Focus's Cushman Slams Sex-Ed Standards for Promoting Respect for Gay Families, Dubs Bullying Prevention 'Homosexual Promotion'

Earlier this month, a coalition of health and education groups released new recommended guidelines for sex education in schools, which address topics including sexual orientation, birth control and bullying. The non-binding recommendations have not, unsurprisingly, been popular among the talking heads of the Religious Right.

On Wednesday, Candi Cushman of CitizenLink, Focus on the Familiy's political arm, joined Janet Mefferd to discuss the new guidelines and her displeasure that, among other things, they recommend teaching young children to “demonstrate respect for these different types of families,” a notion that Cushman insists is “undemocratic.”

Cushman: The important things for parents to understand is that these standards are supposed to start in kindergarten so at the elementary level students are going to start to be taught to ‘identify different types of family structures.’

Mefferd: Ugh.

Cushman: And then demonstrate respect for these different types of families. That’s basically codes for, ‘We’re going to teach your kids about same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships and this is an option worthy of being embraced just like heterosexual marriages and relationships.’ Not only are they going to be willing to embrace it but they’re going to respect it and they’re going to get that down by the second grade. So they will need to start that probably around kindergarten so they’ll have it down in their heads by second grade. That’s just one example of them dealing with the homosexuality topic.

Mefferd: Well and in most states we don’t have same-sex marriage, so why the need for that?

Cushman: Right, it’s totally undemocratic.

Mefferd and Cushman went on to discuss the recommendations for older students, including discussions of the proper use of contraception, which Cushman claims were designed by “left-wing, casual-sex activist groups,” and are not intended to promote public health.

As for the inclusion of discussions about bullying, Cushman insists bullying prevention is a Trojan Horse for gay rights groups: “They do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.”

Cushman has been the voice of CitizenLink's opposition to anti-bullying programs, which we wrote about in detail in a report last year.

Mefferd: I thought the whole purpose of sex-ed originally was to tell kids the birds and the bees, but now it’s flat-out indoctrination.

Cushman: Right, if you look at the material that the groups who did these standards put out it’s all about students’ sexual rights, their rights. The emphasis is not on prevention, avoiding disease and harm, it’s about ‘Oh let’s just reduce the risk, what are their rights?’ Its activism, it’s not about health. That’s why we shouldn’t just surrender our schools to left-wing, casual-sex activist groups.

Mefferd: I agree. I’m sure from what I read there’s this aspect of bullying. They love throwing that around, ‘We need to deal with the bullying issue and the gay bullying issue,’ even though bullying has been around since time immemorial for kids, from kids, for all sorts of reasons, not just the homosexual issue. But do they talk much about that? Are they framing it in terms of, ‘We got to talk about this stuff to stop the gay bullying’?

Cushman: Yes they do. In fact, I found that very interesting that they were titled sexually standards but they address bullying. I thought, now we’re just saying that bullying is sexualized now.

Mefferd: Wow.

Cushman: I really think that bullying should be its own category, not in sex-education. Bullying should be addressed as prevention, protecting all students no matter how they identify because they’re human beings, as I’ve explained many times before. So yeah, I found that an interesting part that they’re trying to mix those two, sex-education and bullying. But I think the reason they are mixing them is because they do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.
 

PFAW Foundation

Steve Baldwin Claims 'Human Events' Publisher is Gay, Says Romney 'Obsessed' with Gay Rights

Steve Baldwin, the former executive director of the Council for National Policy, an influential conservative policy group founded by Tim LaHaye, went on the Steve Deace show yesterday to discuss why he thinks a President Romney would be disastrous for the country and the Republican Party. Baldwin’s major gripe is his dubious claim that Romney was “obsessed” with gay rights as governor of Massachusetts.

Baldwin expressed frustration that Romney has been given a “free pass” by conservative media, which he chalked up to “conflicts of interest” in the right-wing press. Among those he claimed are biased towards Romney is the publisher of the far-right Human Events, whom he identified as a “homosexual who likes Romney.” Although he didn’t name names on the show, Baldwin has previously asserted that Jeff Carneal, president of Human Events' publisher, is an “avowed homosexual” who has supported pro-equality causes.

But Baldwin’s gay-baiting did not end with his attack on conservative media. He let loose on Romney’s tepid pro-gay rights record as governor of Massachusetts, saying, “His whole administration was characterized by an almost obsessive devotion to the homosexual agenda.” Romney, he fumes, was involved in “gay proclamations, gay dances, gay proms, gay assemblies, gay this, gay that,” adding obliquely, “You gotta start wondering here.”

Baldwin: Our conservative media won’t write negative stories about Romney. They won’t even investigate him. I’ve submitted story after story to National Review, to Human Events, to American Spectator, and every once in a while they’ll do a story with a few negative things about Romney, but a full-scale investigative piece about Romney has not appeared in most of the conservative movement’s media. And you’ll find out there’s conflicts of interests, you’ll find out National Review endorsed Romney last year, they like him this year. You’ll find out that the chairman of Regnery Gateway, that publishes Human Events, is a homosexual who likes Romney. You find out these editors have various biases. And as a result, they have collectively, along with talk radio I have to add – Sean Hannity likes Romney, a lot of our radio talk show hosts have been very hands off when it comes to Romney’s record, even though they have all been briefed and all been given information about Romney’s background. Coulter and other national columnists and Hannity and even Mark Levin say very little about Romney’s record and refuse to dig into it. So you hear nothing from our own media, so the mainstream media, they’re too lazy to dig up the stories. And so as a result, Romney’s getting a free pass here.

Deace: Does Mitt Romney have a history of supporting homosexual issues beyond the gay scoutmasters thing that we saw from 1994? What did he do in Massachusetts when he was governor?

Baldwin: Oh my goodness. Gay proclamations, gay dances, gay proms, gay assemblies, gay this, gay that. He had an entire commission called the Governor’s Commission, which served at his own discretion, and they funded gay events and programs in the schools. He promoted all kinds of laws, rules, internal, a lot of internal things, like his department of social services awarded Family of the Year, Parents of the Year, to a gay couple. He appointed homosexual leaders to key positions throughout his administration. I mean, his whole administration was characterized by a an almost obsessive devotion to the homosexual agenda. I would venture to say that Mitt Romney was the most aggressive pro-gay governor in American history, either party. Period. I mean Amy Contrada wrote a thousand page book documenting hundreds of actions by this man to advance the homosexual agenda. Hundreds. He was obsessed with it. You gotta start wondering here.

PFAW

Liberty Counsel Censors Its Own Press Release, Finds the Phrase “Same-Sex Marriage” Too Hot to Print

This can’t bode well for Liberty Counsel’s lawsuit against New York’s Marriage Equality Act: the group apparently finds the phrase “same-sex marriage” too steamy to print on its own website. In the headline of a press release today about the New York lawsuit, the group made sure to censor the word “sex” in the phrase “same-sex marriage”:

A look through LC’s press release archives shows that this is not the first time the group has censored the phrase in its own press releases.

Religious Right groups, including Liberty Counsel, routinely struggle with the vocabulary of gay rights, often opting for the liberal use of scare quotes to distance themselves from the ideas of equality. LC’s Matt Barber likes to put “gay,” “rights” and “progressive” in scare quotes, such as when he rants about “the ‘gay’ deathstyle.” The Family Research Council, meanwhile, prefers to put its scare quotes around “marriage” and “wedding.”

Then again, Liberty Counsel’s self-censorship might just be an attempt to get around the tough Internet filters that groups like FRC and Focus on the Family recommend their members use.
 

PFAW

Carly Fiorina—No Moderate

Although you won't find it on Carly Fiorina's campaign website's list of endorsements, the far-right Government Is Not God PAC is going all-in for Fiorina's race for US Senate. Government Is Not God PAC's official blog lauds Fiorina's ultraconservatism, and says that "if someone with the support of Sarah Palin, who is as socially conservative as Carly Fiorina wins in California it will mark a huge shift in American politics and send a wave of fear over the far left. We must win this seat!" They have already contributed $1,000 to Fiorina's campaign and ask donors to contribute more.

According to their website, "GING-PAC supports only candidates who affirm that they are pro-life, pro-family and stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation" and that "Candidates seeking GING-PAC support must complete a questionnaire concerning their stand on issues such as abortion, gambling, drug use, home schooling, school prayer, property rights, Second Amendment rights, welfare, defense and taxation."

So what does Government Is Not God PAC believe in? Their survey asks candidates if they "oppose laws allowing homosexuals to adopt children" and "believe clergy should have the right to support or disapprove of candidates for political offices from the pulpit." Candidates are also asked if they "support the right of students and teachers to publicly acknowledge the Creator" and support "eliminating the U.S. Department of Education."

During the 2008 campaign, Government Is Not God PAC launched the website soundthealarmnow.com, which claimed that Barack Obama's presidential campaign was supported by terrorists and his election victory would be celebrated by the "Death to America Coalition." The fictional news video also suggested that President Obama would meet with Osama bin Laden and sound the Muslim call to prayer five times a day in The Capitol.

Will Carly Fiorina stand by an organization that is fundamentally opposed to gay rights and a purveyor of discredited conspiracy theories about President Obama?

PFAW

You're All Going to Jail: A Friendly Warning from Charles Colson to the Southern Baptist Convention

Charles Colson, who knows his way around a jail cell, told Southern Baptist pastors that they would be headed behind bars, too, if the current Hate Crimes bill becomes law.

In an address to the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor's Conference, Colson chose to attack everything from the Hate Crimes bill to Islam:

"Sponsors of congressional hate crimes legislation insist it won't restrict speech, but Colson warned that ministers will face the threat of prosecution within the next two years.

He also said medical professionals are losing their conscience right to refuse to perform abortions, and faith-based ministries could soon have to hire non-believers.

Colson also predicted a continuing threat from Islamic terrorists and dismissed the Qu'ran as an "irrational invention of Muhammad rather than divinely inspired scripture."

It seems Colson is reverting back to the Right's tired (and false) argument: If we protect LGBT people from violent crimes targeted specifically at them because of their sexual orientation, then any conservative, anti-homosexual priest who speaks out against homosexuality will be jailed.

Maybe Colson is still shaken up, and paranoid, by his own 7-month prison sentence due to his involvement in Watergate.

PFAW
Syndicate content