Lessons on Homosexuals Being ‘Born That Way’ and Erotic Sex Taught to 8th and 10th Graders Challenged by the Thomas More Law Center

January 23, 2008

From the Thomas More Law Center.

“In oral arguments last week, the Thomas More Law Center asked Maryland state circuit court judge William Rowan III to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way.   The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays.   John Garza, of Garza, Regan & Associates of Rockville, Maryland, is acting as local counsel.

Montgomery educators were forced to defend their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro-family groups.   The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This is another example of our public school system being used as an indoctrination arm of homosexual advocacy groups.   Promoting the use of condoms in anal and oral sex not only violates Maryland law and court decisions, but endangers the health of any student who tries it.   Moreover, teaching students that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ is contrary to the rulings of the Maryland’s highest court and court decisions of other states as well. ”

“The bottom line — this school system is guilty of educational malpractice,” said Thompson.

This challenge to the new sex education curriculum has been in litigation for six years, meandering through the Federal District Courts, Maryland Administrative Panels and finally winding up in front of Judge Rowan III.   Initially, a Federal District Court enjoined the county schools from implementing the curriculum in 2005 because the lesson plan criticized religious “fundamentalism. ”   

However, following the federal court ruling and injunction, the county board merely omitted the anti-religious references, and began teaching the controversial health curriculum to all 8th and 10th grade classes.   The current case involves a judicial appeal of the final State Board decision under a Maryland law that allows final administrative denials to be challenged in the state circuit court.    
Brandon Bolling, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who argued the case, asked Judge Rowan to either declare the curriculum illegal or send it back to the state board for another review.   “Maryland law says you have to teach something that is factually accurate,” said Bolling.   “They are not doing that, therefore it is illegal. ”

That sexual orientation is innate—homosexuals are born that way—is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states including Maryland.   Maryland’s highest appellate court  issued an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, holding the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence.   In fact, not one U.S. court presented with the issue has found homosexuality to be an innate characteristic.
Moreover, although state law does not define the word “erotic,” Bolling argued that a Maryland law which prohibits classroom material that “portrays erotic techniques of sexual intercourse,” makes video demonstrations of the use of condoms in anal and oral sex illegal.   Bolling argued that if a sexual act is not done for a procreative purpose, it is an erotic technique.

Thus, the six year battle boils down to two questions posed by Bolling in this latest court skirmish:  Can the school board legally teach students that homosexuality is innate despite rulings to the contrary by the state’s highest court?  And, can the health lessons discuss sex acts other than copulation?”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.   It does not charge for its services.   The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.   You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

FRC’s Pat Fagan Delivers on Teen Birth Analysis

December 21, 2007

From the Family Research Council.

“Two weeks ago I wrote about a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on preliminary birth rate data for 2006. The CDC‘s press release was headlined, “Teen Birth Rate Rises for First Time in 14 Years.” Liberal groups responded by bashing abstinence education as a failure (when it is actually a success in need of wider implementation). But the media missed the biggest and worst news in the report, which was not the tiny uptick in “teen births” (by 3%), but the explosive growth in total out-of-wedlock births (by 8%) to a new record high. It is foolish to think that a birth to an unmarried 20-year-old mother is somehow of less concern to society than one to a married 19-year-old. In fact, the percentage of all out-of-wedlock births which are to adolescents (17 or under) has continued a steady decline, while the percentage to adults (18 and over) continues to rise. This suggests that the age group actually getting abstinence education (middle school and high school students) is doing better than their elders, despite our sex-saturated culture and Planned Parenthood-style, “if it feels good, do it with a condom” sex education. Encouraging “abstinence until college” rather than “abstinence until marriage” will not help the millions of children being born to and raised by single mothers–who are nearly five times as likely to live in poverty as those raised by their married mother and father.”

The end of a sane society?

November 17, 2007

From Kelly Boggs and bpnews.net.

“The Court of Appeals for the U.S. Ninth Circuit upheld this summer an Oakland, Calif., city government declaration that the phrase “marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values” was inflammatory and promoted harassment based on so-called sexual orientation. The phrase was also deemed to be homophobic and disruptive.

It seems a few Christian women working for Oakland’s city government formed a Good News Employee Association, and in promoting the club, included the aforementioned phrase on a flier. Later, a lesbian worker complained that the flier made her feel “targeted” and “excluded.”

Most recently, hate crimes legislation was passed by both chambers of Congress. While the bills specifically address violent crime, many observers believe the legislation could be used to curtail any speech derogatory of homosexuality.

It is clear that homosexual activists and sexual libertines have been successful in pushing their political agendas. It is also becoming obvious that the arguments they have utilized, if pushed to their logical conclusions, absolutely will destroy the America we know and love.

In their effort to force society to accept and celebrate homosexual, bisexual and transgender sexual expression, activists have left the door open for all manner of behavior to be legitimized.

One of the arguments put forth by activists is that sexual deviancy is determined biologically. In spite of the fact that there is not one definitive scientific study to support this claim, sexual activists continue to insist it is an established fact.

I understand that there have been studies that “suggest” that there “could possibly be” a biological component to sexual orientation. But when the results of a scientific study are summed up in words like “might,” “may,” “suggest” and “possible,” it proves nothing.

In spite of the lack of scientific evidence, homosexual activists and sexual libertines continue to insist that all sexual expression –- at least all they are engaged in -– is rooted in biology.

The activist mantra is that people are born homosexual, bisexual or transgender (the wrong sex) and they cannot change. As a result, they should be allowed to act on their biological predilections.

Any suggestion that a person actually might be able to change his or her sexual preference is derided. According to homosexual activists, a person is born with a certain sexual orientation and they will die with that same orientation.

When debating this issue, one of the favorite questions activists pose is, “Why would someone choose to be homosexual, bisexual or transgender?” They argue that acting on aberrant desires results in family and societal rejection as well as discrimination. “No one would choose such a lifestyle,” assert the activists.

The aforementioned argument could be used to support the biological basis for pedophilia or even bestiality. Those who seek sexual gratification with children or animals are not only rejected by society, in many cases they are prosecuted under the law. No one, according to the activists, deliberately would choose a lifestyle with such consequences. Therefore, it must be innate.

Most homosexual activists will agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. But on what basis do they justify their conclusion? For a biblical conservative, sexual expression is only legitimate when it occurs between a man and a woman who are married. Anything else is considered wrong. Of course, this sexual ethic is anchored in the Bible.

Homosexual activists and sexual libertines have long since cut themselves loose from any biblical sexual ethic. As such, they have no standard by which to declare that any sexual behavior is wrong. The only arguments the activist can offer against pedophilia and bestiality is that they currently are illegal, and in the case of pedophilia, it harms those who are innocent.

It should be noted there are some activists who support lowering the age of consent so adults can engage in sex with children. There are also those who believe bestiality should not be a criminal offense.

Like all other expressions of sexuality, homosexual activists and sexual libertines insist that transgender individuals are born with their orientation –- men and women born in the wrong bodies.

My only question is that if a people can be born the wrong sex, could they also be born the wrong race? The obvious answer, of course, is no.

The success of homosexual activists and sexual libertines could well be the beginning of the end of a sane American society. Only time will tell if we will return to a sexual ethic anchored in the Bible or continue to drift on a sea of subjective sexual expression. If we do not return, it is only a matter of time until we sink.”

New Study Proves Effectiveness of Abstinence Education

November 17, 2007

From Katherine T. Phan and Christian Post.

“Just days after Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine announced that he will cut state funding for abstinence education programs, a new study affirmed that such initiatives in the state do work.

The study, which will be published in the Jan./Feb. 2008 issue of the “American Journal of Health Behavior,” shows that programs by the state health department’s Virginia Abstinence Education Initiative resulted in a “significant reduction in teen sexual initiation.”

The Institute for Research and Evaluation evaluated the impact of the programs by examining the behavior of seventh-graders from five different Virginia schools. The study concluded that those students receiving abstinence education were about one-half (45.7 percent) as likely to initiate sexual activity as students who did not receive abstinence education.”

To read more click here.

Attorney says sexual abuse in schools is epidemic

November 1, 2007

From Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown and One News Now.

“An attorney who investigates cases of sexual abuse in schools says there’s an epidemic of sexual crimes in America’s public schools, but the problem is largely ignored.

The findings of a seven-month investigation by Associated Press reporters reveal that from 2001 to 2005, the teaching credentials of more than 2,500 educators nationwide were revoked, denied, surrendered, or sanctioned following allegations of sexual misconduct. The investigation, chronicled by the news agency in a mid-October report, states that young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases — and more than 80 percent of those were students.”

To read more click here.

Latest Cold Case episode called ‘bigoted’ toward Christians

October 5, 2007

From Allie Martin, Jody Brown and One News Now.

“The Culture and Media Institute says Hollywood is trying to portray Christians who practice abstinence as hypocritical, as Congress debates abstinence education.

In the most recent episode of the CBS crime show Cold Case, supposedly devout Christian teenagers — all member of Hearts Wait, an abstinence club — were portrayed as sexually active. Also, the young people were shown stoning a member of their group who had joined their club shortly before her death. Supposedly the character was attacked so the group’s sins would remain secret.

The Culture and Media Institute (CMI), an arm of the Media Research Center, describes the episode as “a ham-handed attempt to influence this fall’s Congressional debate on abstinence education programs” by depicting abstinence-only education as “useless, if not actively harmful” — and “an exercise in bigoted, Christophobic fantasy.” Kristen Fyfe, a senior writer for CMI, says the program shows Hollywood has an agenda.

“Do I think that the producers deliberately put this story on to coincide with that debate? No. But definitely, part of the liberal agenda, part of Hollywood’s agenda, is all about sexualization of children,” says Fyfe. “And abstinence education, which is another context of this particular story, is not something they are on board with.”

In the opening scene of the episode, a high school “health” teacher is portrayed telling her class that school policy prevents her from telling them about various methods of birth control and how they work. CMI calls it one of several “gratuitous slaps at abstinence-only education,” and notes that Congress is currently debating funding for such programs.

According to Fyfe, the show is part of a larger trend across all forms of media. “Nobody who pays any attention to the media is surprised that Christians … constantly seem to be made the target of terrible story lines like this or attacks just flat-out painting them as bigoted or homophobic …,” she asserts. “Pick any slanderous epithet and it’s usually been lobbed at Christians.”

Fyfe points out that Hollywood would never portray Muslims in a negative light because of the current politically correct atmosphere in society.”

Oprah Show: Porn and Adultery Good for Your Marriage

September 28, 2007

From redstate.com.

“Oprah is a talented woman who has tackled innumerable topics but nothing like this has crossed her couches before. The show that aired Tuesday, September 25, 2007 was entitled: “237 Reasons to Have Sex” and featured numerous “experts” on intimacy and marriage.

First to the defense of aberrant behavior was Dr. Pepper Schwartz who took it upon herself to fly across the world experiencing one-night stands and writing a book about her adventures. Among other things Dr. Schwatz advocated to Oprah the notion of “friends with benefits” … read, casual sex:

“We get together, we have a great time,” said Dr. Schwartz “We adore each other, we respect each other, we have great sex, and that’s it. It stays in that little category and it doesn’t get out of it.”

Of course Oprah conducted a poll of her own audience bringing to light several choice examples of the slippery slope that families face in our culture. Take Winnie, for example, who says she saw a gorgeous home, and she told her husband of 44 years about it that night. “He hawed about it and I said, ‘I’ll give you the best sex tonight you have ever had. I don’t care if it’s all night,'” she says. “And so we did and I got the house the next day.”

Next, Oprah talks to Janee who owns a small collection of pornography, or, eh, “erotica” – as she prefers to call it. “I think with respect to my mother’s generation, her mother’s generation, you know, exploring the adult entertainment industry was just unheard of. It probably wasn’t even an option for them,”

Another expert, Dr. Saltz, chimes in advocating pornography to women for overcoming their concerns about the addiction that their spouses indulge. To her credit, Dr. Saltz notes: “The problem is, it can be a double-edged sword in that anything really pleasurable can become kind of addictive.”

Next, Oprah trots out the best of the breed Greg and Hollie, married with two children enjoying all the normal things that families do… and, oh yeah, practicing “open marriages”, read adultery. As Oprah recounts the story:

During a long car trip Gregg asked Hollie—who says she had never had sex with anyone besides Gregg—if she was curious about being with someone else. “And I said, ‘Well, nothing’s missing. I don’t need it. I don’t really think about it,'” Hollie says. “But sure, I mean, if you’re curious, if you’ve only had one partner your whole life, I mean, sure, you’d wonder what it would be like with somebody else.”

Eventually Hollie started dating and eventually sleeping with one of their mutual friends. Gregg says he’s flirted with other women but hasn’t started an outside relationship of his own.
“She just has more love in her life,” Gregg says. “It doesn’t take anything away from what the two of us have.”

As we pointed out previously Oprah has aired numerous shows delving into the topic of pornography addiction. These included the sad tale of woman who killed her husband in self defense after he went on a porn-induced rage and a former gospel singer whose life was shattered by the addiction. Why Oprah, whose influence is unmistakable, would backtrack to advocate pornography and adultery is beyond us.”

The NEA lists its goals and the Democratic Party agrees

August 21, 2007

By Phyllis Schlafly

Monday, August 20, 2007

“Some critics complain that the issue of education has been conspicuously absent from presidential television debates. But Democratic presidential candidates did sound off with their pro-federal government, pro-spending policies at the annual convention of the National Education Association, and the nation’s largest teachers union liked what they heard.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told delegates that she will fight school vouchers “with every breath in my body.” Reiterating the message of her book “It Takes a Village,” she called for universal preschool for 4-year-olds. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., likewise inveighed against “passing out vouchers.” Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., also announced his opposition to vouchers and proposed that the federal government pay college tuition for all students who will work 10 hours a week.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wants to “raise teacher’s average minimum wage to $40,000 a year.” Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, goes all out for “a universal prekindergarten system that will provide year-round day care for children age 3 to 5.”

All Democratic candidates look forward to increased federal control of and spending for public schools. And they all attacked President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law for not appropriating more funds to implement it. After cheering the promises made by the candidates, NEA delegates buckled down to the serious business of spelling out their political goals, many of which have nothing whatever to do with giving schoolchildren a better education.

The NEA demands a tax-supported, single-payer, health care plan for all residents, a word artfully chosen to include illegal immigrants. The NEA supports immigration “reform” that “includes (note: this is a change from last year’s verb “may include”) a path to permanent residency, citizenship, or asylum” for illegal immigrants.

For many years, and again this year, the NEA urged a national holiday honoring Cesar Chavez. The NEA must have forgotten that Chavez, a strident advocate for farmworkers, vehemently opposed illegal immigration because he knew it depressed the wages of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

The NEA supports a beefed-up federal hate crimes law with heavier penalties. The NEA wants federal legislation to confer special rights on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

The NEA passed at least a dozen resolutions supporting the “gay rights agenda” in public schools. These cover employment, curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, school activities, role models, and language, with frequent use of terms such as sexual orientation, gender identification, and homophobia.

The NEA enthusiastically supports all the goals of radical feminism, including abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, school-based health clinics, wage control so the government can arbitrarily raise the pay of women but not men, the feminist pork called the Women’s Educational Equity Act, and letting feminists rewrite textbooks to conform to feminist ideology.

The NEA supports statehood for the District of Columbia. The NEA supports affirmative action. The NEA calls for repeal of right-to-work laws, which allow teachers in some states to decline joining the NEA.

The NEA supports United Nations treaties, especially the U.N. Convention on Women, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Court of Justice. The NEA loves global education, which promotes world citizenship and taxing U.S. citizens to give away their wealth to other countries.

Another NEA favorite is environmental education, which teaches that human activity is generally harmful to the environment and population should be reduced.

Here are some things the NEA opposes: vouchers, tuition tax credits, parental choice programs, making English the official language of the U.S., the use of voter identification for elections, and the privatization of Social Security. High on the list of NEA policies that actually relate to education is opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure, or salary.

The NEA reiterated its support for pre-kindergarten for “all 3- and 4-year-old children,” mandatory full-day kindergarten, and “early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8.” The NEA demands that this “early” education have “diversity-based curricula” and “bias-free screening devices.”

The NEA wants the right to teach schoolchildren about sex without any interference from parents, but on the other hand wants its pals in the bureaucracy to regulate all home-schooling taught by parents. The NEA opposes allowing home-schoolers to participate in public school sports or extracurricular activities.

Two of the NEA’s favorite words in its resolutions and policies are “diversity,” which means teaching that gay behavior is OK, and “multiculturalism,” which means stressing negative things about the United States and positive things about non-Christian cultures.

The exorbitant dues teachers pay to the NEA enable its well-paid staff to lobby Congress and state legislatures on behalf of all these goals.”

Why is the Pre-Teen Pregnancy Rate Dropping?

August 15, 2007

From Janice Crause and Townhall.

“Newly-released data indicates great news about the nation’s children –– girls aged 10-14 –– are not getting pregnant nearly as often as they did just a few years ago. This is further evidence that abstinence programs are having an impact, that they are making a difference for teens –– including children as young as 10 years of age.

How can anyone hesitate to recommend abstinence for children? How, in good conscience, can a supposedly-responsible adult support public policies that would communicate to such girls and boys that “safe-sex” is an appropriate option? Even if pregnancy were not a consideration, youngsters are not physically or psychologically ready for sexual activity. Even if morality were not an issue, the earlier a child begins sexual activity, the more partners he or she will have and the more risk he or she will face for sexually-transmitted diseases –– now at epidemic stages among youths under 25.

Looking at the trend of the pregnancy rate of 10-14 year-olds we see the amazing turn-around that has taken place as the abstinence message has taken root. This means not only that more of the nation’s young girls will be able to realize their dreams and goals for the future; it also means fewer precious babies will grow up in the crushing grip of poverty.

It is imperative that we understand that an increase in abortions is not what has reduced births to young adolescents, as many would have guessed. Fewer births are occurring because there are fewer pregnancies. The sharp decline in births to young adolescents (down 43 percent between 2002 and their peak in 1992) occurred at the same time as a similar decline occurred in abortions to young adolescents (down 36 percent from 1992 to 2002). Congress should consider these facts and not be swayed by the special interests who have profited for decades by providing government-funded abortions to the poor and needy. ”

To read more click here.

Where the Battle Rages: The Sexualizing of America

August 4, 2007

In Michael Craven’s article entitled, “Where the Battle Rages: The Sexualizing of America”, he discusses how God’s absolute moral truth as revealed in the Scripture regarding sexual ethics has been rendered irrelevant by our society.   The consequences we face because of this are horrific.

Michael writes the following: 

“Prior to the ‘60s America’s moral consensus, along with our public and social policies, was derived from profoundly Christian principles and values: in essence the Christian worldview.”

The sexual revolution was the first open rebellion against this consensus. It was, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against God’s revealed standard in scripture. The sexual revolution was the “beachhead” from which the final assault on God’s absolute moral truth was launched. The battle to redefine sexual ethics has become the ground out of which springs the cultural rejection of absolute moral truth and ultimately, I believe, Christianity in America.

Unfortunately most Christians failed to recognize what was happening at the time. The events of that era were simply regarded as passing youthful rebellion. We failed to recognize that these values and attitudes pertaining to sex were actually the result of a clearly defined and methodically advanced worldview that ultimately seeks to replace the Christ-centered plan of salvation with a man-centered plan of salvation. (In essence, a naturalistic plan for utopia.)

At the very heart of the prevailing values and attitudes pertaining to sex is a false doctrine of salvation that believes that the “imposition” of sexual morality itself is the cause for much of what is wrong in the world. The naturalistic worldview espouses the idea that religious and social constraints or (“morality”) are artificially constructed concepts that inhibit natural desires. Of course this is true. However the difference lies in the false presupposition that man is inherently good and not inherently sinful. Our passions and desires do require restraint. Humanity is capable of both great goodness and great evil. It is the latter capacity that the natural man ignores. This defies both the biblical truth and the reality of human experience. The natural man or secularist is convinced that these “restraints” act in a repressive manner, producing guilt, which in turn, leads to behavioral pathologies that are ultimately self-destructive, this, despite the fact that the natural order continually reaffirms God’s moral truths. The goal therefore has been to remove these so-called artificial moral boundaries and the first area from which to remove them is sexual conduct.”

All ideas have consequences.  Let’s examine the consequences America faces because of the idea to abandon God’s absolute moral truth for a man-centered “naturalistic utopia”.


In 1973 Americans spent approximately $10 million on pornography. By 1999 the pornography industry took in more than $8 billion dollars. This is more than all revenues generated by Rock-n-Roll and Country music, more than spent on Broadway productions, theater, ballet, jazz and classical music combined.”

Sexually Transmitted Disease

America leads the industrialized world in STD’s. Over 68 million Americans are currently infected & more than 15 million new cases are reported each year.  In the 1960’s there were 2 recognized STD’s, today there are over 25, many of which are viral with no cure.Teen PregnancyAmerica leads the entire world in unwanted teenage pregnancies. American teenagers are more likely to become pregnant and have multiple partners than any other teenager on earth.

Violence Against Women

Violence against women has increased 526% since 1960 and has the highest reported rape rates in the world, more than 13 times that of Great Britain and 20 times that of Japan. Ironically, those states with the highest sales of sexually explicit materials also have the highest rates of rape.Sexual Abuse of ChildrenIt is estimated that 1 out 3 girls and 1 out of 7 boys will be sexually molested before their 18th birthday.  In 1973 there were 167,000 reported cases of child abuse in by 1987 that figure had reached 2,025,000!


Since 1972 there have been over 41 million abortions performed in America.Sexuality RedefinedWhile 45% of adults polled believe homosexuality is an “acceptable lifestyle”, 85% of High School Seniors (The next generation) believe it is acceptable and 86% believe homosexuality is determined at birth.

To read the full article and to view the sources of the above statistics click here.