NoSpecialRights.net - Lovingly opposing the homosexual agenda...

Three fundamental concerns are driving the formation of the new citizens organization:

I. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on all businesses and property owners, with a particularly negative impact on faith- based and faith-inspired businesses and property owners.

II. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on every citizen's constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

III. The negative impact of the practice of homosexuality on the individuals who practice it and on the rest of the society.

The main multifaceted emphasis of the group is to defend Traditional Marriage as 'between one man and one woman', to respond to the controversy at the University of Notre Dame regarding homosexual activism at several levels, to respond to 'special rights for homosexuals' ordinances as they come forward in the Region and to facilitate help and ministry for those suffering from the ill effects of the homosexual lifestyle.

Confronting the Propaganda of the Radical Homosexual Agenda

Zogby Poll Scam Pushes Homosexuals in Military; Meehan Introduces Repeal Bill Today

February 28th, 2007

Kudos to Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287 for uncovering the latest media “spin” scam — this one involving a Zogby poll whose results were distorted to promote a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. Turns out in another poll that only 30 percent of active servicemen polled favored — and 59 percent opposed — the idea of letting open homosexuals to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION: Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) is introducing a bill in the House today -- mischievously called the Military Readiness Enhancement Act http://www.hrc.org/alva/dadt.html -- to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators today (202-224-3121) and tell them to leave the ban alone, especially during this time of war.

While you’re at it, tell them you oppose creating a federal “Hate Crimes” law http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers including “sexual orientation” and the radical pro-homosexual, pro-”transgender” bill ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2578&department=CFI&categoryid=papers — both of which soon will be pushed in the Democrat-led Congress.


From Zogby Poll Spins Push for Gays in Military http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287, published Feb 28, 2007, by Center for Military Readiness http://cmrlink.org/principles.asp (and reprinted in full with permission):

Manufactured “Momentum” for Meehan Bill
In 1993 Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) failed in his attempt to help President Bill Clinton lift the military’s ban on homosexuals in the military. An amendment to strike Senate-passed legislation to codify pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations banning gays from the military, which Meehan sponsored together with liberal Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated overwhelmingly on a 264-169 bi-partisan vote. (Sept. 28, 1993) Now Meehan is back with similar legislation to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law, a statute that has been upheld as constitutional several times.

This time Meehan and his supporters are claiming that the military is on their side, pointing to a poll by Zogby International, released in December 2006.

Using classic P.R. strategy, the Zogby news release highlighted the meaningless “comfort” question, “Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?” Of those responding, 73% said they were. But this is an innocuous question, about as relevant to the controversy as an inquiry about daytime talk shows: “Would you rather watch Ellen DeGeneres’ show or Rosie O’Donnell on The View?”

The key question asked of survey respondents was, “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”

On that question, 26% of respondents agreed, but 37% disagreed. The poll also found that 32% of respondents were “Neutral,” and only 5% said they were “Not sure.”

The 26% of respondents who want the law repealed cannot compete with the combined 69% of people who are opposed or neutral on repeal. This is hardly a mandate for radical change.

Military Knows Best
Polling organizations recognize that respondents who believe a policy is already in place are more likely to favor that policy, while those who know otherwise are less likely.1 Constant but incorrect assertions that “homosexuals can serve in the military provided that they do not say they are gay” are probably skewing polls of civilians, who mistakenly believe that homosexuals are eligible to serve. People in the military, however, are more likely to understand what the homosexual exclusion law actually says.

[See text here] http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=29
In the most recent poll announced by the Military Times newspapers, in answer to the question “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” 30% of the active duty military subscriber respondents said Yes, but 59% said No, 10% having No Opinion. The same percentage, 59% in opposition, was reported by the Military Times survey in 2006 (Army Times, Jan. 8, 2007).

A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized in news reports: This is the latest in a string of media events orchestrated in a failed public relations campaign announced by gay activist groups four years ago.

The Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed “in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center,” formerly the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (Dec. 18, 2006). This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years—usually by releasing or promoting various faux “studies” that cannot withstand close scrutiny. The poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel.” But the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11, personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel are highly restricted.

Apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll, even though the news release makes the inflated claim, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.”

Activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law. If that were the case, all referenda banning same-sex marriage would have been soundly defeated. On the contrary, the voters of several states have approved 27 of 28 such referenda, often with comfortable majorities. 2 Support the Law – Scrap “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” Ideologues who want to repeal the homosexual conduct law are determined to impose the gay agenda on the military. This would include the full range of benefits and “sensitivity training” programs to promote acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and conduct. (Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1993) President George W. Bush is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to enforce all laws, but he is not required to retain administrative regulations written by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. This includes policy regulations known by the catch phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which were found by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be inconsistent with the law in 1996.

[See related article here] http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=103
Problematic inconsistencies between Clinton’s enforcement regulations and the 1993 homosexual conduct law have contributed to years of confusion, and an advantage for activists who want to repeal both. To ensure that the intent of Congress in passing the law is respected, understood, and followed, the Secretary of Defense should:

Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration’s policy/regulations, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which are inconsistent with the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. (P.L. 103-160, 10 US Code, Section 654) Oppose any legislative attempt to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law in Congress. Ensure that the 1993 statute is vigorously defended every time it is challenged in the federal courts. Prepare and distribute accurate instructional materials that include the text and legislative history of the 1993 law. In doing these things the President and Secretary of Defense should not apologize or be intimidated by civil rights analogies and pejorative accusations. The law deserves support because it respects the human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters, to the greatest extent possible, in the interest of encouraging good order and discipline.

As columnist Thomas Sowell wrote in 1993, “Military morale is an intangible, but it is one of those intangibles without which the tangibles do not work.”

For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, homosexual activists should not be allowed to impose their agenda on the armed forces.

All Americans can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to serve in the military.

ENDNOTES
1. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Commissioner Generated Finding 14, p. C-135, referencing civilian and military surveys done by the Roper Organization, Inc., for the Commission, September 1992.
2. David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute, Nov. 8, 2006. CMR


< Back >

nospecialrights.net


This website is an outreach of the Citizens for Community Values of Indiana Victim Assistance Division.
Citizen's for Community Values of Indiana

CREATIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY CREEKSIDE DESIGN