HB 116  Statewide Gay Rights Sponsored by Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington DESCRIPTION:  This bill prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment and prohibits insurance and financial institutions from discriminating based on sexual orientation in housing and mortgage-related transactions.  It, in essence, mandates on a statewide basis much of the gay city ordinances passed in the summer of 1999. STATUS:  This bill, like its opposite—HB 190—was introduced last session and died in Rep. Gross Lindsay’s House Judiciary Committee.  (See HB 190 in left-hand column.)

ò In Senate Committee ò Passed Senate Committee ò Passed by Full Senate o Signed by Governor ñ Passed by Full House ñ Passed House Committee éIn House Committee

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION:  No! Modeled after the successful city ordinances, this bill is an effort not to “legislate morality,” but to “legislate immorality.”  All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights—and should be treated thus.  But twisting words, like “fairness,” to manipulate civil officials to have government impose a “new homosexual morality” on everyone else is simply wrong!
 

Click on the image at the left for information on how to call your state legislator.

INSTANCES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMONG HOMOSEXUALS:

v Homosexual activists, David Island and Patrick Letellier, cite inter-gay battery as a primary homosexual health problem after (1) AIDS (males) cancer (females) and (2) drug abuse.

v In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (1991), Island and Letellier argue that “It is… likely… the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population… as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year… 50% of gay male couples… We believe [heterosexual domestic abuse] is closer to 20%… [D]omestic violence is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than in gay male relationships.”

v “In 1987 the San Francisco police responded to no fewer than 100 calls per month for gay and lesbian domestic violence… There are thousands upon thousands of victims of gay men’s domestic violence in the United States each month.”

v In 1981 the press within the homosexual community reported that about 10% of San Francisco’s homicides resulted from homosexual sadomasochistic abuse.

Ø “It would be just plain bad press for gays and… all bad news needs to be suppressed… Gay men truly have a proportionate share of violent individuals in their midst who bash other gay men in startlingly high numbers.  The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white educated, “politically correct,” gay men batter their lovers.

Ø The media discriminates by employing only bi/homosexuals to cover “sexual orientation” issues, further compromising the public’s ability to obtain unbiased reports.

The homosexual community in its campaign to legitimize their life-style and seeking affirmation from society, has sought to change cultural norms by targeting certain segments of the population including America’s youth. The recruitment of young children into the homosexual lifestyle by gay activists is a central tenet in the advancement of the homosexual agenda in American society (especially in the public school system). Consider the following excerpts from literature from the homosexual community:

¨ In order to reverse a growing youthful resistance to homosexuality, homosexual leaders in the mid-1980s determined that they must access schools, The Boy Scouts and The Girl Scouts, and other child institutions. School newspaper ads seeking “gay” youths and proclaiming a battle against “gay” suicide and associated “hate crimes” began to appear regularly.

¨ “We had foreseen that… gay youth would also have to contend with the new horrors of AIDS [that] teenage gays and lesbians would shun older gays as role models or even as friends… only now has gay culture begun to institutionalize “socialization” techniques for the transmission of its cultural knowledge to a younger generation… [as] local “gay” movements provide their own infrastructural support for the coming out process in teens.”

Programs designed to portray the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy have infiltrated the nation’s public schools.  In the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” pro-homosexual curriculum has been introduced to children as early as kindergarten often without parental notification or consent.

The homosexual community has increasingly looked to the government to affirm and legitimize their life-style choices and to render to them special rights and protections contrary to the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution. Opposition from citizens who favor traditional morality is consistently dismissed as “intolerant, homophobic rhetoric.” But how would the homosexual community respond to opposition to its recent pleas for government action from one of its own? Consider the words of Justin Raimondo, author and homosexual activist:

“[T]he homosexual activists of yesteryear asked government to leave them alone… But today, as tolerance of homosexuality grows, gay activists are increasingly turning to government to impose their agenda on society. Though state power has been used as a bludgeon against gay people… suddenly today’s gay leaders seem to be picking up the club themselves, saying, ‘Now it’s our turn.”  This is a great irony—and a potential cause of trouble for homosexuals and turmoil for America…

…Today, the so-called gay rights movement sees government as the agency, not the enemy, of liberty. From anti-discrimination legislation to mandatory ‘tolerance’ lessons in the schools, there is no scheme to increase the power of government these alleged freedom fighters do not endorse.

[H]owever, a political movement based on sexual orientation is a grotesque aberration. The fact that the gay rights movement has taken on an increasingly authoritarian style is the inevitable result of basing political allegiances on clan loyalties instead of philosophical principles...

[G]ays must reject the nonsensical idea that they’re oppressed by ‘heterosexism,’ a vile ideology that subordinates and denigrates homosexuals by insisting on the centrality of heterosexuality in human culture. Homosexuals are and always will be a rarity, a tiny minority necessarily outside of the traditional family. The heterosexual ‘bias’ of social institutions is not something that needs to be imposed on a reluctant society by an oppressive state, but a predilection that comes quite naturally and inevitably. If this is ‘homophobia,’ then nature is a bigot. If gays use the power of the state to correct this historic ‘injustice,’ they are engaged in an act of belligerence, which will rightly be seen as a challenge to the primacy of the traditional family.”