy dimension of the moral matrix has been warped to accommodate the esoteric needs of a not-so-healthy handful of unhappy people.

Teaching Gayness at Your Expense

Taxpayer-funded colleges will even teach wondering freshmen how to be more fully gay. For example, at the University of Michigan, a public university, Professor Davis Halperin enthusiastically teaches a course called “How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation.” The syllabus explains that “Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn’t mean you don’t have to learn how to become one. Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but, often, we learn how to be gay from others.”

Should taxpayers be funding gay initiations? Professor Halperin says of his course offering: “It does not teach students to be homosexual. Rather, it examines critically the odd notion that there are right and wrong ways to be gay, that homosexuality is not just a sexual practice or desire, but a set of specific tastes in music, movies, and other cultural forms.” In other words, it’s a crash course in the gay subculture. The syllabus goes so far as to use the word “indoctrination.”

The Arrogance of the Self-Anointed

If gays don’t arrive at college already endowed with an exquisitely sensitive sense of victimhood, then the college administration, the activist faculty, and the already entrenched student political groups will conspire to imbue the gay freshman with just such a touchy disposition. On campus, gays aspire to victim status. The much-coveted goal of victim status is not, heaven forbid, to suffer any real oppression, but rather to seize the opportunity to mine that rich pure vein of solid-gold self-righteousness that is so treasured by would-be secular saints and melodramatic political martyrs.

In their scramble to secure the lowest rung on the ladder, political gays on campus must compete with political blacks, Hispanics, feminists, et al. The bright badge of victimhood shields gays from criticism; it puts their critics on the defensive; it allows them to intimidate the vast hetero majority. The self-anointed victim thus becomes a self-appointed defender of gay pride, an object of sympathy immune to sanction, and free to bludgeon all political opponents with a diagnosis of “homophobia.”

There is nothing admirable about synthetic victimhood; there is no genuine struggle paving the way to greatness. This sort of victim status is, in truth, a carefully camouflaged comfort zone. For those gays who seek it, it is far too comfortable a place to ever leave.

Most American universities have already watered down or dumped the greatest works of Western thought to create a favored place for new course offerings in racial and gender studies, including a rapidly expanding literature in gay studies and “queer theory.” Because gays now strike a pose of studied touchiness, the university bosses discourage the faculty from offering any factual material that might provoke a protest. Professors who are too candid have found themselves the targets of organized vilification and administrative sanction. These taboos do not apply to overtly ideological queer theorists who are immune to criticism.

The left-wing academy also expresses its political opinions through its professional associations. For example, back in 1987 the Modern Language Association, an association of university humanities scholars, passed this resolution: “Be it therefore resolved that the MLA will refrain from locating future conventions, not already scheduled in any state that has criminalized acts of sodomy through legislation. . .” Was this altruism, or a fear of arrest? The point has been moot since the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Universities now promote “pluralism” and “diversity” by permitting and funding separate institutions and “theme houses” for minorities, including homosexuals. Ironically, this isolationism shields these minorities from genuine pluralism. The imposition of sanctions for any utterance that tweaks the sensitivity of anyone who is not white or heterosexual regarding matters of race, gender and sexual orientation does not encourage inter-group socializing. As members of a presumed victim class, blacks, feminists and homosexuals are exempt from these suffocating speech codes, which also include such offenses as disparaging facial expressions and “inappropriate laughter.”

For example, graduate student Jerome Pinn arrived at his University of Michigan dorm room to discover that his new roommate had festooned the walls with photographs of nude men. The roomy told Mr. Pinn point blank that he was a lusty homosexual and that he intended to use the dorm room for sundry homosexual romps. Not surprisingly, Mr. Pinn approached the university housing office with a polite request for a different room assignment. Mr. Pinn recalls that “They were outraged by this. They asked me what was wrong with me – what my problem was. I said that I had a religious and moral objection to homosexual conduct. They were surprised; they couldn’t believe it. Finally they agreed to assign me to another room, but they warned me that if I told anyone of the reason, I would face university charges of discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation.”

Students in some schools have endured re-education sessions that included forced apologies, the denigration of their religious beliefs and the compulsory viewing of gay pornographic films, in misguided attempts to make them more sensitive to the emotional needs of homosexuals.

In 1988, the law school faculty of the State University of New York at Buffalo adopted a resolution that included warnings to students to avoid “remarks directed at another person’s…sexual preference.” Violators, the law faculty warned, could not expect protection under the First Amendment because “our intellectual community shares values that go beyond a mere standardized commitment to open and unrestrained debate.” The law faculty warned that it would take “strong and immediate steps” to punish anyone who uttered an offensive word and that as defenders of gays they would “not be limited solely to the use of ordinary university procedures,” but might go so far as to send letters to “any bar to which such a student applies” that would include “our conclusion that the student should not be admitted to practice law.” In other words, if you sniff at a homosexual the law faculty just might destroy your future. Over time, the use of such policies would increase the proportion of gay-friendly judges who will sit in judgment of such issues as gay marriage, gay adoption rights, and gay hiring quotas. The current strategy of gay litigators, such as the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, is to “judge shop” from state to state in the hope of finding such judges who will impose the gay agenda on America by judicial fiat. The more such judges there are, the better their chances of succeeding.

The University of Connecticut has a policy on harassment that imposes penalties, including expulsion, for offenses such as “the use of derogatory names,” “inconsiderate jokes,” “misdirected laughter,” and “conspicuous exclusion from conversation.” This same university places no restraints on the sexual conduct of its students, including homosexuals. The school handbook says that “the university shall not regard itself as the arbiter or enforcer of the morals of the students.”

Yale University sports at least five gay and lesbian groups, including one exclusively for Chicano lesbians. Yale’s gays are loud and proud; their annual gay/lesbian ball may attract over a thousand revelers. When the Wall Street Journal took note of the fact that Yale had acquired a gay reputation, Yale’s then-president Benno Schmidt, shot off a letter to fund raisers denying that Yale was a “gay school” and assuring alumni that if there were any truth to the allegation that “I would be concerned too.”

That’s all Yale’s powerful gay lobby needed to hear; gay activists swamped Mr. Schmidt with demands to know what was wrong with Yale being a very gay school. The best the apologetic Mr. Schmidt could muster was some unconvincing gibberish about the need to have a proportional number of heterosexuals at Yale to maintain the cherished goal of “diversity.”

The explosive expansion of the gay comfort zone on American campuses has been a top-down affair. It is today’s gay and liberal administrators who have been most influential in promoting the gay colonization of campus communities, not activist students who comprise this revolution’s vocal but comparatively powerless youth corps. It is sympathy from above that has allowed the thorough-going infiltration of gay ideology into institutions that are now bent on undermining traditional American folkways. In many cases, profound changes have been made without any student demands. These changes are important to all of us because our universities are not mere mirrors of our society, they are incubators of social fashions and transforming paradigms – they are leading indicators of what our larger society may become.

Few environments surpass the intimacy of campus life. After four years of accommodation to gender-bending classmates, queer theorists, and a multicultural habitat that endorses the equality of all modes of conduct, many students are unable to recognize just how weird their campus community truly is. They have been the subjects of an experiment that they did not design. The rules were not theirs to make.

After graduation, every former student will have an opinion about homosexual relationships and the worthiness of gay marriage and gay adoption and gay parenting, even as national surveys demonstrate that a majority of these same graduates cannot identify Shakespeare and Milton with their major works and are clueless about the import of the Magna Carta and Reconstruction. Fully one in four college seniors have no idea when Columbus set foot in the New World and confuse the words of the United States Constitution with those of Karl Marx. Thirty-seven percent of American college students are not required to take a single history course. And yet, all of them have been exposed to years of gay-agenda indoctrination intended to shape their future voting behavior and to weaken their attachment to traditional, time-tested, modes of human conduct. Gender studies and queer theory are part of every student’s curriculum, whether they desire it or not.

If there is a comical dimension to the multi-culti crowd’s love of all things non-Western it is their awkwardness in dealing with Third-World attitudes toward homosexuality. In Africa, for example, tribal beliefs hold that homosexuality is a sin and a sickness brought on by witchcraft. In Cuba, gays are tossed into jail. In the Islamic countries a masonry wall is toppled onto the convicted sodomite; if he survives it is the will of Allah. In China, the homosexual may be subjected to electric-shock “therapy.” The Chinese proudly report that electric shock produces a high “cure” rate. Given what the Third World has to offer homosexuals, Western-style tolerance isn’t such a bad deal.

Nonetheless, strident gays on campus offer little tolerance to those who do not embrace their assumptions. At the University of Michigan a student who poked fun at homosexual acts was condemned by the administration to write a public apology titled “Learned My Lesson” for publication in the Michigan Daily and to attend Gay Rap sessions. Another student at the same school made the big mistake of suggesting that homosexuality could be “cured.” He was charged with gender-based harassment and his comments were subjected to “review by the appropriate social work professionals in considering his suitability as a professional social worker.” Once again, those who don’t share the enforced orthodoxy of the gay-friendly Left are threatened with the ruination of their futures.

A Suffocating Gay Orthodoxy

Gays on campus are a headache because they want to wield political power while insulating themselves from criticism and open debate. This problem is made worst by administrators who arm these gay political alliances with punitive speech codes. Ordinary heterosexuals on campus now live in the shadow of a de facto Gay Inquisition, even as valid philosophical and moral questions are declared forever off limits for discussion. The university tradition of open inquiry has been tossed away, along with the great works of Western thought. Coercion is not persuasion; it is not a reasoned argument, but it gets the gays what they want.

Nothing compels universities to include courses on homosexuality, but if they do so they de-legitimize themselves by suppressing debate on any aspect of the gay agenda. Academic freedom and academic taboos are mutually antagonistic. Either allow a debate about the gay agenda or trim the curriculum. Criminalizing argumentation is the hallmark of the academic hack.

The new “diversity” is just a diversity of radical opinions; it is a narrow-spectrum orthodoxy espoused by vocal conformists. If, for example, you believe that a homosexual orientation has no moral implications, then you are “for diversity.” If you hold any other opinion, then you are “against diversity,” and are deserving of sanctions. The heretic must be heckled and ostracized.

The constant browbeating and dishonest double standards can try the patience of even the most sympathetic student. When impatience finally turns to hostility, the guardians of “minority rights” are quick to charge that all resentments are the result of lurking homophobia; they interpret this as a sure sign that they have been lax in their defense of minorities, and vow to tighten the screws even more.

By junior or senior year the “heightened consciousness” of self-righteous homosexuals may have congealed into a sticky dogmatism. The sensitive gay has become a gay-rights monitor conducting political surveillance in all his classroom settings. Professors may praise these vigilant spies as exemplars of just the sort of “diversity” that gays can contribute to the classroom. The gay monitors are flattered to have their superior consciousness of oppression recognized.

The faculty may also indulge gay students by encouraging them to create gay myths, such as the myth of an idyllic golden age of Greek homosexuality that somehow ennobles today’s bathhouse denizens. The idea that truth should be a weapon against ignorance is forgotten as professors succumb to exercises in esteem building for homosexuals.

Worse yet, the forced celebration of splinter-group sexualities, gender confusion, and oddball obsessions is an arrogant imposition on almost every tuition-paying customer. Almost everyone in America has a heterosexual destiny to fulfill; life’s early years should be spent in preparation to fulfill that destiny. The burden is on the folks with abnormal proclivities to find a niche for themselves somewhere in the grand scheme of our great civilization. The greater society is not obligated to transform itself in any way that will diminish its first purpose: to maintain the health of its moral matrix, which is to say, all of its interdependent, life-sustaining social institutions: its religions, its schools, its marriages and a host of affiliated associations, such as charities, fraternal organizations and children’s groups.

The greater society is no more obligated to celebrate homosexuality than it is to celebrate any of a thousand other paraphilias. Shall we all celebrate shoe fetishists or panty sniffers? No? Then why should we celebrate anal erotics and sex-clone obsessives? All that distinguishes gays from other paraphiliacs is their superior public relations efforts. The “gay community” is really no more than an ad hoc conglomeration of small-time sexualities that coheres for one reason only: political expediency. If they didn’t need one another politically, they wouldn’t even be on speaking terms. All of the gay factions (gay, lesbian, etc.) are freakishly small; all of them are the result of biological mishaps. Their modes of interaction are unfit models for heterosexuals; they have nothing to teach heterosexuals that couldn’t be better learned from other heterosexuals.

It’s time to tell the gay bullies that they are tiresome, that gay is not avant-garde, that the rest of us have more important things to do than listen to their incessant bitching.

Gays in the Workplace

No sooner has the American student graduated from college than he comes under the watchful eye of the gay-friendly corporate Thought Police.

Historically, employers have not encouraged homosexuals in their employ to be open and expressive in their homosexuality. In fact, muting everyone’s sexual expressiveness has been the traditional corporate tack. In short, bland was beautiful. Not any more. Rolf Szabo found that out the hard way.

Mr. Szabo had been a loyal employee of the Eastman Kodak Corporation for twenty-three years when, out of the blue, his boss sent him an e-mail promoting something called “Coming Out Day.” This memo included instructions for assisting closeted homosexuals to “come out” in the workplace. Mr. Szabo was urged to acknowledge the “courage” of homosexuals in being more expressively gay. Mr. Szabo was instructed to “be sensitive to the [gay] employee’s language in defining their personal orientation” and “share your personal willingness to understand.” The message also instructed Mr. Szabo to monitor other employees for any anti-gay comments or humor. The memo included a warning to “keep in mind that such behaviors violate Kodak’s Values as well as Kodak’s Equal Opportunity Employment Policy, which all supervisors are responsible for maintaining in their areas. . .Reported violations of this policy are to be thoroughly investigated. If verified, disciplinary action is to be taken.”

Mr. Szabo did not warm to the Big-Brother tone of the memo. Neither did he care to play midwife and nanny to nominal adults who were struggling with abnormal-sexuality issues. He replied to his boss’ memo with one of his own requesting that his boss never again send him such a memo because he considered it offensive. With a click of the wrong button he also sent his memo to everyone who had gotten his boss’ original memo.

Mr. Szabo’s boss responded by flashing an e-mail to everyone on his mailing list. He apologized for Mr. Szabo’s e-mail. In the interest of tolerance he demanded that everyone adopt the corporation’s social values. Intoned the boss: “While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs, when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak Values. I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this morning. Rolf’s comments are hurtful to our employees, friends, and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. This behavior is not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.”

Subsequently, the company insisted that Mr. Szabo apologize in writing for calling his boss’ e-mail “offensive” and promising to never again express his distaste for the company’s efforts to expand the gay comfort zone at Kodak. He was told that if he did not comply he would lose his job. Mr. Szabo, a devout Catholic, refused to recant his honest opinion. Kodak fired him.

To this day, Kodak brags about its tolerance and inclusion and diversity, but a diversity of radical opinions is not true diversity and demonizing principled employees is overt intolerance. Drafting employees to assist people in their personal struggles with their sexual quirks is just plain bad manners. Will Kodak continue to enlarge its list of emotionally needy folks to include those with ever stranger proclivities? What about the emotional needs of rubber fetishists? What about transvestites who want to strut their stuff in the workplace? What’s the rationale for excluding them? Should a corporation transform itself into a clinic for the benefit of anyone with a quirk and then draft its not-so-strange employees as amateur therapists?

Would Kodak ever consider having a Coming Out Day for Christians or Orthodox Jews? Take a wild guess. Kodak Values is just a front for the radical social agenda of gay theorists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill. Kodak Values fulfills all six objectives of the Kirk & Pill game plan because it strives to 1. “Talk about gays,” 2. “Portray gays as victims,” 3. “Give protectors a just cause,” 4. “Make gays look good,” and 5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” In its zeal to promote the gay agenda, Kodak goes so far as to terminate employees who won’t play along. The sixth objective of the gay agenda is funding, which Kodak does simply by providing gays with the use of Kodak facilities and the use of Kodak supervisors as enforcers of gay indoctrination.

The truth is that gays get preferential treatment because their clout intimidates employers who fear bad publicity and costly litigation. If Christians sued to preserve their dignity and religious freedom, then employers would fear them.

Rolf Szabo has brought a lawsuit against Eastman Kodak for violating his religious freedom. Kodak has certainly demonstrated its intolerance of true diversity, as opposed to a mere diversity of radical opinions. Employees at AT&T and Verizon are also suing their employers for violating their religious beliefs with coerced pledges to respect and value homosexual behaviors.

Imposing Gay Values from Above

As in the case of universities, the Kodak Corporation is imposing a radical social agenda on its employees from above. Sixty percent of homosexual adults hold professional positions; they are disproportionately represented among the clergy, the professoriate, and the lawyering class. They may also have infiltrated the highest ranks of Eastman Kodak.

The standard boilerplate defense for why Kodak would encourage gays to be more expressive in the workplace, while discouraging Christians and Jews from doing the same, is that Christian and Jewish expressiveness is all wrapped up in values, whereas gayness is just a benign and value-neutral orientation akin to a preference for chocolate rather than vanilla. This is hokum.

When gays become expressive they become vocal about their burning desire to witness a transforming social revolution; they express their desire for gay marriage, for gay adoption, for the gay colonization of all private clubs and institutions, such as the Boy Scouts of America. For gays, the personal is always political; their theorists say so explicitly.

Kodak Values is an effort to mainstream gay countercultural values in the workplace; it is a program to legitimize homosexuality. Years down the road, some of Kodak’s openly homosexual employees will be sitting in its boardroom making decisions about future “values” programs that will profoundly affect the workplace environment of all non-homosexuals. The values that Kodak enforces and projects will also affect other workplace environments because large corporations like Kodak are models for other businesses. Kodak is setting an example with its in-house social engineering. Kodak is also telling its employees to check their most cherished beliefs at the door. Will Kodak next use its enormous economic clout to dictate to its smaller suppliers that they too must have gay-friendly workplaces if they want to do business with Kodak?

If you think this last idea is farfetched, then think again. Kodak already has in place its aggressive Supplier Diversity Program which has shut out most small businesses owned by anyone of the white race. Established white-race suppliers have seen their volume of business with Kodak severely reduced just because of their race. The remaining white suppliers are compelled to certify to Kodak that they too are imposing an aggressive, race-based program of their own on their second and third tier subcontractors. The white businessmen must certify in writing that they directly employ a number of persons of color, or POCs in Kodak-speak. A consequence of this racist program of anti-white preferences is that white-owned businesses will be excluded from $200 million in Kodak business by 2006. A Kodak annual report gave assurances that “Kodak continues to take aggressive steps to identify and partner with diverse suppliers.” So don’t imagine for a second that Kodak would not preferentially pour millions of dollars into enterprises controlled by homosexuals, if only they could identify them. That would be millions of dollars that were diverted from the support of traditional workers with traditional families and traditional values.

Clearly, Kodak has been colonized by partisans of the gay agenda. This company is encouraging the expression of gay values in its workplace; it is insisting that its employees monitor each other for any sign of non-compliance with its gay-friendly social program; it is penalizing and firing anyone who resists their radical social engineering.

Mr. Szabo was not fired because he violated any law; he was terminated for not preferring Kodak’s gay agenda above his deeply-held Catholic faith. Indeed, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex religion, or national origin. The word “sex” in Title VII means male or female and makes no legal reference to homosexuality. If an employee wearing a turban must be accommodated, then why was Mr. Szabo compelled to recant his religious beliefs, in writing, or face termination? Said Mr. Szabo: “I would not submit and cave in to their trying to browbeat me into a confession.”

Kodak is not alone in its concern over the troubling diversity of thought exhibited by its employees. The corporation-as-behavior-modification-and-re-education camp is alive and thriving. In 2002 Kodak was one of 13 companies that got a perfect 100 percent score in the Human Rights Campaign’s first Corporate Equality Index. The HRC is a well-funded gay political organization; its index rates large corporations on their policies toward gays. The HRC gave top marks to Aetna, American Airlines, Apple Computers, Avaya, Intel, J.P.Morgan Chase & Co., Replacements, Inc., Worldspan and Xerox.

Up in Rochester, NY, where Kodak has its headquarters, talk-show host Bob Lonsberry gave Kodak’s firing of Rolf Szabo a good airing. Says Lonsberry, “In the name of tolerance they foment a spirit of intolerance. Their ongoing incessant theme is diversity of the most progressive sort, but those in the workplace feel it’s rubbed in their faces.” A listener responded on Lonsberry’s message board: “I work in the same division as Rolf. Kodak is constantly trying to cram this diversity crap down our throats. We are told by management that all beliefs are welcome. Well, as Rolf found out, if your opinions and fundamental beliefs go against the Kodak party line, you will be gone.”

The creepiest thought in all of this is the possibility that the persons who are imposing these re-education programs may, themselves, be homosexuals. As we have already seen, a spouse and children are not proof that a person is heterosexual. Millions of homosexuals are masquerading as married straights. Many of them must occupy commanding positions in giant corporations. Our moral matrix is being colonized by people with alien sensibilities; the quality of our lives is being diminished.

The Gay Colonization of Motorola

Motorola got its modest start manufacturing radios for automobiles. It has since grown into a sprawling telecommunications business with worldwide sales of $30 billion. Their name is now affixed to wireless telephones, messaging systems, two-way radios and Internet-access products. Motorola is also engineering another top-down revolution in homosexual power politics; it is yet another rapidly expanding gay comfort zone. This is making a lot of traditional heterosexuals at Motorola very uncomfortable.

The management-driven gay-counterculture activism at Motorola includes “homophobia” workshops, homosexual sex education courses, and e-mail recruitment for gay-pride parades. Gay-friendly forces within Motorola have free use of the corporation’s e-mail system, its bulletin boards, its televisions, and its meeting rooms and offices for gay seminars and gay film festivals. Of special concern to Motorola employees are the “Homophobia in the Workplace” workshops, one of which a Motorola website deemed “mandatory.”

Motorola also supports a website called MotoPride for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. This site touts the “unconditional” support of Motorola’s management team for the homosexual community. The site sketches Motorola’s historical commitment to expanding America’s gay comfort zone: “1993, Motorola launches the Gay, Bisexual, and Lesbian employee network GABLE-NET to foster discussion of GLBT issues in the workplace; 1994, Mandatory Homophobia in the Workplace workshops are conducted in Plantation, Florida; 1996, Motorola adds sexual orientation to its U.S. non-discrimination policy; 1998, Motorola holds “Homophobia in the Workplace” workshops in Austin, Texas; 1999, Motorola celebrates its first Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day in Austin, Texas and Phoenix, Arizona; 2000 Motorola adds same-gender domestic partner health and dental benefits for U.S. employees; 2002, Motorola partners with Gay.com, PlanetOut.com and the Advocate to celebrate Gay Pride Month with the MotoPRIDE Campaign, supporting pride festivals and events across the nation,” and so forth.

A Motorola engineer, who wished to remain anonymous for reasons that will be obvious, gave an interview to WorldNet Daily wherein he described the mood of “quiet anger” among those heterosexual employees who approve of traditional family values. In his words: “The drums of diversity are a great way to get positively recognized by corporate leadership, even though you do little or nothing to contribute to a profitable bottom line of the company. [Coworkers and I] have observed that many less technically competent people get promoted to management by their own ‘beating the drums of diversity’” He went on to explain that “the homosexual activists are by far the most feared by management. And, it appears, [they] have free rein of internal media, corporate resources, and event scheduling.” He says the straights at Motorola continue to live in “quiet anger” because management has clearly given the gay agenda top priority. Some employees are more equal than others.

Sandia Abuses Christians

At least 300 of America’s 500 most powerful companies have gay-friendly employment policies. These policies often exceed a proper insistence on tolerance and civility and become a promotion of gay social values so aggressive as to discriminate against traditional men and women.

Not to be outdone by corporations, the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico discriminates against religious believers daily, while lavishing preferential treatment on homosexuals. Sandia management explicitly forbids people of faith to place any references to religion or religious events on its bulletin boards. The faithful are prohibited from using computer screen savers with religious content. The bosses demand the removal of all posters, books and pictures with religious content. Sandia management even forbade its engineers from naming a reconnaissance robot Caleb, after the biblical spy. To add an extra sting to their list of anti-traditionalist prohibitions, the normal employees were requested to remove all photos of their spouses and children because homosexuals feel uncomfortably displaying photos of their intimate relationships.

By contrast, the Sandia administrators can’t do enough to encourage the homoerotics in their midst to be as expressive as possible. Gay values and gay perspectives are promoted at every opportunity. Sandia officially recognizes the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Network Group to which it enthusiastically gave “funding, administrative assistance, and use of the company facilities and communications channels.” In other words, the homosexuals were given free rein at Sandia.

In April 2000, Sandia shut down its top-secret facilities for two days in order to corral its employees into “diversity training” sessions. Sandia management subjects its employees to annual “Coming Out Day” celebrations where they are pressured to accept and respect homoerotic behaviors.

Given its commitment to expanding the gay comfort zone at Sandia National Laboratories, it is not surprising that the Sandia management denied recognition to a Christian group. Management merely sniffed at the Christians and told them that they had “not established the existence of workplace barriers based on religion.” The Christians, who had been prohibited from any expressiveness and who had even been told to conceal their family photos, begged to differ. Referring to these examples of discrimination, the Christians observed that “many Christian workers are not comfortable with expressing who they are openly for fear of ridicule or reprimand from management or fellow employees.” Sandia management told the Christians to pound sand, so the Christians hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit. Their attorney, Stephen Crampton, of the American Family Association, called Sandia’s policies toward religious traditionalists “discriminatory against religion on its face. It is an insult not only to believers in God, but to believers in freedom everywhere.”

Conclusion

You have been presented with numerous examples of how the free expression of traditional sentiments is diminished wherever gays control the levers of power. Programs that begin as efforts to gain sympathy by persuasion and familiarization soon degenerate into heavy-handed attempts to reform traditionalists, to make them reconsider their religious beliefs, their ideas about parenting and even their notions about basic hygiene. If “heavy-handed” doesn’t do the job, then iron-fisted prohibitions are brought to bear on traditionalists, such as speech codes, mandatory “sensitivity” training, and threats of expulsion, termination, or the ruination of careers by defamation. Wherever gays or the ideologically-inclined friends of gays achieve dominion over us, the moral matrix that was created to support traditional students, wage earners, and families is distorted to serve the purposes of a counterculture.

By threatening those traditionalists who are reluctant to re-examine their commitment to the precepts of their religions, their folkways, and even Mom’s toilet-training instruction, gays have done nothing but provoke quiet anger and inspire lots of underdog humor aimed at gays. The ever expanding gay comfort zone is making the traditionalist majority feel marginalized and uncomfortable.

When demands are imposed upon ordinary people to tolerate things that are harmful to the health of the very institutions that sustain traditional family life, then intolerance becomes a virtue. Churches, schools, workplaces and private associations that ooze gay values, gay perspectives and a gay sensibility are as useless as a gay bathhouse to those of us who are struggling to maintain traditional lives and traditional families.

We have glimpsed the future that the gay utopians are preparing for us, a world of speech codes, spying co-workers, school expulsions, employment terminations, hiring quotas, preferential treatment, the emergence of a flagrantly gay clergy, the demonization of religious traditionalists, the legitimization of homosexual wedlock, an increase of homoerotic imagery in popular entertainment, the trivialization of traditional values, increased gay role modeling in school books and in the classroom, and many more unpleasant surprises. It’s a world unrecognizable to our forebears; it’s a world in moral disarray, a place of confusion.

More Good Stuff on the Homepage, Click Here!