Alabama Senate passes bill to eliminate marriage licenses

Sen. Greg Albritton, left, talks with Sen. Bobby Singleton in 2015. (Julie Bennett/

It’s sad to see a state opt out of licensing marriage, but the truth is real marriage as a legal construct essentially ceased to exist with the legalization of gay marriage. It’s like removing the legal distinction between real money and play money. Real money means nothing once play money becomes legal tender– and everyone is made poorer– same story on gay marriage.

Gays kid themselves if they think they their marriages are of the same substance as marriage prior to gay marriage. Put a drop of fine wine from a wine bottle into a bottle of sewer water and you still have a bottle of wine and a bottle of sewer water, but put a drop of sewer water into a bottle of fine wine and you have two bottles of sewer water. Things of higher value are diminished when mixed with things of lower value. Alabama’s move to eliminate marriage licenses recognizes that reality– MR-T

A bill to eliminate marriage licenses in Alabama and set up a process under which probate judges accept affidavits from couples as official records of marriage has passed the Alabama Senate.

The cost would be the same that it now costs to buy a marriage license.

The requirement of a ceremony to solemnize the marriage would be eliminated.

The sponsor, Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, said that would take the state out of any role in marriage ceremonies, which he said would properly separate church and state.

Albritton has proposed similar bills the last couple of years. They first surfaced after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015.

Under current law, Alabama probate judges are not required to issue marriage licenses and some, at least initially, declined to issue licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court ruling.

Albritton’s bill would take away any discretion by probate judges. The only requirement to make a marriage official would be to submit the documents to the probate judge.

The documents include an affidavit saying that the spouses are at least 18, or at least 16 and have parental consent, are not currently married and are not related by blood or adoption.

The bill says the change would not affect any other aspects of marriage in Alabama, including divorce, child support and child custody.

The bill moves to the House of Representatives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I thought this page had been shut down…it wasn’t… sad for these children.

Theses kids are going to be soooooooooooo screwed up. Freaking idiot parents! <ADMIN>

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing

Look at the book they are holding. <ADMIN>

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, sitting and shorts

This is a boy….not a girl.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, closeup and text

There is more but I’m about to get sick.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First group of transgenders apply to join Air Force

Don’t you know the whining, screaming, and bitching will soon start when they find out the Air Force won’t take them for medical reasons. These asshats have the wonderful idea that the government “owes” them something. BRAHAHAHAHAHAA! <ADMIN>

The Pentagon confirmed on Tuesday that eight transgender people have applied to serve in the U.S. Air Force.

According to a report from The Washington Examiner, these are the first transgender volunteers known to have filled out paperwork with intention to join the Air Force since Jan. 1. The Air Force says more transgender people may have spoken to recruiters.

According to USA Today, Capt. Kathleen Atanasoff, a spokeswoman for the Air Force, said: “It’s important to recognize that the eight includes applicants who filled out some kind of paperwork at their respective recruiting stations, not necessarily all transgender applicants who have called or walked into recruiting stations, or inquired about joining the service.”

The issue is garnering attention because President Donald J. Trump announced a new policy related to transgender people serving in the military in July 2017. The policy banned transgender’s from serving “in any capacity” as the military regularly disqualifies individuals for medical reasons.

Federal courts blocked the transgender ban from taking effect, however, and required the Pentagon to begin accepting transgender applicants on January 1. According to guidance issued in December, the military considers transgender applicants for service conditionally.

The first step to becoming a recruit, a process that can take months, is completing the paperwork. Additionally, transgender applicants must  also pass physical and mental tests, as well as be certified as stable in their gender for 18 months to qualify for military service.

One transgender rights group has estimated that “dozens” of transgender individuals have at least spoken to recruiters regarding military service. Brad Carson, the Pentagon’s former top personnel official under Obama, said he expects recruiters to proceed slowly, as they know a new policy will be forthcoming, USA Today reports.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Of course the queers hate to idea of anyone seeing through their smoke and mirrors job. It really pisses them off. But when they themselves prove a point, its good to watch them fall apart. <ADMIN>

After spending the months during the plebiscite campaign rejecting that there were any consequences to redefining marriage, the ‘yes’ campaign has now confirmed everything that we had been warning about. The Equality Campaign co-chair, Anna Brown, affirmed what the “No” campaign had been saying all along: same-sex marriage is not the final frontier… and never was.

Gender ideology comes next.

During an interview with The Guardian, Brown stated that, with same-sex marriage out of the way, she is turning her focus on ‘trans and intersex rights and gender diversity issues’.

“As a movement we have a responsibility to stand by them and make sure they’re not left behind … to amplify their voices.”

Her top priorities include:

“Easier gender changes on birth certificates. Preventing unnecessary surgery on intersex children. Gender education in schools and LGBTI acceptance in aged care.”

One of Brown’s staunch supporters, Marriage Equality co-chair Alex Greenwich, has confirmed that the Australia’s LGBT community will be mobilised in the near future:  

“We will work hard to protect the gains we’ve made, to work for new gains and to support the international effort.”

They plan to do this by building on their database from the previous campaign. Yet another admission that redefining marriage was only a stepping stone in their journey:

She foreshadows consultation in the new year to determine if they are “motivated only by a particular cause” or have the “appetite to mobilise around broader LGBTI issues”.

She says she will be “disappointed” if the movement loses the goodwill, support and membership database built by the campaign.

With the vote safely in their pocket, LGBT activists are now looking to continue with their agenda. Less than a month after same-sex marriage became law, the LGBT movement feels empowered enough to throw off its disguise and show their true colours.

But we shouldn’t be too surprised. As a country, we anticipated these flow on effects of legalising same-sex marriage. We knew that it would not stop at their projected benchmark for ‘equality’.

We were right.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Chai Feldblum Should Not Be Reappointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Holy mother of libturds!!!!! Someone has failed to pay attention to details. <ADMIN>

On December 11, 2017, President Trump transmitted to the Senate the nomination of Chai R. Feldblum for reappointment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for a five-year term that would not expire until 2023.1

The EEOC, the agency charged with enforcement of federal non-discrimination laws, is required to have bipartisan balance among its five members. One media report has suggested that the reappointment of Feldblum, a Democrat, could be part of a deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer to achieve quick action on one or two Republican appointees to the Commission.2

However, Feldblum’s record, both before and after her appointment to the EEOC, is an extreme one, and the Trump administration could surely have found a less radical choice to occupy a Democratic seat.

Feldblum has publically advocated that sex discrimination in current law should be redefined to include sexual orientation and gender identity. She also believes that religious liberty exemptions should be extremely narrow.

Therefore, President Trump should withdraw her nomination; barring that, members of the Senate should not confirm her.

When President Barack Obama first announced his appointment of Feldblum to the EEOC in September 2009, it drew immediate and sharp opposition from conservative groups concerned about her hostility to religious liberty.3 Her nomination was held up in the Senate until President Obama finally bypassed the confirmation process, making her a “recess appointment” in March of 2010.4 Not until December 2010, after the mid-term elections, was her appointment confirmed by the Senate (without a roll call vote).5 When her first term expired in 2013, she was reappointed, but again faced strong opposition, winning confirmation by a vote of 54-41, with only two Republicans (Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) supporting her.6

 Feldblum’s record before joining the EEOC

Before her appointment to the EEOC, Feldblum was a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. She openly identifies as a lesbian and has long been an LGBT activist. Feldblum has been credited as the principal drafter, in the early 1990’s, of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would have prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (and later, gender identity).7

Feldblum was best known to conservatives, however, for her blunt statements discounting the idea that the free exercise of religion should ever be allowed to trump “rights” asserted by those who identify as homosexual.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty held a conference in December 2005 regarding potential conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. Feldblum participated, and Maggie Gallagher drew attention to Feldblum’s views in a 2006 Weekly Standard article. 8

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases,” Feldblum declared. “There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win . . .” In fact, she declared, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”9

Feldblum understands what this means for religious believers. In a related article, she declared that “we are in a zero-sum game: a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side,”10 adding later, “And, in making the decision in this zero-sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”11 Indeed, she openly endorses government coercion of the believer: “To the extent that forced compliance with an equality mandate burdened an individual’s belief liberty, my argument . . . is that such a burden is likely to be justified.”12

Feldblum admitted that the heavy-handed approach she favors goes well beyond Supreme Court precedent, noting that:

[T]he Supreme Court, for the moment, has come down clearly on the side that the liberty protected by the substantive Due Process Clause is solely a negative liberty. . . . But in many circumstances, the only way to achieve real liberty for some individuals will be for the government to take affirmative steps to bring about that liberty—even if such steps might then interfere with the liberty of others.13

Feldblum deserves some credit for describing more accurately than most the moral concerns that social conservatives have regarding homosexual conduct, and for at least acknowledging the reality of the conflict between “gay rights” and religious liberty. And she has been gracious to participate in events like the Becket conference, and even in a 2008 panel discussion held at Family Research Council.14

However, this should not be allowed to mask the extremism of her positions. After she wrote that the courts should essentially ignore the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment (recognizing only a more nebulous “belief liberty” instead),15 she admitted that “my suggestions are radical.”16

During the debates over redefining marriage, Feldblum reflected the ambivalence that many LGBT activists had about the institution of marriage, even while demanding access to it:

I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. . . . I also believe all of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures . . .17

It thus seemed entirely consistent with that view when Feldblum signed a controversial statement endorsing legal recognition of polygamy (“Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”).18 However, Feldblum renounced any support for polygamy after her appointment to the EEOC was announced.19

Feldblum’s record since joining the EEOC

The EEOC is charged by statute with enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination—most notably, the prohibitions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discriminating “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” However, Feldblum has worked not just at enforcing the law, but at redefining and essentially rewriting it. A recent Bloomberg news profile said,

Today, Feldblum is Washington’s strongest champion for the idea that antigay and antitrans biases constitute discrimination “because of sex,” something Congress banned in the workplace in 1964.20

A 2015 article in the gay newspaper the Washington Blade paid similar tribute to Feldblum’s role:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission delivered a landmark ruling last week establishing that workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people is prohibited under current law. Part of the credit for the decision goes to Chai Feldblum, a longtime LGBT rights advocate and lesbian member of the commission. . . .

The decision caps off decades of work in LGBT activism from Feldblum . . .21

As the Bloomberg article pointed out, “The EEOC used to dismiss such arguments, and federal courts largely followed suit.” Yet Feldblum asserts, with an apparently straight face, that Congress outlawed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” discrimination in 1964. In an October 2017 podcast, she declared,

So, when Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, right then in 1964, when the statute said you may not discriminate on the basis of sex—at that moment, discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on gender identity should have been prohibited. Because that’s just the plain meaning of, “You can’t take sex into account.” Right?22

If true, this would suggest that her own legislative creation, ENDA, was superfluous. However, she acknowledges, grudgingly, that such an interpretation would have been inconceivable at the time: “While that might have been logically correct, it was not something that the agency, the EEOC at the time, or the courts, could at all imagine.”23

Reporter Chris Geidner described this earlier (altogether logical) view regarding a gender identity case in the 1970’s:

When the Ninth Circuit looked at Title VII, . . . the court concluded that “the provisions were intended to place women on an equal footing with men.” In light of this, the court dismissed Holloway’s claim because, as the court held, “Giving the statute its plain meaning, this court concludes that Congress had only the traditional notions of ‘sex’ in mind.”24

Several federal circuit courts have now followed the EEOC’s lead in treating “gender identity” discrimination as a form of “gender stereotyping,” and thus concluding that it is a form of sex discrimination. However, only one federal circuit court, the 7th, has so far reached the same conclusion regarding sexual orientation, in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. The dominant view in courts where the issue has been adjudicated is not Feldblum’s, but that of Judge Diane Sykes, as expressed in her dissent in April 2017 from the Hively ruling:

When a statute supplies the rule of decision, our role is to give effect to the enacted text, interpreting the statutory language as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time of enactment.25

The 11th Circuit reached the same conclusion as Judge Sykes and rejected reasoning like that of the Hively majority just a month earlier in March 2017 in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital. Judge William Pryor stated, in his concurrence,

Because Congress has not made sexual orientation a protected class, the appropriate venue for pressing the argument raised by the Commission and the dissent is before Congress, not this Court.26

Although no federal appeals court had accepted the radical idea that “sexual orientation discrimination” is “sex” discrimination until April 2017, Feldblum has been pushing the idea, laying the groundwork within the Commission, for years. For example, in an April 2014 interview with National Public Radio, she noted a change in EEOC procedures:

Well, for many years, I think if they had come to the EEOC [with a claim based on sexual orientation], the EEOC just told them that there was no jurisdiction for the EEOC to hear those claims. . . . Now charges are coming in to our offices and they’re not being turned away. . . .

Interviewer Michael Martin zeroed in on the key question: “So what is your authority in this area?”

 Feldblum admitted the EEOC was trying to push the courts, rather than responding to them:

So we are addressing these charges as claims of sex discrimination. . . . [In cases contending sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination, w]e took in charges. We investigated. Some courts agreed with us, some courts didn’t. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed. So I expect the same trajectory to happen here.27

In a Bloomberg report in February 2016, Feldblum made clear that the EEOC was not waiting for the courts, but was pushing ahead with its own interpretation:

Workers alleging sexual orientation discrimination by private employers have been obtaining some relief through the EEOC’s administrative process, Feldblum said. . . .

The EEOC has obtained approximately $6.5 million in monetary relief for workers alleging sexual orientation and/or gender identity bias and gotten hundreds of employers to change their policies so LGBT discrimination would not recur, Feldblum said.

The EEOC historically has “been ahead of the courts” in identifying new forms of discrimination under Title VII, Feldblum said. The courts “often defer” to the agency’s interpretations of the act, and she hopes that will be true regarding the EEOC’s view that bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity is sex discrimination, Feldblum said.28

Feldblum has continued to state her view that religious liberty exemptions should be extremely narrow. For example, at an “LGBT Summit” sponsored by The Atlantic magazine in December 2015, she participated in a panel discussion with David Boaz of the Cato Institute, who identifies both as gay and as a libertarian (and who supported the redefinition of marriage). The issue of private businesses impacted by non-discrimination laws, such as those in the wedding industry, was discussed, as Reason magazine reported:

Boaz stated: “I think we have millions of small businesses, and I would like to leave the heavy hand of government out of their relationships with their customers and their employees as much as possible.”

 . . . Feldblum, however, dismissed the idea that religious beliefs could ever justify discrimination. “When someone has not been educated [about tolerance of LGBT individuals] and wants to keep discriminating,” she said, “there is only one federal government, there is only one state government, one local government that can say: We will not tolerate this in our society.”

Feldblum then referred to an EEOC case against a funeral home charged with “gender identity” discrimination:

With a religious exemption to non-discrimination laws, the funeral home owner “could say, ‘well, actually, we’re religiously based,’” said Feldblum, raising her arms high and rolling her eyes. “It’s a funeral home! We do not want to allow that and the only thing that can protect us is a law that doesn’t have [a religious] exemption.”29

It should be noted that the religious exemption for the funeral home, at which Feldblum scoffed in 2015, was in fact granted (under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in the U.S. District Court’s decision in EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes in August of 2016.30


Chai Feldblum’s narrow view of religious liberty is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution and with Supreme Court precedent. At the same time, her expansive view of “sex discrimination” is inconsistent with the text of the Civil Rights Act and with both active and passive expressions of congressional intent.

She should not be given another five years at the EEOC to promote her radical theories.

Peter Sprigg is a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.


1 “PN1318 — Chai Rachel Feldblum — Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,”, December 11, 2017, accessed December 21, 2017,

2 Paul Mirengoff, “Report: White House trying to sneak LGBT activist through committee,” PowerLine, December 12, 2017, accessed December 21, 2017,

3 “Obama EEOC Appointee Chai Feldblum Would Turn Christians and Moral Foes of Homosexuality into SecondClass Citizens,” Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, October 13, 2009, accessed December 21, 2017,

4 Chris Geidner, “Recess Appointment for Feldblum,” Metro Weekly, March 27, 2010, accessed December 21, 2017,

5 Lisa Keen, “Senate confirms Feldblum for EEOC,” Keen News Service, December 23, 2010, accessed December 21, 2017,

6 “Roll Call Vote 113th Congress – 1st Session,” United States Senate, accessed December 21, 2017, 0258.

7 “Chai R. Feldblum, Commissioner,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed December 20, 2017, 8 Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006, accessed December 21, 2017,

9 Apparently, years later, Feldblum asserted on Twitter that Gallagher had misquoted her, although she did not say in what way. However, the quotes in the Gallagher article seem compatible with statements in her academic writings. See: Maggie Gallagher, “On Chai Feldblum’s Claim That I Misquoted Her,” National Review, October 28, 2014, accessed December 21, 2017,

10 Chai R. Feldblum, “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion,” Brooklyn Law Review 72 (2006): 87, accessed December 21, 2017,

11 Ibid., 119.

12 Ibid., 115.

13 Ibid., 98.

14 Family Research Council, “Change Watch: Chai Feldblum, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” YouTube, November 17, 2009, accessed December 21, 2017,

15 Feldblum writes that courts should “analyze religious people’s claims as belief liberty interests under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than as free exercise claims under the First Amendment.” This not only discounts the fundamental nature of the “free exercise” right, but it is a stealthy means of putting religious liberty (a clearly enumerated right under the First Amendment) on the same plane as “gay rights” (which are mentioned nowhere in the text of the Constitution), as well as allowing judges complete freedom to strike whatever balance between the two they personally prefer. Later in the article, she explains her problem with the Free Exercise clause: “The First Amendment right to free exercise necessarily protects . . . any religious belief, no matter how trivial. By contrast, I believe it is appropriate that the belief liberty protected under the Due Process Clause be limited . . .” See Feldblum, “Moral Conflict and Liberty,” 63, 101.

16 Ibid., 122.

17 Chai R. Feldblum, “Gay Is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More,” Yale J.L. & Feminism 17 (2005): 142-43, accessed December 21, 2017,

18 “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships,” Monthly Review, August 8, 2006, accessed December 20, 2017,

19 Nancy Polikoff, “Chai Feldblum coasting toward confirmation as member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, November 20, 2009, accessed December 20, 2017,

20 Josh Eidelson, “How to Prove That LGBT Discrimination Is Really Sex Bias,” Bloomberg, October 9, 2017; accessed December 21, 2017,

21 Chris Johnson, “Feldblum explains new gay employment protections,” Washington Blade, July 20, 2015, accessed December 21, 2017,

22 “Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways,” Interview with Matt Steinberg, Akerman WorkedUp Podcast, October 26, 2017, accessed December 21, 2017,

23 Ibid.

24 Chris Geidner, “Transgender Breakthrough,” Metro Weekly, April 23, 2012, accessed December 21, 2017,

25 Chris Johnson, “In first, fed’l appeals court rules anti-gay bias barred under current law,” Washington Blade, April 4, 2017, accessed December 21, 2017,

26 Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, Case No. 15-15234 (11th Cir., March 10, 2017), p. 27,

27 “Equal Employment Agency No Longer Turning Away Gay Discrimination Claims,” Tell Me More, National Public Radio, April 2, 2014,

28 Kevin McGowan, “EEOC Sex Orientation Bias Suit Is Likely ‘Coming Soon,’” Bloomberg, February 29, 2016, accessed December 21, 2017,

29 Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “LGBT Rights vs. Religious Freedom Looms Large at #AtlanticLGBT Summit,” Reason, December 12, 2015, accessed December 21, 2017,

30 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., Case No. 14-13710 (E.D. Mich., So. Div., August 18, 2016),


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lesbians Bully Bakers in Oregon, Spitefully Set out to Bankrupt Them

One thing queers really know how to do is to bully other people. Very few homosexuals actually want to get “married” but when they do, the first thing they do is go out and find a Christian bakery and demand they make a cake to celebrate this travesty of marriage. They just want to impose their own warped ideas on others and force participation. If they can bankrupt a business run by good, decent normal people they will be jumping up and down with glee.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. lied atrociously, claiming that a refusal caused them to suffer physical harm including “depression, hysteria, impaired digestion, weight gain …” Rubbish! They are greedy and wanted to get the enormous financial damages awarded under a rotten law.

The Kleins were subjected to a homo-fascist mob that boycotted their business, threatened other wedding vendors and subjected their young children to death threats.

Oregon Court Forcing Christian Baker To Pay Lesbian Couple $135,000

Why are lesbians fat?

“Progressives” [ha ha!]are likely cheering their heads off today as they have managed once again to drive a nail into the coffin of religious liberty, undermining one of the most critical and valuable rights that supports our republic.

An Oregon court ruled in favor of a lesbian couple against the Kleins who own Sweet Cakes By Melissa after the “couple” claimed that the bakers’ refusal to make their gay wedding cake made them feel “mentally raped.”

This, of course, isn’t the only case of a Christian baker being targeted by the LGBT mafia. Most folks are aware of Baker Jack Phillips who is in a similar situation with his case now being decided at the Supreme Court level.

Todd Starnes has the details:

The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a decision that forced two Christian bakers to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple who said they felt “mentally raped” when the bakers declined to make a wedding cake.

“Freedom of expression for ourselves should require freedom of expression for others,” First Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford said.

“The Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution’s promise of religious liberty and free speech,” Shackelford said.

The Kleins, who owned Sweet Cakes By Melissa, made national headlines in 2013 when they declined to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

The Christian family was subjected to a homo-fascist mob that boycotted their business, threatened other wedding vendors and subjected their young children to death threats.

What kind of despicable people threaten the life of someone’s child over their refusal to accept an immoral and degenerate lifestyle? Apparently that’s a page right out of the leftist playbook.

All that talk of tolerance seems to be nothing more than a mask to cover the face of hate these folks naturally carry around.

What’s really frightening is that Labor commissioner Brad Avakian actually wanted the Kleins to undergo “rehabilitation” because of their Christian beliefs, like some sort of Nazi, fascist re-education program. That is a pretty disturbing request that exposes the true heart of the left. They are not about tolerance and acceptance. Their ideology is one of hate and exclusion, the opposite of the tripe they push on television and in the media.

What seemed to push the judge in favor of the lesbian couple was their claim of physical suffering as a result of the incident, stating they suffered depression, hysteria, impaired digestion, weight gain and other ridiculousness.

Once the judge ruled in their favor, Avakian slammed the Klein’s with the hefty $135,000 fine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Study: Gender-confused Youth More than Twice as Likely to Have Psychological Problems than Others

Transgender soldiers rally (Justin Sullivan / Getty)

A new study released by the University of California Los Angeles finds that gender “nonconforming” young people in California are more than twice as likely to have psychological problems than those comfortable with their biological sex.

According to the study, 17 percent of “gender nonconforming” respondents reported severe psychological distress, versus 7 percent of “gender conforming” youth.

The American College of Pediatricians has asserted that children and adolescents who are uncomfortable with their biological sex suffer from gender dysphoria, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V):

A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind, not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…

The study, released by the school’s Williams Institute – a sexual orientation and gender identity think tank – and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research also found no significant differences in the rates of suicidal ideation (thinking) and suicide attempts between “gender nonconforming” young people and those who are comfortable with their biological sex.

That outcome is in stark contrast with other research often cited by proponents of the practice of immediately affirming young people who claim to be a gender that is inconsistent with their biological sex.

In 2015, for example, the Huffington Post featured a column that portrayed “transgender” individuals who consider or attempt suicide primarily as victims of “rejection by friends and family,” “discrimination,” and “internalized transphobia.”

The fear of suicide is one of the primary reasons parents of gender confused children immediately rush to affirm their children’s claim to be a different gender. The fear also fuels the recommendation by LGBT “affirming” therapists that gender-confused children must be affirmed in their gender confusion and even allowed to begin taking puberty-suppressing drugs in order to begin “transition” to the opposite sex.

The UCLA study’s authors point to lack of acceptance of the young person’s chosen gender identity and victimization by family and others as primary causes of the psychological problems experienced by “gender nonconforming” young people:

This finding highlights the need to increase access to affirming mental health care and other supports, as well as to educate parents, schools, and communities on the mental health needs of gender nonconforming youth. It also makes it clear that we must focus on continuing to reduce known risk factors, such as bullying and bias, against gender nonconforming people.

Researchers Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, and Paul McHugh also address the problem of “gender-affirming” therapy in a paper titled “Growing Pains,” published at The New Atlantis.

The authors write:

Gender-affirming models of treatment are sometimes applied even to very young children. Often, the gender-affirming approach is followed in later youth and adulthood by hormonal and surgical interventions intended to make patients’ appearances align more closely with their gender identity than their biological sex. In order to improve the success of the physical changes, interventions at younger ages are increasingly being recommended.

The authors warn of decisions made to help “affirm” a gender-confused child’s perceived identity, without any connection to scientific fact or research.

“Though there is little systematically collected data on the number of young people (or even the number of adults) who identify as transgender or who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery, there is some evidence that the number of people receiving medical and psychotherapeutic care for gender identity issues is on the rise,” they write.

The UCLA study’s main headline is that, in California, 27 percent of participants between the ages of 12 and 17 self-report that others view them as “gender nonconforming” at school. The authors included two questions in the California Health Interview Survey that were asked of 1,594 young people in California between the ages of 12 and 17.

First, the young people were asked, “Are you male or female?” and, subsequent to that question, were asked:

A person’s appearance, style, dress, or the way they walk or talk may affect how people describe them. How do you think other people at school would describe you?

  • Very feminine
  • Mostly feminine
  • Equally feminine & masculine
  • Mostly masculine
  • Very masculine

The authors categorized male participants, who said others describe them as “very feminine” or “mostly feminine,” and female respondents, who said others describe them as “very masculine” or “mostly masculine,” as “highly gender nonconforming,” while those youth who responded “equally feminine and masculine” were categorized as “androgynous.”

Those young people categorized as “highly gender nonconforming” numbered 59, while 331 were placed in the “androgynous” category. Of the youth participants in the study, 1,204 were in the “gender conforming” category.

California was the first state to adopt the LGBT rights agenda formally into its public schools, as part of a new history and social studies curriculum that will reach children as young as the second grade.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Illinois Court gives Homosexuals Right to Harass You, Without Self-Defence

See, it really doesn’t matter what happens….queers and their allies will always…I mean ALWAYS do something freakin’ stupid and ignorant (as if these are two different words…they are not…not when referring the “gaystapo”) so they use some kind of “hate crime” defense that is most likely going to be a lie to start with. <ADMIN>

Gay panic defense ban

When 21-year-old Matthew Shepard was punched, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence and left to die in 1998, his killers’ attorneys said the attackers were triggered by Shepard making sexual advances toward them.

When a 14-year-old California boy gunned down his gay classmate in 2008, his attorneys argued that it was because the victim provoked him by flirting with him.

And after a 21-year-old transgender woman in Harlem was beaten to death in 2013, one of her attackers said he hurt her out of “blind fury” after he flirted with her and then realized she was transgender.

For decades, LGBTQ people have been brutally attacked or killed and then blamed for their own deaths in cases where attorneys attempt, sometimes successfully, to use a “gay panic” or “trans panic” defense.

Starting Monday, attorneys in Illinois will be barred from using the approach after a state law passed — without a single “no” vote in either the state House or Senate — making it the second state in the country to ban the defense in the courtroom.

Anthony Michael Kreis, who drafted the Illinois legislation, said the passage of the “gay panic” defense law has boosted efforts in other states to enact similar bans.

Kreis has heard from advocates in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, among others, asking for help pushing their own bills. Similar legislation has been discussed by lawmakers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Other states where the defense has been allowed include, Maryland, Texas and Washington.

Kreis said because the LGBTQ community is at higher risk for violence, the law comes at an important time.

This year marked the deadliest year on record for the transgender community, with at least 28 people shot and killed across the United States, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“It sends an important message to the LGBTQ community that the state will protect them equally and the courts will not be allowed to entertain these types of defenses, which victimize victims again,” Kreis said of the new Illinois law.

There isn’t an exact definition, but a gay or trans panic defense is essentially when someone doesn’t realize they’re interacting with an LGBTQ person and becomes so overcome with rage when they realize it that they physically attack the person in the heat of the moment.

It’s estimated that gay and trans panic defenses have been used in at least 23 states since the 1960s, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law.

Gay and trans panic defenses have allowed people accused of killing LGBTQ people to receive lesser sentences, and in some cases, avoid any punishment, according to the institute.

California was the first state to ban the defense, in 2014, and the American Bar Assn. pushed for a ban in 2013.

In Washington state, a bill banning gay and trans panic defenses is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks for the next legislative session.

“It’s a defense that allows people to perpetuate hate crimes,” said Monisha Harrell, Equal Rights Washington chairperson. “It is saying you’re surprised that somebody might be different than you, whatever that difference is, and that that would allow you to initiate violence, and in some cases, lethal violence. That should never be a defense.”

Cynthia Lee, a criminal law professor at George Washington University, said although she understands the underlying sentiment supporting the passage of these types of bans, there could be unintended consequences.

In her research on gay and trans panic defenses, Lee has found that in most cases, the usage of the defense is “reprehensible,” largely playing off stereotypes about gay men or transgender women.

However, a legislative ban might not be the best solution, she said.

Social science research has shown that juries can be affected by attorneys calling out racial stereotypes and bigotry. There is less research on what happens when LGBTQ stereotypes are used, but it brings up an interesting argument, she said.

For example, if a defense attorney makes an argument largely based on racial stereotypes, and a prosecutor calls that out, research has found that a jury will often respond by treating a black defendant the same as they would a white defendant, she said.

If attorneys were properly trained on how to respond to a gay or trans panic defense when it was brought up, it could potentially help a jury see the problems in making that argument.

“Instead of banning these arguments, confront them head on and challenge them in court,” Lee said. “The prosecution should be aware of the bias. Whenever the defense tries to make these kinds of arguments, [prosecutors] should try to challenge them head on.”

Advocates say that the sentiment behind panic defenses is a problem, even outside the courtroom.

Lou Weaver, transgender programs coordinator with Equality Texas, said one example was the reaction of law enforcement to the recent killing of Brandi Seals, a 26-year-old transgender woman, in Houston.

After Seals was killed, Detective Fil Waters of the Houston Police Department, told a local TV station: “The fact that we have a man in women’s clothing, the speculation is he’s been working the street, that someone picks up and then realizes he’s not what he’s representing himself to be and take this kind of ultimate action.”

Weaver said the detective assumed Seals was a sex worker because she was transgender and didn’t have information to actually prove that was her profession.

Regardless, his comments had a “trans panic” argument within them, and are an example of how transgender women continue to be misunderstood and stereotyped, Weaver said.

“Unfortunately, I think it will still be seen as a valid reason for hurting somebody,” he said. “Defense attorneys are ruthless, and they have one job — to prove their client is not guilty, and they will do whatever it takes.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 27 Comments

Presentations from the MassResistance Texas Teens4Truth Conference

These folks do a wonderful job giving our children and parents the information to fight back against the gaystapo.<ADMIN>

Below are videos of the presentations at the Teens4Truth Conference, sponsored by Texas MassResistance, held at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, TX on Nov. 18, 2017.

NOTE: These are the first three presentations. We will be adding more over the next week. […]

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Judge Opposed to Gay Adoption Over Concerns for Child Welfare Found Guilty of Misconduct

Yep, the gaystapo strikes again. If one doesn’t go along with their wonderful chosen perversion, then your ass is grass. Don’t believe it? Ask anyone the gaystapo has taken to court over a cake, flowers et al. <ADMIN>

A Kentucky Family Court judge who earlier this year said he cannot hear adoption cases involving gay or lesbian people, arguing that he is looking after the best interests of children, has been found guilty of misconduct.

The Louisville Courier Journal reported on Tuesday that W. Mitchell Nance, who previously announced his intention to resign on Dec. 16 due to the ethics and misconduct inquiry launched against him, has now been issued a public reprimand by the Judicial Conduct Commission.

The reprimand, passed by a 4–1 vote and made available online, says that the Kentucky code of judicial conduct requires judges to “fairly and impartially decide cases according to the law.”

“Judge Nance’s refusal to hear and decide adoption cases involving homosexuals is violative of said Canons,” it adds, listing out canons that prohibit prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national original, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status.

Nance’s attorneys have also said that according to his sincere religious belief, “the divinely created order of nature is that each human being has a male parent and a female parent,” the Herald Leader added.

LGBT activists, such as Chris Hartman, director of the Kentucky-based advocacy group the Fairness Campaign, praised the reprimand.

“This should be crystal clear to judges all across Kentucky and the U.S. — if you can’t uphold and respect the law, you have no place on the bench,” Hartman said, according to The Associated Press.

“Excluding LGBT people and families is judicial misconduct, plain and simple.”

Bryan Beauman, an attorney for Nance, said that the judge has retired, but has not provided a response to the reprimand. The judge also did not offer a defense during the judicial disciplinary committee hearing last week.

Children adoption cases have been a thorny issue in American politics, with religious agencies in various states asking to be allowed to operate by their beliefs and retain the right to refuse placing children into the homes of same-sex couples.

LGBT-supporting groups, such as the ACLU, have strongly protested, however, and in September filed a lawsuit against Michigan for allowing such religious exceptions.

The Michigan Catholic Conference said at the time that the such exemptions are necessary for its continued operations.

“Catholic agencies are staffed and administered by persons who love their job, are dedicated to helping families, and bring their faith with them into the workplace to serve others,” it positioned.

“Faith-based agencies comprise a significant percentage of adoption and foster care placements in the state; their work has spanned decades and has placed thousands of vulnerable children in loving homes over many years,” it added.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment