Gender and Tolerance

Transgenders on the Victim Bandwagon

The latest entry in the left’s ever expanding list of groups who need to be petted, pandered to and catered to is transgender people.

Transgender speakers are hot on the college lecture circuit, and the latest “inclusion” fad on college campuses is “gender neutral” bathrooms and dorms.

And worse, the Obama Justice Department is trying to force the transgender agenda on the entire nation’s schools.

With transgender people (and with gays and every other politically correct victim group) the left uses the word “tolerance.” If you oppose their agenda, it’s only because you are “intolerant” or a “bigot” and even a “homophobe.”

Tolerance ought to be a two way street. But today’s Social Justice Warriors see no need for tolerance toward people who disagree with them.

Let’s take Bruce Jenner, for example. He has decided he’s a woman. He’s had some plastic surgery so that his features are a bit more feminine. And he wears dresses. Tolerance says he had a right to do all of that.

But tolerance says that I have a right to view him as a male transvestite, who is a bit odd. Anybody who says I have no right to think that is intolerant of me. Jenner has a right to his opinion as to his gender, I have an equal right to my opinion about his gender. Equal tolerance.

Social Justice Warriors: Equal Tolerance?

Of course, a Social Justice Warrior might insist that he has a right to view me as a bad person because I think that. He does indeed, but if he tries to bully me by calling me a “bigot” or “intolerant” he is no better than I would be if I bullied a gay person by calling him a “pervert” or “degenerate.”

Further, if the Social Justice Warrior has a right to view me as a bad person because of my opinions, I have an equal right to judge the opinions and the actions of others. I have a right to decide that (for example) homosexual acts are sinful, or that guys wearing a dress are weird.

But of course, Social Justice Warriors deride “judgmental” attitudes on the part of people with whom they disagree, while being rigidly judgmental toward those same people. They seem to think they have a monopoly on passing moral judgment.

Things get worse when people try to impose their ideas about sex and gender on others. Does “tolerance” mean that a person who looks like a man gets to use the ladies room? What about tolerance of women who would feel that to be a huge imposition on their sense of privacy? Why does the person who looks like a man want to use the ladies room? Probably because he wants affirmation of his gender identity.

Demanding Affirmation

But demanding that others affirm one’s idea that one is really a woman (while one looks like a man and was born a male) is a demand one has no right to make. You have a right to think you are “really” a woman. I have a right to think you are really a man, and so do the women who feel violated if you are in their restroom.

And it’s even worse if in public schools a kid with a penis is allowed to run naked in the girl’s locker room, as the Obama Administration has demanded.

Which shows how using government to force your notions of sex and gender on others is downright toxic.

Private Sector over Governmental Fiat

Left to the private sector, things are likely to work out in a messier, but ultimately more satisfactory way. Big box store Target can declare its restrooms gender neutral if it wants. People who are uncomfortable with that are free to shop elsewhere. That’s tolerance.

While nobody should be forced to accommodate the desires of transgender people, some firms may choose to, just as some restaurants might choose to accommodate vegans. But the accommodations are likely to be more moderate than Target’s. Having single use bathrooms (one user at a time) is not outrageous, since people are used to that after decades of air travel. Likewise, no transgender person should mind using the “family” restrooms, since those are inherently gender neutral (intended for a dad and small daughter, or mother and young son, for example). And expensive reconfigurations of facilities are unlikely, just as vegan restaurants are uncommon.

Gay Lobby and Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

Issues of tolerance and intolerance have been even worse where homosexuality is concerned. Government has punished Christian bakers who did not want to bake a cake for gay wedding and photographers who did not want to photograph a gay wedding. Christian student groups have been told they may not insist that their officers adhere to Christian standards of sexual behavior. The gay lobby has been willing to use government to impose their notions of what is moral on people who disagree.

On the average college campus, saying something negative about homosexuality invites a lecture from your dorm resident assistant, or being bullied by the Bias Incident Response Team.

If the Westboro Baptist Church asked a gay baker to cater one of its events, nobody would think of trying to force him to do so. If the Muslim Student Association had an officer who started loudly insisting that Mohammad was a fraud and a child molester, the Social Justice Warriors would be happy to see that officer kicked out. But Muslims vote Democratic, and can be portrayed as a victim group.

Saying something unkind about Christians on a college campus would hardly raise an eyebrow.

Tolerance is only tolerance if it works both ways. Wanting tolerance for one’s own opinions and own favored groups is not tolerance. Every bigot wants that. The test is one’s willingness to tolerate people and opinions one dislikes. This is a test the left in America flunks badly.

[By John McAdams, Reprinted from The Madison Speakeasy, Volume 1, Number 2]

Marquette Represented at Gay Higher Education Conference

A program called Expanding the Circle is described here:

In order to advance pluralism, acknowledge a scholarly area of investigation, and deepen learning in higher education, as educational professionals we need to expand our circle of inclusion and broaden our definition of diversity by increasing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Studies.

In this conference, participants will not only address a variety of factors that have contributed to excluding LGBTQ issues from academic study and student life, but they will also explore strategies to make our campuses more inclusive for all students.

Although some colleges and universities have been incorporating LGBTQ studies for decades, courses and programs continue to be pockets of innovation rather than models of inclusion for all of higher education.

Colleges and universities need to encourage faculty members to teach and research a wide range of LGBTQ topics as well as support student life professionals in building inclusive campus communities.

In this conference, we will examine strategies and best practices that effectively integrate LGBTQ areas of teaching and research with student life activities. Faculty development plays a critical role in this integration: Faculty members, whether part of the LGBTQ community themselves or not, need to examine their own attitudes and feelings about LGBTQ issues as they seek to incorporate these issues more fully into their courses and curricula.

Expanding the Circle 2011 will be among the first national conferences in higher education focusing on LGBTQ issues by seeking connections across academic and student affairs, across kinds of diversities, across disciplines, and across LGBTQ subfields. Until we collaborate on LBGTQ studies and co-curricular activities within and across our colleges and universities, we cannot create inclusive and welcoming learning environments.

And then, the issues that are listed as “themes.”

• Curricular revision and expansion in the arts, humanities, and social sciences
• Interrelationships between LGBTQ and ethnic/racial/cultural identities
• Religious and spiritual issues for LGBTQ studentsFaculty development programs concerning LGBTQ issuesTransgender and gender issues across the campus spectrum
• Examples of LGBTQ research projects in higher education
• Counseling and support services for LGBTQ students
  Off-campus community resources for LGBTQ students
• Professional training programs for resource professionals, administrators, and educators
• Campus dialogues and public forums addressing LGBTQ issues
• The role of higher education in the formation of public policy
• The new politics of inclusion
• Community support and networking opportunities for counselors, faculty, and student services professionals working on LGBTQ issues in isolation
• The role of faculty, staff, and administration as allies in supporting LGBTQ students

Of course, Marquette was represented.

This is not the first time Marquette has sent representatives to a gay higher education conference. It happened back in 2005 when David Borgealt (Office of Student Development) and Fr. Patrick Dorsey (University Ministry), attended a conference called “Out There: The First National Conference of Scholars and Student Affairs Professionals Involved in LGBTQ Issues on Catholic Campuses.”

Marquette’s recent rush to embrace each and every element of the gay campus agenda is not really a response to the outrage of the campus gay lobby over Marquette’s failure to hire lesbian dean candidate Jodi O’Brien.

A fundamentally secular and politically correct administration has simply done what it has long wanted to do. The Jodi O’Brien affair was merely a pretext, an excuse.

Hat Tip/Cardinal Newman Society

Marquette to Provide Domestic Partner Benefits to Gay Couples

From the Journal-Sentinel:

Marquette University plans to start offering domestic partner benefits to its employees in 2012, a move that comes about a year after the university’s decision to rescind a job offer to a lesbian candidate caused the campus to erupt in debate.

In a statement sent to the campus Thursday afternoon, Marquette President Robert A. Wild said he’s been wrestling with an idea of offering the benefits that would provide services for gay and lesbian employees for years.

University officials said the timing of the announcement was influenced by votes in recent weeks by the University Academic Senate and the Marquette University Student Government that have urged the university to offer benefits for domestic partners.

“If we are truly pastoral in our application of the Jesuit principle of cura personalis, I asked myself if I could reconcile that with denying health benefits to a couple who have legally registered their commitment to each other,” Wild said. In Latin, cura personalis means “care for the entire person.”

Wild noted that the State of Wisconsin gives legal recognition both to marriage for heterosexual couples and to a registered domestic partnership for same-sex couples.

This comes as rather a surprise to us, since we assumed that any action on the plan to support gay unions would come after Wild leaves at the end of this year. We have, of course, reported on the movement by the campus gay lobby to get such benefits.

What’s interesting is the very lame statements made in defense of this policy change. The University Academic Senate and the Marquette University Student Government are invoked as legitimating the move, but in fact both bodies consist of self-selected political activists who are representative neither of the faculty nor of the student body.

Indeed, several members of the Academic Senate expressed, in private conversations, severe reservations about the policy, but nobody had the courage to vote against it, thus it passed with: 26 in favor, 0 opposed, 3 abstained.

Even more bogus is the claim that since the State of Wisconsin recognizes same-sex civil unions, Marquette is somehow obligated to.

In the first place, Wisconsin’s recognition of civil unions is probably unconstitutional, and is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. In 2006, voters passed the following amendment to the state constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

While a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor (Doyle) established a domestic partnership registry, nothing in the legislation they passed imposes any obligation on the private sector to recognize gay unions.

So invoking Wisconsin’s domestic partner registry is merely a smoke screen.

More serious is the claim that not subsidizing gay domestic partnerships would be “denying health benefits to a couple.” In the first place, the gay Marquette employee would get benefits. His or her partner would have to get benefits elsewhere. Homosexual couples are much less likely to have children than straight couples, and the “partner” would likely be working, and quite likely at a place that provides health care.

If not, Marquette faculty are not poor, and the gay couple (likely in a two-income household) might have to buy health insurance. If perchance the gay “partner” of a Marquette faculty member had a very low income, that person would be eligible for Medicaid since, after all, not recognizing the “partnership” means that the gay person with the substantial income is under no obligation to buy insurance for a poor “partner.”

What this represents is nothing less than a wholesale repudiation of the Catholic mission of the university. Marquette is explicitly recognizing and subsidizing sexual unions that Church teaching says are illicit.

The problem, and this afflicts all religious institutions, is that the secular culture of academia generally assimilates colleges that were founded on Christian principles.

Faculty are hired who are . . . well, just average college faculty who are liberal, secular and politically correct.

Administrators are hired who have the same secular values, and feel most comfortable aping the policies of secular institutions.

And there are the bureaucratic imperatives: it’s always easier to cave to interest group demands. And each and every “initiative” to placate some interest group increases the power and the budget of some bureaucratic empire. Thus the Marquette bureaucracy is overwhelmingly liberal and politically correct, and this includes the Provost’s office, Student Affairs, the Campus Ministry, Mission and Identity, the Honors Program, Women’s and Gender Studies and most humanities and social science departments.

Strong leadership at the top might might counterbalance this, but unfortunately Father Wild doesn’t provide that. He has a history of being manipulated by various interest groups, whether it be the Indian tribal leaders on the issue of whether Marquette should use the Warriors nickname, or by Student Affairs on the issue of whether Marquette should recognize the Gay/Straight Alliance.

And this time, he has allowed himself to be manipulated by the campus gay lobby, who raised a fierce hue and cry when Marquette refused to hire Jodi O’Brien. He caved to pressure in refusing to hire O’Brien, and now he feels the need to make amends to the gay lobby, so he caves to their pressure on this.

It takes considerable vision and fortitude to maintain any religious identify at a college or university, and both are missing at Marquette.

[Update]

We have rejected a couple of comments that call people opposed to domestic partner benefits “bigots” and “homophobes.”

It’s terribly revealing that people on the gay side of this issue so quickly resort to such language.

Please, if you are going to leave a comment, make it a civil argument.

Persecution of Christians in Europe

From the Brussels Journal:

I think it would be useful to begin this article with a brief statement of the facts. Eunice and Owen Johns are an elderly couple from Derby, who fostered a number of children in the 1990s, and who recently offered their services again to Derby City Council. Their offer was rejected on the grounds that, as fundamentalist Christians, they might teach any children in their keeping that homosexual acts were sinful. They took legal action against the Council, arguing that their beliefs should not be held against them. On the 28th February 2011, judgment was given against them in the High Court. The Judges ruled that, where the laws against discrimination are concerned, sexual minorities take precedence over religious believers. Because Mr and Mrs Johns might not remain silent about sexual ethics, there was a danger to the “welfare” of children taken from their homes by the Council.

The Judges insisted that this did not represent a “blanket ban” on the fostering of children by religious believers. There was no issue involved of religious liberty – no precedent being set for wider discrimination by the authorities. It was simply a matter of child welfare. You can read all this for yourself on the BBC website.

I think we can take it as read that the Judges were talking hot air about the nature of the precedent they were setting. There is already a modest but settled ruling class bias in this country against Christianity. This does not extend, so far as I can tell, to Jews and Moslems. But the bias does certainly apply to fundamentalist Christians, especially when it is a matter of what they believe and might say about homosexuality. Yesterday, they were barred from fostering, and perhaps also from adoption. It is only a matter of time before they are barred from teaching. It is conceivable that they will eventually be classed – on account of their beliefs – as unfit parents and will have their children taken away from them. Before that happens, of course, there will be laws against home education, and an inquisition in the schools of what they have been telling their children.

According to the BBC:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

So having a preference for homosexual sex is protected, but believing Christian teachings about sexuality is not.

This is the truth about all anti-discrimination laws. Certain people are “really” protected, and others . . . not so much.

American academia, of course, is Europe.

University Academic Senate Approves Domestic Partner Benefits for Gay and Lesbian Faculty

As we predicted, the proposal passed.

The vote was 26 in favor, 0 opposed, 3 abstained. Real opposition among faculty in the Academic Senate was higher than this (although not nearly a majority), but nobody apparently was bold enough to openly oppose the proposal.

Here is the proposal.

This is called the spiral of silence. The campus gay lobby and liberal allies have essentially intimidated the opposition.

This vote, of course, is not binding on the Marquette administration.

This issue will be a major test for the new Marquette president, Scott Pilarz. Will he be just another bureaucrat, doing what is fashionable and placating interest groups, or will he actually stand up for the Catholic mission of Marquette?

We are not at all optimistic.

Lesbian Activist/Administrator To “Consult” With Marquette on Gay Issues

Dr. Ronni Sanlo, a college administrator and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist will be coming to campus on Thursday, October 28th to meet with various members of the Marquette community.

Who is Dr. Ronni Sanlo?

Her own web page describes her thus:

Dr. Ronni Sanlo is a Senior Associate Dean of Students and Professor and Director of the UCLA Masters of Education in Student Affairs. Formerly, Ronni was the director of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, the University of Michigan LGBT Center, and an HIV epidemiologist in Florida. She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida, and a masters and doctorate in education from the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, FL. Ronni has presented many workshops and seminars about LGBT issues in companies, campuses, and organizations.

Her biography tells how she knew she was a lesbian at age 11 when she was “in love with” Annette Funicello, but stayed in the closet and even got married, “coming out” only in 1979. According to the blurb:

Sanlo teaches a required course, ED 405, which focuses on identity and culture in education. And through her work at the LGBT center, she conducts sensitivity training sessions for faculty, staff and — indirectly — students.

Before going to UCLA, she was at the University of Michigan, where her signal “contribution” was apparently a “lavender graduation ceremony.”

She describes the event as follows:

Lavender Graduation is a cultural celebration that recognizes LGBT students of all races and ethnicities and acknowledges their achievements and contributions to the university as students who survived the college experience. Through such recognition LGBT students may leave the university with a positive last experience of the institution thereby encouraging them to become involved mentors for current students as well as financially contributing alumni.

Within the very narrow confines of student affairs offices and lesbian academia, she has been designated one of “20 Powerful Lesbian Academics.”

The following is the e-mail chain that contains various of the details of her visit.

I have secured AMU 252 for the Dr. Sanlo meeting on October 29th, 2010 from 1pm until 1:50 pm. If I have inadvertently left anyone off the list, I do apologize, but ask that you please feel free to forward this to whomever you deem appropriate. I did get more chairs than there are currently people for, so we should have plenty of room.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University
________________________________

From: Franzoi, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:13 AM
To: Kuras, Stacy; de St. Aubin, Ed; Snow, Nancy; Engel, Stephen; Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Massingale, Bryan; Hogan, Michael J.; Zurcher, Amelia; South, James; Politano, Michael; Jodi Melamed; Dempsey, Deirdre; Moon, Dawne; Foster, Susanne; Peressini, Anthony; Krueger, Christine
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

I can make 1 PM.

Steve Franzoi
________________________________
From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:02 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

On the 29th of October, I can make it for 1 pm if this works out better for everyone.
________________________________

From: de St. Aubin, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:48 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]

Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

The inaugural WGST Fellow reception begins at 3:30 on October 29.

MANY faculty interested in meeting with Dr. Sanlo have already committed to attend this hugely important event.

Are there other options in terms of time slots to meet with Dr. Sanlo???

Ed de St. Aubin
Psychology Department
Marquette University

The WGST Fellow program is described on the website of the Women and Gender Studies Program. That “gender studies” has been addeed to “women’s studies” signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer: “Homonegativity and lesbian development: the impact of micro-networks and macro-contexts.”

________________________________

From: Snow, Nancy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:26 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Hi, All,

I’ve just called Stacy Kuras of Dr. Miller’s office. We are all invited to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3-4:30 on Oct. 29th. She will be reserving a room for about 30 people.

Thanks,

Nancy

Nancy E. Snow
Professor of Philosophy
Marquette University
________________________________
From: Engel, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:18 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Dear 10/21 meeting folks,

Things are moving fast with regard to Ronni Sanlo’s visit. She will be at Marquette on October 28 and 29, and Chris Miller would like to know if any of us would like to meet with her. Time has been set aside for Sanlo to meet with faculty on October 29 from 3 to 4:30 PM.

I have already agreed to meet with Sanlo at this time. I believe that Amelia and Nancy are attending this meeting as well, though I can’t confirm that. Chris Miller’s assistant needs to know who of our group would like to meet with her in order to get a list of attendees and a proper room.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to attend this meeting, and I will pass that on to Miller’s office.

All best,
Steve
________________________________

[The “From” header is missing on our copy of the following, but see below for the apparent sender]

This just came (below) requesting that we meet with a consultant re: LGTB issues. Please reply at your earliest convenience as to whether or not you can attend. We do have our scheduled Faculty Council meeting earlier that day - 11-12:30. Many thanks!

Marilyn Frenn PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF
Chair, Faculty Council

Hi Marilyn and Lisa,

I don’t know if Christopher Miller contacted you directly, but he agreed that the FC and SCE should be on the list of invitees to a meeting with Dr. Ronni Sanlo, associate dean of students at UCLA and expert on LGBT issues on college campuses, who’s been invited as a consultant at MU. If you have not been contacted, could you forward this invitation to your committees and send me a list of attendees?

Thanks (BTW) I’m sorry for the late notice. I just got this message from Miller’s factota this AM.

Chris

Christine L. Krueger, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Who Counts Program
Marquette University

________________________________

From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Engel, Stephen; Krueger, Christine; Snow, Nancy
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: Dr. Ronni Sanlo

Good morning! We are very excited to have Dr. Sanlo with us on October 28th & 29th. If it works for you and your respective groups, I can schedule you all to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3pm to 4:30 pm on Friday, October 29th. I just need to get headcount in order to book a room for the various organizations and people. Additionally, I would like to get the individual names of the attendees so that Dr. Sanlo will have them for her contact list that I am creating for her.

Please let me know if this works for you, and we will proceed from there.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University

So . . . what precisely is the point of bringing her to Marquette? Does Marquette want to have a “lavender graduation?”

Since she specializes in leading “sensitivity training sessions,” are such sessions going to be imposed on faculty and students?

Is this a sop being thrown to the campus gay lobby, still smarting over Marquette’s failure to hire a lesbian dean?

It’s clear that Chris Miller’s Office of Student Affairs is taking the lead. What created a felt need for Sanlo’s presence?

We’ll continue to report on this as we learn more.

Will the American Political Science Association Cave to the Gay Lobby?

We broke the story right here, and Inside Higher Ed just recently noticed the situation, reporting:

The American Political Science Association is seeking members’ views on whether to relocate its 2012 annual meeting, currently scheduled to be in New Orleans, because of Louisiana’s ban on gay marriage. Several associations in recent years have relocated meetings due to labor issues at convention hotels, and others avoid certain cities based on their states’ policies. But such changes have been expensive for associations, which typically select meeting sites years in advance, and face fees when they change plans. New Orleans has been a popular site for many academic meetings, and some groups have moved meetings there, post-Katrina, as a gesture of support.

The APSA has twice e-mailed members, asking them to take part in a survey about the issue.

Here is the first of the e-mails, and here is the second.

So what would be wrong with the APSA supporting this gay cause?

Quite simply, it would violate the APSA Constitution, which says:

1. It shall be the purpose of this association to encourage the study of Political Science, including Political Theory, Political Institutions, Politics, Public Law, Public Administration, and International Relations.

2. The Association as such is nonpartisan. It will not support political parties or candidates. It will not commit its members on questions of public policy nor take positions not immediately concerned with its direct purpose as stated above.

But let’s be honest about this. College professors tend to be liberal and leftist yahoos, reflexively supporting any politically correct cause.

Indeed, as the Chronicle of Higher Education (May 30, 2008) pointed out:

This is not the first quarrel over the location of the political-science association’s meetings. During the 1970s, the association abandoned plans to meet in Chicago because the Illinois Legislature had not supported the Equal Rights Amendment.

That incident led to a breach-of-contract lawsuit by Hilton Hotels. In settling the lawsuit, the association agreed to meet only in Hilton properties for 10 consecutive years.

Political scientists, who generally think that the United States Constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean, apparently have no trouble with the notion that the Association’s Constitution can mean what they want it to mean.

The only hope for a New Orleans convention is another kind of political correctness: one based on race. Again, from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

And last month the association’s Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Profession released a statement arguing that “the black and poor communities of the City of New Orleans are still in the process of rebuilding their neighborhoods,” and that “the APSA annual meeting would contribute to the economic recovery of the city.” (The association’s recent conventions have drawn between 6,000 and 7,000 scholars.)

So will it be gay political correctness, or black political correctness?

Our guess is that the gay lobby wins.

And anybody who is paying attention will relearn a lesson they learned in the 70s with the Equal Rights Amendment: given a choice between respecting it’s own Constitution, and signing on to a trendy leftist cause, a group of political scientists will go with the trendy cause.

Marquette Gay Blog Labels Straights “Breeders”

Yep, it’s a derisive term used by homosexuals to demean heterosexuals.

From the blog of the Gay/Straight Alliance, in a post complaining about a Rhode Island court decision:

I can hear the breeders groaning now. It kind of sounds like a mellow, grotesque Tom Waits song.

This reminds us of a situation in Provincetown, Massachusetts in which people who signed a petition against gay marriage were harassed and attacked.

PROVINCETOWN -- Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it’s gay people who are displaying intolerance.

Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called “breeders” by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.

And of course, on this same Marquette gay blog GSA President Jessica Cushion insisted that no speaker who opposes gay marriage should be allowed on the Marquette campus, since expressing such opposition amounts to “hate speech.”

It’s a chronic problem in the rarefied world of political correctness -- and that world has spread out of academia into the mainstream media. Members of designated victim groups are allowed to be offended at the barest slight, but feel perfectly free to express rank bigotry toward those who disagree with them, or even merely adopt a different lifestyle.

[Update]

The President of the Gay/Straight Alliance has left a comment to this post apologizing for the term “breeders.” Kudos to him for that.

A Victory Over Gay Lobby Fascism

It’s a case we reported just last Wednesday. Now, a major turn-about:

Christian Couple no Longer Required to Promote Homosexuality in Fostering Children

Couple thanks media for making their situation known to public

By Hilary White

CHARD, Somerset UK, November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Vincent and Pauline Matherick are the Christian couple in Somerset who chose to retire from fostering needy children rather than bow to the Somerset county council’s demand that they promote the homosexual lifestyle. After the media generated international uproar over their situation, they have been invited back by the council and have had their religious objections recognised.

The couple met with council officials on Wednesday and today were told they could continue fostering and would not have to “promote homosexuality”. “It’s good news and we’re very pleased,” Mr Matherick said.

“This is a blessing and I must thank the media, and particularly the Daily Mail, for their help in highlighting the issue.”

Somerset council officials said in a statement that the couple “have no problem in signing Somerset’s Equalities Promise, which includes an expectation not to discriminate unfairly for reasons of sex, marital status, caring responsibilities or sexual orientation.”

“We all agree that the welfare of children is paramount. It is absolutely vital that people come forward as foster carers.”

The council’s statement admitted that the incident “may have damaged the image of fostering at a time when vulnerable children need caring homes.”

A spokesman for the couple said the council had agreed to recognise their convictions and conscientious objections. “The Mathericks hope now to continue to foster children as before.”

Andrea Williams of Christian Concern For Our Nation said: “This is a significant step forward for Christian freedoms in that the Council has agreed not to force Mr. and Mrs. Matherick to act against their Christian beliefs. This should be of enormous encouragement to all Christians who want to take up the important role of caring for vulnerable children.”

The Mathericks are ministers in the non-conformist South Chard Christian Church and when their 11 year-old foster son David was removed from their home, he had asked to be allowed to continue attending their Sunday school.

The Mathericks had insisted that they had never “discriminated” against anyone for any reason, but that they could not agree to the council’s “equality statement” because it amounted to promotion of homosexuality, which would be a violation of their Christian beliefs and conscience. Mr Matherick said, “I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”

As a result of their decision, the council removed their 11 year-old foster son David and placed him in a council-owned facility. The Mathericks had cared for 28 children in their home since 2001 and were described as ideal foster carers.

It’s terribly revealing that the bureaucrats valued political correctness over what was obviously in the interest of the child.

It would be tempting to celebrate a victory for religious liberty here, but that would be premature.

The fact that Christians can fight the gay lobby and win does not change the fact that they do have to fight the gay lobby.

That being the case, the natural human tendency to avoid nasty confrontation and to live peacably plays into the hands of those with an intolerant agenda.

Christians, to put it bluntly, have to be willing to be aggressive in defending their rights.

Pro-Gay Indoctrination Required of Foster Parents in U.K.

Intolerance run riot:

CHARD, UK, October 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian couple in Somerset, UK, have been told by child services that they would be required to take teenaged foster children to homosexual support groups and teach the children placed in their care that homosexuality is normal. When the couple told officials at social services that it would violate their conscience to do so, the eleven year-old boy who had been placed with them was removed.

Somerset Council officials cited the recently passed Sexual Orientation Regulations when they decided that people who open their homes to children in need, must also discuss same-sex relationships and promote homosexuality as normal and “equal”.

Vincent and Pauline Matherick have looked after twenty-eight children since 2001 with an untarnished record as care givers. When the couple first started fostering, they took in young single mothers and their babies, but have recently had mostly primary school aged children. They told the Daily Telegraph that officials with the Somerset Council had told them that if a child in their care showed signs of interest in homosexuality, they would be expected to encourage them by taking them to a homosexual support group.

Vincent Matherick, a minister at the South Chard Christian Church and a primary school governor, told the Telegraph, “They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11 year-olds, which I don’t think is appropriate anyway, but not only that to be prepared to explain how gay people date.”

While the Sexual Orientation Regulations were being debated in the House of Commons, Christian groups and others warned that they would be used to force believers out of the public services such as adoption agencies.

David Davies, a Conservative Party MP and former contender for leadership of the party, said, “It’s absolutely horrendous that Christian men and women doing their bit for the community are being discriminated against because of their beliefs. I’m quite certain that social services would never dare to ask a member of any other established religion to agree to such a stance on homosexuality.”

Mr. Matherick said, “I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.” The Mathericks asked if they could continue to care for the boy who is with them until he is placed somewhere permanently, but the request was refused and he will be removed this week and placed in a council hostel.

“We have never discriminated against anybody,” Mr. Matherick said, “but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”

The Mathericks are consulting with the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship to decide what legal action to take.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reports that the UK is experiencing a shortfall of about 8000 placements for children in need of care.

If foster parents were required, for example, to take children to church or teach sexual abstinence, we can imagine the uproar that would ensure.

Rhetoric about “imposing one’s views on others” would fill the air.

Apparently, the liberal bureaucrats would rather children go without foster placements than have foster parents who dissent from the gay orthodoxy.

File this under “fascism,” where most of the things coming from the gay lobby need to be filed these days.

So That’s What You Meant

Brokeback Tribune -- II

Back when the movie “Brokeback Mountain” came out, we put up a post about an absurdly biased issue of the Marquette Tribune that pushed a liberal “gay rights” viewpoint with incessant single-mindedness.

It’s time for another post like that, since today’s Trib features two stories, neither with any Marquette connection, pushing a gay political agenda.

The front page, top of the fold story was about an activist Iowa judge who rules that gays and lesbians in that state could marry. Before a stay could be put in place, one gay couple did. The Trib apparently feels this is a huge milestone for “gay rights.” Else, why was it featured on the front page?

And why should even “huge milestones for gay rights” be featured on the front page of the Trib when they have nothing to do with Marquette?

The story did quote two pro-family spokesmen condemning the action, and a Marquette professor (Mark Johnson) who opined that judicial fiat is not the way to deal with these issues.

But the story pumped the “human interest” angle to the max, giving the impression that only the terribly mean-spirited could want to deny the two gay guys the right to marry. And not merely to have their own private ceremony with any consenting clergy member officiating, but to have it blessed by government.

After all, they really, really want to.

The other gay story having nothing at all to do with Marquette was on page 7, with the headline “Lesbian candidate in the mix for Chicago bishop job -- If elected, will be second openly gay Episcopal bishop.” The lesbian in question is “The Very Rev. Tracy Lind,” although you can apparently be “very reverend” in the Episcopal Church while entirely blowing off Bible teaching on sexuality.

It’s such a downer, after all, to be told you should not do what you really, really want to do!

The story extensively quoted Rev. Debra Trakel, rector for St. James Episcopal Church in Milwaukee, about how wonderful all this is. No naysayers were given any say, and this in spite of the fact that there is a huge rift in the Episcopal Church on the issue. Indeed, the worldwide Anglican communion (of which the Episcopal Church is a branch) is on the brink of simply tossing the U.S. church out.

Dan Suhr, at GOP3.COM, has more on other biased stories, but these two stand out.

The issue of homosexuality is a virtual obsession among liberal students and activists, and the Trib seems to be giving voice to this obsession.

Democrats, Scared of Fox, Will “Debate” on Gay Channel

From Jeff Jacoby:

The Democratic presidential candidates have agreed to another televised debate, this one focusing on issues related to homosexuality. The sponsors are the Human Rights Campaign, a gay activist lobby, and Logo, a gay-themed cable channel, which will broadcast the event live from Los Angeles on Aug. 9. Human Rights Campaign chairman Joe Solmonese will moderate, along with lesbian rocker Melissa Etheridge.

They can call it a “debate,” but it will undoubtedly be a pander-palooza, with each candidate trying to outdo the others in pledging fealty to the gay-left agenda. Well, why not -- if I were a Democratic candidate, I’d also grab the chance for some face time before a friendly audience. Indeed, if I were a Republican candidate, I’d take part -- why pass up the free publicity and a chance to be seen and heard?

These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo’s niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?

The reason, of course, is simple. The Democratic candidates might have to face some tough questions from Fox.

Still, in spite of the fact that the Fox audience skews conservative, it’s way more mainstream than the audience of a gay and lesbian channel.

Choosing a friendly venue is nothing new in politics, but it’s revealing that the Democrats “friendly venue” is such a marginal one.

Letter to Editor: Hypocrisy on Madison City Council

We recently blogged about a member of the Madison City Council who has called for the impeachment of President Bush? Why? He has violated the Constitution, or at least the Constitution as the left interprets the Constitution.

The irony: she and some of her cohorts, being required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Wisconsin Constitution as they took their seats on the Council, made it clear that they didn’t really respect a certain part of the Constitution.

What part? The part that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Our post brought the following e-mail from our former student Nate Romano, who has graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison law school and is practicing law.

I agree with your point (and the point quoted by Prof. Schweber here at UW-Madison). You can dislike part of the constitution, and even say that you think it should be changed. But, if you are going to take an office to serve under that constitution, you serve and adhere to all of it. You don’t sign a statement that says parts are optional. It is sad that people who think they can complain that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney or whomever have been acting unconstitutional, and then blatantly state that you will essentially ignore parts of the constitution. It is frustrating that people don’t have the common sense to think things through.

Also, I thought it pertinent to point out that Alderman Eli Judge of Madison, who represents the district that covers most of the University, is openly gay and refused to sign the “supplemental” oath section. The ones who signed are mostly the “Progressive Dane” party -- a far left/socialist group.

So the gay guy on the Council is more principled -- even about gay marriage -- than the straight lefties.

We can’t say that we are surprised.

Anybody who has dug around gay blogosphere a bit knows that there are plenty of gay bloggers who are pretty reasonable people. Some are moderates, and many have a strong libertarian streak.

About the Madison lefties, on the other hand, there is little good to say.

Silly Maureen Dowd Comment On Gays in the Military

From her column of June 10.

Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney? A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud....

Is she showing anti-Romney bigotry here?

If she means, “would you rather share a foxhole with a gay soldier who has intensive military training and combat experience, or a politician,” then of course she is right. But it’s a silly comparison.

But why is a gay soldier supposed to define “who he is and what he believes” in terms of homosexuality? Indeed, why might he not see his sexuality as a private matter? Why the need to proclaim it to the whole wide world?

The gay lobby will demand that he should, but he may not agree.

Interestingly, gays and lesbians are not nearly so monolithically leftist as the public rhetoric of the gay lobby suggests. The 2004 National Election Pool exit poll, for example, shows that 23% of gays and lesbians voted for Bush, rather than Kerry.

Part of this is the result of gays caring about issues other than sexual ones.

For example, the same 2004 National Election Pool exit poll showed 54% of gays and lesbians saying that “government should do more to solve problems” and 43% saying that “government is doing too many things.”

So back to Dowd’s comment: if a gay guy defines himself as an American and a warrior first, and incidentially as homosexual, we would be delighted to have him protecting us. If he defines himself as a homosexual who just happens to be a soldier, we’d be interested in knowing whether Romney is a good shot.

Marquette Student Government Endorses “Domestic Partner” Benefits

Last night, Marquette Student Government (MUSG) passed a resolution recommending “domestic partnership” benefits be given to Marquette employees.

In other words, Marquette should treat “shacking up” relationships as equal to marriage, for purposes of benefits.

MUSG President Dan Calandriello signed the measure this afternoon, and it has been sent on to the Administration.

It will be interesting to see how the Administration reacts to this. Is Marquette Catholic, or isn’t it? The answer isn’t obvious.

Political Correctness in Political Science: Gay & Lesbian Issues

In general, the poisonous effects of political correctness have not yet fully penetrated into political science.

Yes, the vast majority of political scientists are liberals or (much less frequently) leftist radicals.

But in general, the kinds of biases one sees in political science are the traditional liberal biases, and not the more current variety of political correctness.

Some evidence of this is found in the case of the Group of 88 at Duke. In the wake of rape accusations made against several Duke Lacrosse players, the Group issued a statement that assumed the guilt of the lacrosse players. Why did they assume that? Because the accused were white males, and the accuser was a black woman.

Several departments and programs at Duke signed on to the statement. Political science was not among them. Among individual faculty, 88 signed on to the statement, including only three members of the political science department.

But political correctness has made inroads into political science, as shown by a request we got today (via a mass e-mail) from the American Political Science Association Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Transgendered (LGBT) in the Profession. It’s interesting that they have to translate “LGBT.” If political science were really entirely onboard with political correctness, that would not have been necessary. Here is the text of the e-mail:

The American Political Science Association is studying the relationship between sexual orientation and professional life. We urge all APSA members -- regardless of their sexual orientation -- to complete this questionnaire, which should take no longer than 10-12 minutes. Anonymity and confidentiality will be completely protected.

Here is the survey.

Most of it is relatively innocuous, although there is a fairly clear agenda on some issues. The survey shows a lot of concern with including “LGBT” issues into regular political science courses (they wouldn’t want students to be able to avoid indoctrination by failing to take certain classes). They are also very interested in whether faculty are encouraged to do “LGBT” research or discouraged from doing so.

And clearly, some of the people on the Committee are wanting to start a journal on Sexuality and Politics.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with studying the gay lobby as another interest group, or studying gay identification as a politically relevant identity, or looking at public policy issues that relate to homosexuality.

The problem is that academic projects like this tend to produce little politically correct ghettos, where only certain political attitudes are allowed, where all research and teaching must support a political agenda, and where broader intellectual standards are considered irrelevant, if not downright oppressive.

Looking at departments of Women and Politics, or Black Politics or Chicano Politics tells the story.

Editor of Gay Activist Magazine Finds Christ, Goes Straight

It’s not supposed to happen that way. Not even at supposedly Christian universities is it conceivable that lesbian activists might find religion and conform their behavior to Christian norms. But it does happen. From Christianity Today:

Charlene Cothran, publisher and editor-in-chief of Venus Magazine, a national publication for African-American gays and lesbians she launched 13 years ago, made a startling announcement: After 29 years as a gay activist, she’s become a Christian, renounced her homosexuality, and changed the format of her magazine to spread the gospel to the gay community. Amy Tracy, whose own similar conversion story was told in an earlier Christianity Today article, interviewed Cothran about her new direction.

You were raised in the church. At what point did you walk away from your faith?

I was raised in a family of believers and accepted Jesus into my heart at age 11. I walked away from the Lord at age 15. I became very promiscuous with boys. I went off to college at Georgia Tech and did not practice my faith at all.

The revolving door kind of thing with boys disturbed my soul. I thought if this is what boys were all about, I didn’t want anything to do with them. So at the age of 19, I decided that I was only going to date women. They were kind and gentle with me. They wanted to explore my personality. I had never felt this before. My relationships with women felt safe and wonderful.

When did you first feel the winds of change stirring in your heart?

I always knew that homosexuality was wrong. The seed of truth was planted long ago. But the sin in my life squashed it. I’d go to church if it was Christmas, but I never allowed myself to get to the point where I felt conviction. I hardened my heart over and over against the Word.

As you get older, life begins to unfold in a real way. Loved ones die, and you end up dealing with your own mortality. I first felt something change during Black Gay Pride in Chicago in 2001. It was a beautiful day, and I could see men with men and women with women as far as the eye could see. But instead of feeling pride, I looked out and felt sadness. These were individuals that grew up in the church, but now they were worshipping idols. And I was part of leading them down the wide road of destruction.

It took me several years to come to terms with this vision. Mostly, I kept thinking that I was damaged goods, that my leadership skills were damaged goods. That God couldn’t save me. Those lies kept me down.

What finally led to your conversion?

I also publish a publication called the Kitchen Table News. In June 2006, I was getting set to run an article on a local gospel group. A pastor in the group called to add something to the piece. She asked me a question, and from my response she knew I wasn’t “unchurched.” But I felt like pushing it. I told her I was a proud, card-carrying lesbian. She let me go on and on. Then she said, “I can tell that you want to come back to God, but you feel unworthy. That is a lie. Many souls will be saved by your saying yes to Jesus.” I could not speak for several moments. She continued to minister to me. She didn’t back down. I lived in silence for 48 hours. The Lord was dealing with me in my soul. I told him that I’d give back everything He gave me.

All of which raises several very politically incorrect questions. How many women have become “lesbians” because guys treated them like sex objects? How many of these allowed guys to treat them like sex objects? And how many, deep down, feel bad about it?

And how much courage would it take for them to confront the very intolerant gay lobby?

Marriage: Gay & Straight

From Jeff Jacoby, some politically incorrect, but certainly sensible, thoughts on gay marriage.

Is marriage intrinsically connected to bearing and raising children? Advocates of same-sex marriage often argue peremptorily that it is not .

“In today’s society,” Yale law professor William Eskridge asserts in The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, “the importance of marriage is relational and not procreational.” The privileged status of marriage in modern society, in other words, has to do with the love and commitment of the spouses, not with the needs of any children those spouses may produce. In its 2003 Goodridge decision mandating same-sex marriage, the Massachusestts Supreme Judicial Court was even more emphatic. To the argument that the state’s interest in marriage is connected to procreation, the SJC replied categorically: “This is incorrect.”

As evidence that marriage and childrearing are not fundamentally related, same-sex marriage proponents frequently point out that married couples aren’t required to have children. No law prevents infertile couples from marrying or orders childless marriages dissolved. If procreation is so important to marriage, they say, why should elderly couples, or couples determined not to have children, be permitted to wed?

[. . . ] No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes, as diverse as the people entering into them -- cementing the bond between devoted partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.

What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.

Because sex between men and women makes children, and because children tend to do best when raised by their mothers and fathers, society has a vested interest in encouraging long-term, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. True, not all married couples reproduce. But every opposite-sex marriage has the ability to give a father and a mother to any child the couple creates or adopts. That is something no same-sex couple can provide, which is one reason homosexual marriage has never become a social institution.

Of course procreation is not the only reason to marry, but to insist that marriage is not closely related to having children is like arguing, to use an analogy offered by marriage scholar David Blankenhorn, that cars are not intrinsically connected to driving.

“When you acquire ownership of a car,” Blankenhorn writes in his forthcoming book, The Future of Marriage, “society does not impose upon you a binding obligation to drive it. If you buy a car but fail to drive it, the state does not for that reason revoke your driver’s license. . . . Cars can be about many things, including pleasure, aesthetics, economic gain, and social status.” But whether any particular car is driven or not, cars and driving are intrinsically linked.

Similarly, whatever the circumstances of any married couple, marriage and procreation are intrinsically connected. Men and women make babies; babies need mothers and fathers. That is why there has always been a public stake in the marriage of husbands and wives. And why no such stake exists in the union of same-sex couples.

Jacoby omits another important reason to extend the right to marry to opposite sex couples who may not in fact bear children.

For government to determine who will and who won’t likely have children would be excessively intrusive.

Demanding that couples seeking a marriage license prove they are fertile, and demanding they swear that they intend to bear children simply isn’t acceptable. And even if it were, how would we enforce the promise?

Of course, we could deny the right to marry to couples until the child is born. But society has an interest in children being conceived, born and raised by married biological parents. We’ve long fudged on the “conceived” part, and more recently fudged massively on the “born” and “raised” part, but that doesn’t change the fact that society has such an interest. Indeed, the social cost of the fudging is now huge and obvious.

Liberals are always lecturing people about how one should not “impose ones moral views” on other people. They are most likely to do this when they are themselves trying to impose their moral views on others.

The simple fact, however, is that letting anybody get the special treatment that comes with marriage is an “imposition.” Society’s interests in the welfare of children may justify this imposition where heterosexual couples are concerned, but nothing can justify it where homosexual couples are concerned.

If one does not buy this argument, it makes more sense to privatize marriage entirely than to extend it to same sex couples.

We think of homosexuals demanding the right to marry as akin to pacifists demanding admission to West Point. One has a right to be a pacifist. We think that position is flatly wrong, but you have a right to it.

But social institutions have a purpose. When you freely opt out of the purpose behind the institution, you have opted out of the institution.

Gays and the United Nations

Via Brian.Carnell.com, the fact that gay and lesbian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been having a lot of trouble at the United Nations.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. committee rejected credentials of a Canadian gay and lesbian organization seeking consultative status with the United Nations and deferred the application of a similar body from Sweden, according to documents circulated on Friday.

Accreditation, which has been given to more than 2,000 groups, enables them to take part in U.N. conferences and offer advice in their field of expertise, such as human rights, health and humanitarian aid.

Envoys from the Canadian and Swedish U.N. missions criticized the U.N. Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) at its Wednesday meeting, with Canada’s Nell Stewart expressing dismay at the panel’s “pattern of discrimination” in treating groups on sexual orientation.

The Canadian group was the Coalition of Gays and Lesbians of Quebec (Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec), a national organization. The Stockholm group was the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

On the rejection of the Canadian group, the vote was 8 to 6. Against were Burundi, China, Egypt, Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia and Sudan. Voting in favor were Colombia, Israel, Peru, Romania, Britain and the United States.

Gosh, we thought the Bush Administration was a bunch of nasty homophobes.

Abstaining were Angola, India and Turkey.

The U.N. committee is a subsidiary of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, which can reverse the panel’s decisions. But with notable exceptions it agrees with the committee’s rulings.

British delegate Thomas Woodruffe told the panel that every NGO that met the criteria approved by the U.N. Economic and Social Council should be admitted in the fields of health, gender and human rights.

He noted that 100 groups had been accepted with varying viewpoints not all governments accepted.

Human rights groups are often turned down, particularly when they deal with dissidents in authoritarian countries. Even the influential New York-based Human Rights Watch was rejected in 1992 before being admitted a year and a half later.

Jewish groups also have a problem, and their applications are usually deferred or rejected. Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization that runs hospitals in Israel, succeeded after lengthy diplomatic fights in 2001.

In its decisions this week, the committee admitted the American Conservative Union and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the (U.S.) Southern Baptist Convention.

For politically correct leftists, this has to produce a lot of cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, gays and lesbians are a politically correct victim group, and any opposition to their agenda is called “homophobia.”

On the other hand, the U.N. is supposedly a source of great moral authority. It represents the “world community.” Thus if the U.S. acts without U.N. sanction (invading Iraq, for example), it must be American that’s in the wrong.

The reality, of course, is that the U.N. has no particular moral authority. It is made up of highly self-seeking politicians, often representing extremely unsavory regimes.

And many of them aren’t too keen on homosexuality.

Brian Carnell suggests:

. . . the best bet for gay and lesbian groups would probably be to adopt anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic planks. Egypt, Pakistan and Qatar may not be thrilled by a gay and lesbian group, but if that group, say, argued that Jews were behind a worldwide plot against gays and lesbians, they’d probably win immediate approval.

That would present an interesting test: do they hate gays or Jews more?