Arthur Schaper: From Justina and Pledges to GLSEN

Friday, May 16, 2014

Arthur Christopher Schaper, GoLocalWorcester MINDSETTER™

Who (and why) are corporate sponsors funding GLSEN agenda in local schools?, asks Arthur Schaper

So, what’s the news in the Commonwealth over the past week?

Connecticut resident Justina Pelletier went back home, somewhat, where home-state facilities might treat her with a little more respect (and honor her parents’ authority). The greater concern, though, falls on the lawmakers who said nothing and did even less. “Mister Governor” Deval Patrick announced that ferry rides are now available to North Shore, but he wouldn’t use his pen or phone to help Justina.

On a higher, and holier, note, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made on ruling on the side of tradition and patriotism, this from the same “august” (or audacious) institution (although not the same justices, necessarily) which imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts. This time, however, thet jurists had enough spirit-sense to say “The Pledge of Allegiance is not an undue burden on atheists.” More likely fearing the political backlash for removing “under God” from the Pledge, the state supreme court still kept the door open for future legal complaints if atheist students are bullied for their un-godly views.

With what is constituting bullying these days (anyone who speaks their mind against the liberal-statist status quo), perhaps students will not be allowed to say anything at all. Lawmakers have gotten comfortable with saying nothing. Just ask Senators Markey and Warren about Justina.

Still, for now, the freedom to say “under God” has not gone under.

Now, if the Massachusetts legislature (with the affirmation of the judiciary) would get the government out of marriage altogether (US Senate candidate Frank Addivinola’s stance on the issue, by the way), the Commonwealth would return to the live-and-let-live impulse which makes America great.

Should we be alarmed about gay marriage, or gay issues, anyway? At this time, researhers on the issue have no real data whether voters in the Commonwealth support gay marriage. Activists connected with the “Gay Lobby” spent millions to prevent a constituency vote on the issue in 2007, but what people really think remains to be revealed.

In connection with this issue, MassResistance.org released an eblast this week, exposing a controversial agenda which had first infiltrated Massachusetts public schools shortly before the imposition of gay marriage. Released recordings (“Fistgate”) from guest speakers in 2000 should concern anyone who wonders (or worries) about what their children are learning in Massachusetts public schools. While the recordings highlighted these invasive discussions over a decade ago, local activists suggest that gay-straight clubs still instruct students about homosexual acts. The subtext for endorsing gay-straight alliances in the public schools, according to state education system administrators at the time, was to promote tolerance, not sex, as well as confirm that the homosexuality identity has nothing to do with sex. However, the results were significantly otherwise.

Along with this information, the same organization informed readers about GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) , which is the largest homosexual activist group in the country, working in public schools throughout the fifty states.

Executive Director Brian Camenker informed me that much of the money funding GLSEN Gay-Straight alliances in the schools is either government money, or corporate money, which is difficult to track. With all the talk about transparency in political and government funding, Massachusetts voters should demand who (and why) state tax dollars are funding these programs.

Looking over the GLSEN 2014 Spring Convention , held at Madison Vocational High School in Boston on April 5, one finds a wide array of workshops designed to invest (or infiltrate) LBGTQ topics into local schools, including “Coming Out to one’s parents” and “When a teacher makes a gender transition”.

A few questions come to mind:

1. Who is paying for these conferences, and why are they prominent in public education?

2. Are parents in the Commonwealth aware of these forums? After the release of the Kevin Jennings “Fistgate” recordings from 2000, parents were outraged, and key individuals responsible for those forums were fired (or transferred away from the public eye).

3. Why is homosexuality such a crucial, central subject in Commonwealth schools in the first place? Shouldn’t schools focus on teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic instead of sexual attraction, expression, and identity?

4. Where are the symposia which inform students, parents and administrators of the potential consequences (as well as documented outcomes) associated with homosexual conduct?

Conservatives in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have raised alarms about the “gay agenda” in local schools, where children in elementary school may learn that they could be gay. Why aren’t more lawmakers concerned?

Critics will counter that since individuals are born gay, there is nothing wrong with the lifestyle. Camenker shared a story about one mother, whose daughter began to believe that she was a lesbian. The mother transferred her daughter to another school. Later, the young lady met a man, got married, had kids. Certainly, there is more to this homosexuality discussion beyond “I’m gay, I was born that way, and Mommy and Daddy have no say.” Other sources confirm that homosexuality, should not even be addressed in public schools.

Despite his frustration with tracking down GLSEN financing in public schools, Camenker directed me to list of GLSEN corporate sponsors, which includes McDonald’s, Disney, and Comcast.

Still, why all this money for the homosexual agenda, though, and why is it so prominent in Massachusetts’ schools? I will report on these questions next week.

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow him on Twitter @ArthurCSchaper, reach him at [email protected], and read more at Schaper's Corner and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.

Related Slideshow: Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index Scorecard - Worcester, MA

HRC's Municipal Equality Index (MEI) demonstrates the ways that many cities can—and do— support the LGBT people who live and work there, even where states and the federal government have failed to do so. GoLocal pulled the data from the 2013 report to show where Worcester excels and where it is lacking in supporting equality in the municipaility.

This year's report rates a total of 291 cities from every state in the nation, representing a total population total of 77,851,822. To see how Worcester compares to other cities, download the full 2013 MEI report here.

Prev Next

Worcester Non-Discrimination Laws

This category evaluates whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited by the city, county, or state in areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Worcester is subject to Massachusetts state laws with regard to employment, housing, and public accomodations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, excepting only public accomodations laws with regard to gender identity, so they fall closely within line of HRC's best practices.

Non-Discrimination Laws
Employment
points for sexual orientation	3 out of 3
points for gender identity	3 out of 3
Housing
points for sexual orientation	3 out of 3
points for gender identity	3 out of 3
Public Accommodations
points for sexual orientation	3 out of 3
points for gender identity	0 out of 3

Total Score	15 out of 18

Prev Next

Worcester Relationship Recognition

Because this is an evaluation of municipalities, not states, and marriage is a state-level policy, this section is weighted so that an equal number of points are awarded for marriage (or other state relationship recognition) and municipal domestic partner registries.

Since Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, Worcester residents are granted ample recognition of their relationships without regard to same or opposite sex.

Relationship Recognition	2013
Marriage Equality, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships	12 out of 12

Prev Next

Worcester Municipality as Employer

By offering equivalent benefits and protections to LGBT employees, and by awarding contracts to fair-minded businesses, municipalities commit themselves to treating LGBT employees equally.

By the HRC's account, Worcester falls short as an employer, lacking ample forthright laws forbidding discrimination in city employment, ensuring equivalent family leave, and affirmatively forbidding discrimination in awarding city contracts and benefits to contractors.

Municipality as Employer	2013
Non-Discrimination in City Employment
points for sexual orientation	0 out of 5
points for gender identity	0 out of 5
Domestic Partner Health Benefits	4 out of 4
Legal Dependent Benefits	2 out of 2
Equivalent Family Leave	0 out of 2
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance
points for sexual orientation	0 out of 2
points for gender identity	0 out of 2
City Contractor Equal Benefits Ordinance	0 out of 4
Total Score	6 out of 26

Prev Next

Worcester Municipal Services

This section assesses the efforts of the city to ensure LGBT constituents are included in city services and programs.

A lack of a direct liason to the LGBT community in the mayor's office as well as no formally enumerated anti-bullying policies in schools at the municipal level hurt Worcester in this category. Worcester does have a Human Rights Office tasked with, among other things, "advocat[ing] for the human and civil rights of ALL residents of the City."

Municipal Services	2013
Human Rights Commission	7 out of 7
LGBT Liaison in the Mayor’s Office	0 out of 5
Enumerated Anti-Bullying School Policies
points for sexual orientation	0 out of 3
points for gender identity	0 out of 3
Total Score	7 out of 18

Prev Next

Worcester Law Enforcement

Fair enforcement of the law includes responsible reporting of hate crimes and engaging with the LGBT community in a thoughtful and respectful way.

Worcester reports hate crime statistics, but their lack of a specific LGBT police liason or task force caused an 8 point deduction from their final score.

Municipal Services	2013
LGBT Police Liaison or Task Force	0 out of 8
Reported 2011 Hate Crimes Statistics to the FBI	10 out of 10
Total Score	10 out of 18

Prev Next

Worcester Relationship with the LGBT Community

This category measures the city leadership’s commitment to fully include the LGBT community and to advocate for full equality.

Worcester was noted for it's leadership's public position on LGBT equality. However, it seems the Human Rights Commission sees room for improvement there. Furthermore, there have not been enough legislative efforts to pick up points in that department. Other direct efforts to engage with the LGBT community, however, landed Worcester 2 bonus points.

Municipal Services	2013
Leadership’s Public Position on LGBT Equality	3 out of 5
Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy Efforts	0 out of 3
Total Score	3 out of 8
BONUS: City engages with the LGBT community	2 Bonus Points

Prev Next

Total Scores

81 out of 100

Categories	2013
I. Non-Discrimination Laws	15 out of 18
II. Relationship Recognition	12 out of 12
III. Municipality as Employer	6 out of 26
IV. Municipal Services	7 out of 18
V. Law Enforcement	10 out of 18
VI. Relationship with the LGBT Community	3 out of 8
Bonus	2 points
Total Score	55 out of 100