"Leather Week" in San Francisco

We’ve recently covered the story of Most Holy Redeemer’s Patrick Mulcahey, a past parish council vice-president and Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, who was leading s/m workshops at the “Master/slave Conference 2010.”

It is almost incomprehensible to the average person that the sado-masochistic sexual perversion is not only respected, but affirmed, in a Catholic parish. But as we said in 2007, in our review of Father Donal Godfrey’s book, “Gays and Grays,” Most Holy Redeemer is no longer a Catholic parish. It is not a Christian parish. It is a gay parish. It would better be described as a homosexualist spiritual institution. The community-forming experience around which the parish congregates is not Christianity, (except perhaps incidentally) it is the celebration of homosexuality. This is demonstrable. At any place or time that Christianity comes into conflict with the celebration of homosexuality, the congregation will choose the celebration of homosexuality.¹ In this, MHR is quite conventional and representative of its surrounding environment. Sado-masochistic leather “sexuality” is affirmed by the surrounding culture; MHR, as a representative institution of that culture, must affirm it as well.

It is equally incomprehensible to the average person that the sado-masochistic sexual perversion can not only be respected but affirmed as a positive good by the government of a major American city. Yet such is the case. For the entire month of September banners advertising the largest homosexualist s/m event in the world, the Folsom Street Fair, are on every lamppost on Market Street from Van Ness Avenue to Castro Street. On the Sunday of the Folsom Street Fair, which this year will be Sunday, September 26, the leather flag (red, black and blue: symbolization obvious) takes the place of the rainbow “gay rights” flag at the corner of Market and Castro streets.

The leather subculture is not exactly a dispossessed and oppressed minority. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took out a full page in the 2007 Folsom Street Fair program officially welcoming the “wonderful and exciting” event. In 2007 State Senator Mark Leno, one of the most powerful politicians in Sacramento, attended the InterClub Fund awards at (where else) Most Holy Redeemer. Befitting the occasion, Senator Leno was decked out in leather. Senator Leno, again in leather, attended the 2008 & 2009 "Up Your Alley Fairs", smaller versions of the Folsom Street Fair. (left: Senator Leno at the 2009 "Up Your Alley Fair" Photo: SFIST and Gothamist, LLC).

The San Francisco Police Department threatened to withhold a permit for the fair in 2009 because in 2008, the fair Leno attended, men were urinating on other men and masturbating into the crowd from a third-story window. Senator Leno chairs the state Senate’s Public Safety Committee and the Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on Health and Human Services.

At the 26th Annual “Leather Daddy” awards Supervisor Bevan Dufty presented a proclamation to the event from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Dufty is currently running for Mayor in San Francisco, and has a fair chance of winning.

The city government’s embrace of the s/m lifestyle has not weakened since 2007. In the September 23, 2010 issue of the homosexualist Bay Area Reporter (“Politics and Leather a Natural Alliance in SF”), Matt Bauer writes

“There may be no better example of San Francisco's priorities than the city's giddy anticipation of two upcoming events: the November elections and this Sunday's 27th annual Folsom Street Fair.

The city's long-established leather community tends to enjoy a strong relationship with city government.

‘Local politicians have been very friendly and supportive,’ said Liza Sibley, executive producer of Ms. San Francisco Leather. ‘[State Senator] Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has always been fabulous for the leather community. [Assemblyman] Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has always been wonderful in talking to the leather community." In addition, she observed, District 8 supervisor candidates Rebecca Prozan, Scott Wiener, and Rafael Mandelman were present at this year's annual Leather Walk.’

‘This is a rare Folsom I'll miss,’ Leno told the Bay Area Reporter.”

The embrace of perverted sexuality is not harmless. Since 1980, over 18,866 people in San Francisco have died from AIDS. That number includes four persons quite close to me. It includes Senator Leno’s “life partner.” Of the over 18,000 deaths, 17,035 were of same-sex attracted men (14,125 men who have “sex” with men; 2,869 men who have “sex” with men who were also intravenous drug users).² 15,330 of those who died were under 50 years old—in the prime of life. In March, 2010 the Center for Disease Control reported that in the United States men who have “sex” with men are 44 times more likely to contract HIV than are other men. They are also the only risk group among whom HIV infection rates are increasing. This is neither random nor a chastisement from God. It is the clearly demonstrable result of specific behavior. In his important 1997 book "Sexual Ecology: Aids and the Destiny of Gay Men" activist Gabriel Rotello writes "For various reasons we are, in effect, defending the behaviors that are killing us."

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors can find time to unanimously issue a resolution urging “Meatless Mondays” as a public health measure. Yet in the face of the greatest public health crisis in the city’s history, one that has cut down over 15,000 people under age 50—people in the prime of life--the city’s government is on record as supporting the behavior that contributes to the holocaust.

1) According to Professor Jerome Baggett’s recent book “Sense of the Faithful” 93% of Most Holy Redeemer parishioners polled think “a person can be a good Catholic” without obeying the Church’s teaching on engaging in homosexual acts.

2) San Francisco Department of Public Health HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Annual Report, 2008.

3) "Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men" p. 202.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

“An abstraction of what a family used to look like."

“An abstraction of what a family used to look like."
Mark Leno’s Latest Redefinition

On July 2, the Daily Mail UK reported: “From the dawn of time, the natural order of things has been that a child has two parents: a mother and a father, but a new bill that is currently before the California state Assembly might change all that.

State Senator Mark Leno (shown left at the Dore Alley leather fair, photo cortesy SFist) has proposed legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents. ‘The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today….

SB 1476 stemmed from an appellate court case last year involving a child's biological mother, her same-sex partner, and a man who had an affair with the biological mother and got her pregnant while she was separated temporarily from her female lover.”

The Daily Mail quoted Karen Anderson, of the California Protective Parents Association, who objected to the bill: ‘It's hard enough for children to be split up two ways, much less multiple ways,’ she told the Sacramento Bee."

In the San Jose Mercury News, Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, and an advocate for the legislation offered this justification: "It's not us who have changed the nature of families; families have done it on their own…It is cruel to prevent judges from ruling a way that protects kids in favor of an abstraction of what a family used to look like."

This is not the first redefinition engineered by Leno. He sponsored a number of bills attempting to redefine marriage in the state of California , all of which were vetoed by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenneggar. He is also the sponsor of SB 48, a bill with the professed intention of the prevention of “bullying” but whose actual intent is brainwashing children into the affirmation of homosexuality. As Leno said in a press release announcing the bill "Most textbooks don't include any historical information about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history…" Pro-Family groups are currently trying to overturn SB 48.

Leno is one of the worst of the many bad San Francisco Democratic politicians who have completely “demoralized” California government. Leno is a supporter and regular attendee at San Francisco’s disgusting Folsom Street Fair. From a September 2010 article in the Bay Area Reporter “The city's long-established leather community tends to enjoy a strong relationship with city government. ‘Local politicians have been very friendly and supportive,’ said Liza Sibley, executive producer of Ms. San Francisco Leather. ‘[State Senator] Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has always been fabulous for the leather community. [Assemblyman] Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has always been wonderful in talking to the leather community." In addition, she observed, District 8 supervisor candidates Rebecca Prozan, Scott Wiener, and Rafael Mandelman were present at this year's annual Leather Walk.’ ‘This is a rare Folsom I'll miss,’ Leno told the Bay Area Reporter.”

The almost unbelievable immorality of San Francisco’s political structure was highlighted this past week with the arrest of long-time “gay rights icon” Larry Brinkin. Brinkin, a highly respected member in San Francisco politics, who served for more than 20 years on the City’s Human Rights Commission, and received a salary of $135,000, was arrested for the possession of child pornography. The alternative “SF Weekly” reported “The warrant (for Brinkin’s arrest) claims these e-mails contained images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men. Zack3737@aol.com -- whom the police allege is Brinkin -- provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included "I loved especially the n***** 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you'll continue so I can see what the little blond b**** is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D*** Rules!" Editing added..

On his retirement from the Human Rights Commission, the City’s board of Supervisors named the first week in February “Larry Brinkin Week.” As CalCatholic reported, Brinkin was joined on the Human Rights Commission by Patrick Mulcahey, a man who openly keeps a “slave” and gives workshops promoting the “Master/slave” lifestyle. Publication of Brinkin’s arrest, which occurred on Friday, June 22,was delayed until Monday, June 25, so as not to cast a pall over the City’s “Gay pride” parade, held on June 24. The response to the Brinkin case seems rather mild. The San Francisco District Attorney is still deciding whether to file charges. The San Francisco Chronicle has not followed up on this case, which took place in its own backyard, and which has made news internationally, since the initial story of Monday, and a second story on June 26.

State Senator Tries to Undercut Prop. 8

Openly homosexual San Francisco state senator and Most Holy Redeemer favorite Mark Leno, (go here to see Senator Leno attending a "leather" function at Most Holy Redeemer's parish hall in 2007) is trying to undercut Proposition 8.

Leno is attempting what “Catholics for the Common Good” Chairman Bill May calls “a legislative slight of hand tactic” to force the state of California to recognize same-sex “marriages” taking place in other states.

Bill tells us:

“Because of a legislative slight of hand tactic called ‘gut and amend‘, we are called on once again to defend Prop 8 in the California Legislature. A hearing on SB 54, a bill to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9.

The bill is co-authored by Senator Marc Leno (D- San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. According to May, SB 54 “…started as healthcare legislation, passed the Senate floor, moved to the Assembly where it passed the Health Committee. On its way to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, something changed – EVERYTHING CHANGED. All the original language was stripped out and an attack in Prop 8 was substituted -- after it had been reviewed by three legislative committees and passed the Senate as a completely different bill."

“The bill seeks to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states. If the out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages’ took place after the passage of Prop 8, all of the rights and privileges would still be recognized, except for the use of the word ‘marriage‘. This is a clear violation of Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution (Prop 8) that reads, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court has already upheld Prop 8.”

“The Court specifically stated that their ruling had no effect on same-sex “marriages” from other states or countries (page 135, note 46). If SB 54 passes, it will create a flimsy basis for new legal challenges that will waste more taxpayer money fighting the clearly expressed will of the voters on traditional marriage. This is particularly outrageous at a time when the state is forced to cut deeply into funding for vital human needs because of the current budget crisis.”

Senator Leno’s “Facebook” page describes the bill:

“Senator Leno’s Senate Bill 54, sponsored by Equality California, has been amended to clarify that same-sex couples who married outside of California before Proposition 8 went into effect on November 5, 2008 are recognized as married spouses. The bill also confirms that same-sex couples who married outside California after November 5, 2008, or plan to do so in the future, must receive the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.’…

The Court’s decision states that California must recognize the marriages of couples who married in California before the passage of Prop 8 but does not specify how couples who married outside of the state should be recognized….”

The Leno bill is is co-authored by the members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, including Senator Christine Kehoe and Assembly members Tom Ammiano and John A. Pérez.

SB 54 will be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9, before Friday's legislative deadline for bills to be reported out of policy committees. Catholics for the Common Good asks that Californians concerned about this maneuver contact the Judiciary Committee Members RIGHT AWAY and ask them to stop trying to overturn the will of the voters. Judiciary Committee members are:

Mike Feuer (D-AD42), Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2042
Fax: (916) 319-2142

Van Tran (R-AD68), Vice-Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2068
Fax: (916) 319-2168

Julia Brownley (D- AD41)
Phone: (916) 319-2041
Fax: (916) 319-2141

Noreen Evans (D- AD7)
Phone: (916) 319-2007
Fax: (916) 319-2107

Dave Jones (D- AD9)
Phone: (916) 319-2009
Fax: 916 319 2109

Steve Knight (R-AD36)
Phone: (916) 319-2036
Fax: (916) 319-2136

Paul Krekorian (D-AD43)
Phone: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143

Ted Lieu (D-AD53)
Phone: (916) 319-2053
Fax: (916) 319-2153

Bill Monning (D-AD27)
Phone: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127

Jim Nielsen (R-AD2)
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102

Rainbow Flags and the Russian Anti-Propaganda Law

On August 12, 2013, California’s state senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Resolution 18, which urged CalPERS and CalSTRS not to invest future resources from their pension plans in Russia. On August 26, the resolution passed the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee. From the resolution: “That the Senate strongly encourages the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, whenever feasible and consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities, to cease making direct investments in Russia…” Leno’s resolution was a response to the June 30, 2013 Russian law which bans the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors.” The text of the Russian law may be found at the “School of Russian and Asiatic Studies” website. In a letter to Leno, Sergey Petrov, the Russian consul-general in San Francisco, defended the law: “Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development” of Russia, and “therefore require special protection from the state.”

Leno’s opposition to the Russian law, which is shared by President Obama and the international homosexualist movement is further evidence, if more were needed, that the war over the family is international and civilizational in scope. Patrick Buchanan succinctly summed up the issue in the title of an August 13 article “Post v. Putin-Whose Side are you On?” The article’s first sentence was “The culture war has gone global.” And war it is. As we have noted before, in the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage, co-authored by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Corvino, who supports same-sex “marriage” wrote: “Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.”

Corvino’s assertion has been proved. While Leno, President Obama, and others are outraged by the Russian law, retaliation against defenders of natural marriage in the United States and other countries show that the Russian law is justified. Critics of the Russian law say its wording is ambiguous, and “could outlaw activities from kissing or holding hands to wearing a rainbow pin.” But so what? The list of people in the United States and other countries who have already been fined, fired, suspended from their jobs, relieved of their military duties, simply for expressing opposition to same-sex “marriage” is far too long to include here: Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard fired for expressing opposition to same-sex “marriage”; consultant Frank Turek fired from both Cisco and the Bank of America because he authored the book Not Politically Correct: How Same-sex Marriage Hurts Everyone; Teacher of the Year Jerry Buell suspended for expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage; Air Force Master Sergeant of 19 years Phillip Monk relieved of duty because he disagreed with lesbian commanding officer about same-sex “marriage”; florist Baronelle Stutzmann sued by the attorney general of Washington because she refused to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding”; Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon closing rather than provide goods to a same-sex “wedding,” etc. etc.

The contrast between the Russian and American responses to the attack of the international homosexualist movement is disturbing. It may be explained in part by the still existing experience of a Russian identity by the Russian people, and the decayed experience of an American identity among the American people. It raises the question: to what extent does an “American identity” still exist? Since the 1960’s, America has been plagued by an ever-growing number of “group identities” to which many people give primary loyalty. The one commonality among such “group identities” is that much of their meaning is defined by simply being in opposition to the American mainstream. But as “group identities” have grown another question arises: what happens when those professing “group identities” outnumber those who identify simply as Americans?

When one walks around my native city of San Francisco, which Senator Leno, a transplant, represents, the number of homosexualist rainbow flags one sees outnumbers the American flags. It is thought-provoking to see, for instance, on the 3000 block of Pacific Avenue, a large rainbow flag flying just a few doors down from where the Egyptian flag flies in front of the Egyptian Consulate. Ditto for the 3500 block of Clay Street where the Korean flag flies in front of the Korean Consulate and four doors away one sees a large rainbow flag flying in front of a large lavender-colored house. Flags are a public assertion of loyalty. This juxtaposition of flags expressing loyalty to a nation flying next to flags expressing loyalty to a group with similar sexual proclivities should provoke anyone to stop and think about what that means for a society.

The loyalty the rainbow flag expresses is a loyalty to anyone anywhere who shares the same sexual proclivities. That identity is obviously supra-national or sub-national. It is a loyalty based on one of the most fundamental of biological drives: animal sexual desire. It is also sexuality unmoored from both responsibility and sexuality’s primary purpose: children. The simple sense of Consul Petrov’s justification of Russia’s law to Senator Leno then becomes crystal clear: “Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development (of Russia, and) therefore require special protection from the state.”

Leno Tries to Undercut Prop. 8: Mainstream Media Complicit

On Tuesday, we reported on SB 54, sponsored by openly homosexual San Francisco state senator Mark Leno and "Equality California." Leno flew the bill under the radar, using the "gut and amend" tactic to change the contents of the bill.

The bill would undercut Proposition 8 by forcing the state of California to recognize out-of-state same sex "marriages." On Thursday, SB 54 passed the Assembly Judiciary committee on a straight party line vote. SB 54 will now move to the Assembly floor where it will probably be voted on after the legislature returns from their summer vacation on August 17.

On September 1, 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the "gut-and-amend" process:

"In the halls of the state Capitol, it's known simply as "GANDA."

The acronym stands for "gut-and-amend," a practice during the final days of a legislative session in which the entire contents of a bill are stripped out and replaced with something new.

The article quoted Jim Knox, President of California Common Cause:

"It makes a mockery of the entire legislative process. It's an insider's game designed to exclude the public."

Given that Proposition 8 has been the most covered story in the state of California over the past 18 months, one might expect the mainstream media to cover SB 54. Nope. A google news search brings up all of eight results for "Leno SB 54." It has been covered by a few outlets in the homosexual community press (Bay Area Reporter, Queerty, SFist), and the California Catholic Daily, but you have not seen a word about it in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, or the San Jose Mercury News.

Since all these publications (indeed, all but five in the whole state) supported same-sex "marriage," it appears they are deliberately burying the story so as not to alert California voters that once again our legisalture is flouting the will of the people.

You can contact your Assembly Member by going here .

On Russia's New Law

I was working on a post on Russia's new law defending their culture from homosexualist propaganda, but Pat Buchanan beat me to it. Back in July 30, 2012 Matthew Franck wrote a piece at Public Interest called Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage. Mr. Franck quoted same-sex “marriage” supporter Jon Corvino:

“Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.” 

So it is a question of which side should be marginalized. One side has built civilizations, the other side has built nothing, and exists parasitically within the civilization built by its enemies. In concrete terms: who will be marginalized, Dan Savage or Baronelle Stutzman? Savage, an ill-mannered lout (caution: link has vile content), is invited to the White House, while Ms. Stutzman is being sued by the state of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a counterfeit “wedding”--and she's not alone. We have been covering the events in France. On June 12, 2013 LifeSiteNews ran a story about the Mayor of a French town willing to go to prison rather than participate in the charade (his word) of counterfeit marriage:

“The mayor of a small town in France’s Basque region has announced his refusal to carry out a ‘marriage’ between two men who reside in his jurisdiction, becoming the first mayor to defy the country’s new law that applies the name and rights of “matrimony” to couples of the same sex. 

Jean-Michel Colo, a conservative who heads the town of Arcangues in the southern Basque region of Pyrenees-Atlantiques, faces the possibility of a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of 75,000 euros (100,000 USD), according to French media sources. However, he appears to be unafraid of the consequences of his stand, telling the media that he will ‘go all the way to the gallows’ to oppose the law.

‘I don’t give lessons, I’m not inciting other mayors to follow my example, but I won’t enforce an illegitimate law,’ says Colo. ‘My seven councilmen and I are completely in agreement in saying that we will not participate in this charade.’”

 

So Mayor Colo, too, has been “marginalized.”  That won’t be happening in Russia. Instead, homosexual activists are being marginalized. Mr. Buchanan's article was called "Post v. Putin--Whose Side Are You On?"

"The culture war has gone global.

And the divisions are not only between, but within nations.

“Suddenly, homosexuality is against the law,” wailed Jay Leno. “I mean, this seems like Germany. Let’s round up the Jews. Let’s round up the gays. ... I mean, it starts like that.”

Leno was speaking of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Obama eagerly agreed:

“I have no patience for countries that treat gays or lesbians ... in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them. ... Nobody is more offended than me by some of the antigay and lesbian legislation that you’ve been seeing in Russia.”

(Note: As a commentator to Buchanan's article observed, Obama has endless patience when it comes to Christians being slaughtered in Muslim countries, something which is immeasurably greater than any persecution suffered by homosexuals.) Buchanan continues:

Leno and Obama were referring to a new Russian law prohibiting “homosexual propaganda.” Moscow is also warning foreigners, including visitors to the winter Olympics in Sochi, that propagandizing for gay rights can get them two weeks in detention. No kiss-ins allowed.

“Medieval,” howled The Washington Post. “Mr. Putin’s war” on gays and lesbians is “part and parcel of his lapse into xenophobia, religious chauvinism and general intolerance....

What this reveals is the distance America has traveled, morally and culturally, in a few short years, and our amnesia about who we Americans once were, and what it is we once believed.

Only yesterday, homosexual sodomy, which Thomas Jefferson said should be treated like rape, was outlawed in many states and same-sex marriage was regarded as an absurdity.

Was that America we grew up in really like Nazi Germany?

In the Catholic schools this writer attended, pornography—let alone homosexual propaganda—would get one expelled.

Was this really just like Kristallnacht?..."

 

Pat's last points are important. What has happened to America? How did the moral vacuum come into being? President Putin is a Russian nationalist. That's why he cares about what happens to Russia. Makes sense. But what is President Obama? What about us? We've gone from Jefferson's "We hold these truths..." (an assertion which, as Willmoore Kendall taught, presupposes a belief in Truth with a capital "T") to Anthony Kennedy's "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..."

In his 1978 autobiography "In Search of History," the legendary liberal journalist Theodore H. White wrote of the changes he had seen:

"The old English political culture had lost control over … the polyglot peoples of America [who] had no common heritage but only ideas to bind them together… What would be really at issue was whether America would be transformed, in the name of Opportunity, simply into a Place, a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages; or whether it could continue to be a nation, where all heritages joined under the same roof—ideas of communities within government."

Well, the answer seems pretty clear. America has come to be "a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages" and the most politically powerful interest group wins. For now, that group has proved to be homosexual activists.

The Costs of Propaganda: SB 48 Ignores Real Significance of LGBT Movement

On December 13, 2010, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced California Senate Bill 48, also known as the FAIR Education act. Equality California is a co-sponsor of the bill. SB 48 is currently in the Senate Judiciary and Senate Education Committees. The text reads, in part:

“Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but was vetoed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

"Most textbooks don't include any historical information about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history," Leno said in a press release. He added: "Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people."

While individual same-sex attracted individuals have certainly contributed to the good of society, it is undeniable that the “great significance to both California and U.S. history” of the LGBT movement in “contemporary society” has been the ongoing attempt at the destruction of marriage and the near self-extermination of male homosexuals through the AIDS epidemic.

Last week the homosexualist publication the Bay Area Reporter reported on the creation of the “Rainbow Honor Walk” in San Francisco:

“Fourteen men and six women have been chosen to be the first group of 20 LGBT luminaries to be honored with plaques along the sidewalks of the Castro, San Francisco's gay neighborhood.”

Presumably these are the kind of persons whose contributions SB 48 thinks should be recognized. But, as the BAR article mentions, of the 14 men so honored seven either committed suicide or died from AIDS.

Leno’s legislation also coincides with the release of the latest statistics on sexually transmitted diseases from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. These show an across-the board increase in the incidence of syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and chlamydia. In San Francisco all STD trends are driven by men having “sex” with men. The report states:

“Overall reported chlamydia in-creased from 4,171 to 4,591 cases (10.1%) while male rectal chlamydia increased in 2010 from 740 to 913 cases for a 23.4% annual increase. Reported gonorrhea cases increased 9.8% from 1,787 in 2009 to 1,963 in 2010. Additionally, rectal gonorrhea among men also increased from 448 cases to 476 cases—a 6.3% increase. After recent declines in early syphilis seen in 2008, early syphilis sharply increased by 27.4% in 2010 from 519 cases to 661. The STD Prevention and Control Section of the San Francisco Department of Public Health recommends that all sexually active men who have sex with men be screened every 3 to 6 months for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.”

The ostensible rationale behind “anti-bullying” measures is the health and safety of same-sex attracted youngsters. But if that is in fact the rationale, shouldn’t legislation be introduced discouraging, or at least making clear the all too frequent consequences of homosexual behavior?

Pipeline News has more on SB 48, and recommendations on how Californians can make their concerns known.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

The Folsom Street Fair, Tolerance, and the Common Good

It’s September. In San Francisco, that means the Folsom Street Fair. It is probably difficult for those outside of the city to believe how far the corruption of San Francisco has spread. A big reason for that is that what goes on at the Fair is too obscene to be shown. But behavior at the Fair is only part of the problem. The real obscenity is that this event is welcomed by the public officals of our city. In this year's Folsom Street Fair program:

• For at least the second year in a row Mayor Gavin Newsom (of same-sex "marriage" fame), has taken out a full page ad in the program, officially welcoming the fair in the name of all San Franciscans:

“Dear friends,

On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 25th Annual Folsom Street Fair on Sunday, September 28, 2008.”

• Assemblyman Mark Leno, a political office holder for the state of California, and the major legislative force behind same-sex “marriage,” also officially welcomes the fair, on California State Assembly letterhead:

“Dear friends,

As your California Assemblyman from San Francisco and a member of the state’s LGBT Legislative Caucus, I am very pleased to welcome you to the 2008 Folsom Street Fair!”

Assemblyman Leno really means it. He has unabashedly appeared in “leather” regalia at celebrations of sadomasochistic organizations. See here and here. (The owner of that website asks that you go to his homepage first. Incidentally, these photographs were taken in the parish hall of Most Holy Redeemer in San Francisco, a “Catholic” church.)

• And this year according to the Fair's website:

"Leather pride flags will adorn Market Street for the first time ever."

So flags celebrating sado-masochistic sexuality will fly on the major thorougfare of an American city.

It should be pointed out that since 1980, 19,000 San Franciscans have died from AIDS. Of that number 90% are men who engage in sexual practices with other men. In the years 1999-2003 (latest statistics available) AIDS continued to be the single greatest cause of death for men in San Francisco ages 25-54. Given those numbers, and given the behavior that goes on at the fair, one asks: why is the Folsom Street Fair allowed?

The reason is that a majority of San Francisco citizens would rather allow 19,000 people to die than to be thought "intolerant" or "prudish."

We urge all San Franciscans concerned about the common good, including our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters, to express their outrage to Mayor Newsom for his continued irresponsible actions.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Catholic Charities of San Francisco

...rotten at the core.

It hurts to say that (my mom was a five-day-a-week volunteer there for years in the 1990's) but I do not see how one can reach any other conclusion.

On Wednesday California Catholic Daily graciously published an article we wrote, detailing how the organization had become a vehicle for homosexual activism.

Today they have an article about the honoree at tomorrow night's Catholic Charities "Loaves and Fishes" dinner. The honoree is one of the most active financial supporters of the "Culture of Death" in the state of California.

Below is the text of a letter that was sent by email on April 4, and by regular mail on April 7 to Archbishop George Niederauer, Bishop Ignatius Wang and 105 priests in the Archdiocese of San Francisco:


Excellencies, Fathers:

On April 11, 2008 Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco will hold its annual “Loaves and Fishes” Fundraising Dinner at the Westin St. Francis Hotel on Union Square. The honoree for “Outstanding Philanthropic Works” will be George M. Marcus. This is an outrage.

On August 16, 2004, Mr. Marcus gave $50,000 to the “Yes on 71” campaign, which authorized $3.5 billion in taxpayer funded Embryonic Stem-Cell Research. This was unrelentingly opposed by the California Conference of Catholic Bishops. Opposition to ESCR is a non-negotiable Catholic issue.

On October 6, 2005, Mr. Marcus gave $25,000 to the “No on Proposition 73 Campaign for Teen Safety.” Proposition 73 was a Parental Notification Initiative that would have required an underage girl to notify her parents before having an abortion. This was very strongly supported by the California Conference of Catholic Bishops.

On September 26, 2006, Mr. Marcus gave $25,000 to the “No on 85” campaign. Proposition 85 was another parental notification initiative.

On October 10, 2006, Mr. Marcus gave an additional $75,000 to the “No on 85” campaign.

On May 29, 2007, Mr. Marcus gave $3,600 to the “Mark Leno for Senate” campaign. Reminder: every year, Assemblyman Leno sponsors legislation to overturn Prop. 22 and legalize same-sex “marriage” in California. The defense of natural marriage is another non-negotiable Catholic issue.

Excellencies, Fathers, this information comes directly from the website of the California Secretary of State’s “Campaign Finance” page.

I remind you of the June, 2004 statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Excellencies, Fathers, your parishioners gathered signatures, often in the face of ridicule and hostility, to fight for the Church’s position on these issues. Your parishioners and flock contributed their hard-earned money to support the Church’s position on these issues. Excellencies, you yourselves, and the priests you lead, preached the Church’s position on these issues.

I entreat and urge each and every one of you in the strongest possible terms to either insist on another honoree or to refuse to attend this function.

Your son in Christ,

Gibbons J. Cooney
San Francisco

Documentation of each of the above donations can be found by going here. Scroll to the entry for April 11.

Posted by Gibbons

Most Holy Redeemer Update

Sorry about the obscenity, but this story must be told.

The "Inter-Club Fund" held its annual Awards Dinner at Ellard Hall in Most Holy Redeemer Church last Saturday, February 16. They have held their awards dinners at MHR in the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, & 2008.

The photo below is of one of the "Alameda County Leather Corps 'Monks'" at the "Golden Gate Guards 2000 "Run." Both groups are members of the "Inter-Club Fund."

For photos of these awards dinners, go here first, then here to see 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007.

It is unbelievable that such an organization would be allowed to hold its events in the hall of a Catholic Church.

The "Inter-Club Fund" is an organzation made up of seven member clubs:

The Alameda County Leather Corps, and here. One of their "monks" is shown in the picture above.

Bears of San Francisco, and here.

The Defenders (an Affiliate of "Dignity USA" who call themselves a "Catholic leather club.")

Dykes on Bikes

The Golden Gate Guards, go here first, then here and here. The picture above was taken at their 2000 "run."

The Phoenix Uniform Club, and here.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, go here first, then here and here.

Did the Archdiocese know about this event? If not, why not?

The MHR/Inter-Club Fund relationship has been known for a long time. The February 16, 2008 Awards Dinner has been publicized for months.

If they did know about it, why did they let it happen?

At many of the previous "Inter-Club Fund" Awards dinners, Assemblyman Mark Leno was in attendance. Not sure if he was there on Saturday. Mark Leno annualy sponsors legislation to legalize same-sex "marriage" in California. That's a "non-negotiable" issuse for Catholics. At MHR its probably "non-negotiable" too. From the other side.

Posted by Gibbons

Catholics Must Oppose SB 48

Below is a letter from Bill May, Chairman of Catholics for the Common Good to members of the California state Senate on Senate Bill SB 48.

We had commented on SB 48 back in February, in the post "The Costs of Propaganda: SB 48 Ignores Real Significance of LGBT Movement."

April 4, 2011


RE: SB 48 (Leno) Instruction: prohibition of discriminatory content

The Honorable Noreen Evans, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 2187
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Senator Evans, Catholics for the Common Good opposes SB 48. While it is laudable to fight discrimination, SB 48 is unnecessary and will be counterproductive.

Problems regarding LGBT bullying are not going to be solved by cosmetically sexualizing social studies in California K-12 schools by drawing attention to a person’s sexual orientation or life-style. Inserting “heterosexual” along with “gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender” in the bill will help demonstrate how inappropriate assignments of sexuality are in the course of teaching the contributions of people in history.

Sexuality is common to every human person. Sexuality and related lifestyles are only a small part of a person, and children must be taught that they do not have any bearing on the intrinsic dignity of the person. Requiring a focus on the sexuality of the person in text books and curricula could actually have the opposite effect than that intended as it reduces the person to an identity when in reality he or she is so much more.

It is the intrinsic value of the person that is the foundation of human rights and is the requirement for respect regardless of ability, physical characteristics, age, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or cultural background, etc.

That fact that LGBT persons have faced and continue to face unjust discrimination is an important fact that must be taught and not forgotten, but this bill will not affect that.

Prohibition of discrimination in curriculum content and school activities is already protected in both the educational and criminal codes. This bill does nothing to augment that. However, the language of SB 48 is so vague, and subject to such broad interpretation, that it can only lead to confusion, conflict, and the potential for complaints and litigation at the state and school district levels. We do not need more conflict in schools but more focus on the respect and the dignity of all persons, and on the primary job of education, which is to contribute to the development and flourishing of each and every child that they might reach their full potential as productive members of society.

We urge you vote no on this bill.

Sincerely

William B. May

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Mark Leno, Author

More Anti-Family Legislation: AB 1349 to Redefine Fatherhood

AB 1349, the third of an unholy trinity of bills introduced or co-sponsored by California anti-family homosexual activists is now before the state senate. The three bills are SB 48, AB 499, and AB 1349. All three bills are opposed by the California Catholic Bishops.

SB 48, co-sponsored by Equality California and by openly homosexual State Senator Mark Leno (D-SF) will change K-12 textbooks to reflect “historical information about the gay rights movement.” In a December 13, 2010 Equality California press release Senator Leno was quoted "Most textbooks don't include any historical information about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history.” Even the liberal Los Angeles Times is opposed to SB 48, on the grounds that “Politicians should not be in the business of writing textbooks.”

A second bill is AB 499, introduced by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-SD). Ms. Atkins is a same-sex "married" open homosexual. AB 499 would allow children 12 years and older to be vaccinated for contagious and specifically venereal diseases without the consent of their parents.

The third bill is AB 1349, introduced by Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), and co-sponsored by Equality California. Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good, writes:

“AB 1349 is a bill that is intended to redefine fatherhood for children born to unmarried mothers. It undermines the entire notion of natural parenthood. It also undermines the rights of fathers and the internationally recognized right of every child to know and, as far as possible, be cared for by his or her biological mother and father … When a child is born to an unmarried mother, biological fathers are currently encouraged to file a declaration of paternity, which the State Department of Child Support Services indicates helps children ‘gain the same rights and privileges of a child born within a marriage. Some of those rights include: financial support from both parents, access to important family medical records, access to the non-custodial parent's medical benefits, and the emotional benefit of knowing who both parents are.’

AB 1349 is in direct conflict with the goods intended by voluntary paternity declarations. The legislature should carefully consider this and the other wide-ranging and unintended consequences of this bill.

This bill provides mothers with inordinate power for depriving a child of a relationship with his or her father by controlling access to the child and laying the groundwork for having a voluntary declaration of paternity set aside using the criteria included in the bill. It is wrong to give any one person so much power in a proceeding that is adjudicating the rights of both parents and the child.

This bill would provide that a voluntary declaration of paternity is invalid if, at the time the declaration was signed, the child already had a presumed parent, as specified, or if the man signing the declaration is a sperm donor.”

There is, however, a stipulation in AB 1349 which protects the “rights” of sperm donors who specifically intend through this unnatural means to beget children. Sacramento’s Around the Capitol analysis of the bill says "This bill would enable a sperm donor to be treated as a natural father if it is agreed to in writing signed by the donor and the woman prior to the conception of the child." This cut-out would seem to be designed for male homosexuals. It is pretty well attested that normal men actually enjoy the traditional way of creating children—only homosexual men or an extraordinarily small number of heterosexual men would resort to sperm donation.

The genesis of AB 1349 may be in the Quale/Smith case of 2009. A brief history: Kim Smith and Maggie Quale were two Santa Cruz lesbian women who decided they wanted to have children. A man named Shawn Wallace was used as a sperm donor to impregnate Ms. Quale. She became a mother; he became a father. Ms. Quale gave birth to twins. Six months later Ms. Quale and Ms. Smith broke up. Ms. Quale then began a romantic relationship with the father, Mr. Wallace. Ms. Quale then limited contact between Ms. Smith and the children. Ms. Smith then filed an action against Ms. Quale. On February 1, 2010, the Advocate online newspaper reported: “Representing Smith, Deborah Wald of the National Center for Lesbian Rights calls the case ‘a very dangerous precedent for lesbian couples having children with the assistance of known sperm donors’ if custody is not awarded to Smith.” Eventually, the two women arrived at a settlement that acknowledged the rights of both as “parents” to the children.

All three bills are part of an ongoing campaign to undercut the natural family, its authority, and its definition. For the “equality” sought by homosexual activists to be successfully imposed on society, radical redefinitions of the family, of motherhood, and of fatherhood are required. AB 1349 does that. The embracing of unhealthy sexuality requires children to be freed from the healthy effect of their parent’s wisdom. AB 499 does that. Finally, a program of indoctrination will be necessary in schools. SB 48 does that.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF Democrat: Government will Decide What is Family

Jennifer Roback Morse has an excellent essay on Mark Leno's (D-SF) insane Senate Bill 1436. SB 1436 would allow three (or more) adults to have a legal claim to being a child's parent. SB 1436 is now on Governor Brown's desk, awaiting his signature or veto.

"Can a child have three parents? If California State Senator Mark Leno has his way, children in California will be able to have three legal parents. Before we dismiss SB 1476 as another example of California Weird, we had best look into it more closely. After all, the bill has passed both houses of the California Assembly and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature or veto.

I believe this development was inevitable, more inevitable in fact than the much-vaunted inevitability of gay marriage. Once we started trying to normalize parenting by same-sex couples and redefine marriage to remove the dual-gender requirement, we had to end up with triple-parenting.

A deeper look at the whole picture surrounding SB 1476 reveals that not only should the three-parent law fail, same-sex “marriage” should fail as well. As we will see, embedded in this bill is an appalling power-grab by the state, and a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts by the bill’s authors."

We have spoken before of the totalitarian nature of the move to redefine marriage. Because it is the attempted redefinition of nature, the enshrinement of a lie, it cannot allow truth to stand. Redefining marriage requires redefining the family--and that is exactly what is happening. We hope our fellow citizens in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, who will vote on whether or not to recognize counterfeit "marriage" in November, are watching.

Once again, we will add a clip from the 2008 "Marriage Matters to Kids" video. This clip, the final portion of the video, features especially chilling and prophetic observations. It is called "What is the Danger of Redefining Marriage?"

Posted by Gibbons

Catholics Charities: Reflections.

Last week, we had an article published in “California Catholic Daily” documenting how Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco had become, to a significant extent, a homosexual activist organization. We showed how Church teaching on ministry to “transgender” and same-sex attracted persons had been corrupted and undercut by the actions of CCCYO, which had been allowed to by the Archdiocese. But the events of this past week speak more loudly than any words. They show how the corruption at CCCYO continues to infect the larger Catholic community.

A brief recap of the corruption at CCCYO:

In 1997 CCCYO recognizes the same-sex “partnerships” of its employees as equal to natural marriage;
In 2000, CCCYO starts facilitating homosexual adoptions;
In 2006-2007, CCCYO staffs “Family Builders By Adoption,” (“the gayest adoption agency in the country”) who are in the business of facilitating homosexual and transgender adoptions;
In 2007, CCCYO has a transvestite “same-sex marriage” activist entertain at one of their fundraisers;

2008: In their major yearly “Loaves and Fishes” fundraiser held on April 11, 2008 CCCYO chose to honor Mr. George M. Marcus for “Outstanding Philanthropic Works” and Levi Strauss, Inc. for “Outstanding Corporate Philanthropy.” Mr. Marcus has given at least $175,000 to initiatives that further the culture of death—all of which were utterly opposed by the Catholic Church. The Levi Strauss Foundation has given well over $1,000,000 to institutions that directly support and provide abortion and contraception. Both Marcus and the Levi Strauss Foundation have also funded politicians and organizations that are major actors in the promotion of the homosexual agenda.

Now, somebody chose these honorees. Who? Did CCCYO know of these donations? If not, why not? They are public knowledge. We think CCCYO must have known. We point out that the Treasurer of CCCYO also sits on the Audit Committee of the homosexual activist “Horizons Foundation.” The Horizons Foundation has received funding from the Levi Strauss Foundation, and one of the members of the Horizons Foundation Advisory Board, Assemblyman Mark Leno, received a campaign donation of $3,600 in 2007 from Mr. Marcus.

Did Archbishop George Niederauer know of these affiliations? The charitable thing would be to say he did not, and was caught unawares, but even if that were true originally, it quickly became irrelevant. For he certainly did know by April 4, because that’s when we informed him by email. Just to be sure, on April 7, we sent the information via US mail. And the California Catholic Daily ran the story on April 10, so it was well known throughout the Catholic blogosphere by that afternoon. Yet the Archbishop not only allowed the event to proceed as scheduled, he even attended. He was begged not to attend, but he chose to do so. His mere presence at the event gave Archdiocesan approval to the honoring of Marcus and the Levi Strauss Foundation.

The same letter that was emailed/mailed to the Archbishop was emailed and mailed, on the same dates, to 107 priests throughout the Archdiocese. Every one of those priests had a detailed description of Mr. Marcus’s donations, including the source that could easily be verified.

So the Archbishop and the priests of the archdiocese were armed with this information before the April 11 event occurred, and as we headed into the weekend of April 12-13. And what happened on April 12-13? That weekend, at every Mass in every parish of the Archdiocese, the annual special collection for Catholic Charities took place. We don’t know if any pastor said: “We can’t ask our parishioners to give money to this group. They are honoring those who heavily fund positions and organizations that are utterly opposed by the Church.” Without the leadership of the Archbishop it is hard to imagine such a thing happening—and because of his presence at “Loaves and Fishes” the Archbishop was leading in the opposite direction, anyway.

Catholic Charities has corrupted Archbishop Niederauer (assuming he does not agree with their activities). But by allowing the second collections for Catholic Charities, the Archbishop has in his turn, implicated the pastors who are required to ask for these contributions. By holding the second collections in their parishes, the pastors are, at the very least, collecting money from their flocks under dubious pretences. How many Catholics in the Archdiocese were even aware of the outrage at the "Loaves and Fishes" dinner? But the Archbishops and the 107 priests were aware of it.

It is important to remember that the amounts collected at the second collections are relatively insignificant. In fiscal year 2006-07 Catholic Charities received 62% of its total operating revenues ($20,525,272 of $33, 022,786) in the form of government contract revenue. The amount gathered by all CCCYO “appeals” put together would only amount to 1.9% of total operating revenues—and the money from special collections is only a small portion of that 1.9%. I’d guess that the 2007 special collection for CCCYO didn’t top $100,000—that’s less than 1/3 of 1% of the organization’s total operating revenues. So why do they even bother?

They bother because what they get is the image of faithful Catholicism. As we have shown, they are anything but. The continued association of the Archdiocese and CCCYO is scandalous.

Posted by Gibbons

California Catholic Bishops Express Oppositon to SB 48

But their opposition seems a little tepid to me. For instance, I've heard of nothing being sent from bishops to pastors, instructing them to encourage parishioners to call their representatives.

From today's Catholic San Francisco:

"The California Catholic Conference is opposing a state bill that would require social studies texts to specifically include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The bill would also prohibit the state Board of Education from adopting instructional materials that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill, SB 48, is 'unnecessary and overly intrusive' conference Executive Director Ned Dolejsi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee April 5. Teaching acceptance and tolerance is laudable but 'making the characteristic of an historical actor preeminent in the study of her or his accomplishment, contribution and/or historical significance potentially diminishes the individual and the subject matter being taught,' the conference said in a letter to the committee."

The article also quoted from the press release of Senator Mark Leno (D-SF), author of the bill:

"Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history. Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can’t simultaneously tell youth that it’s OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren’t even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement.”

We responded to that argument in a post on SB 48 back in February: "While individual same-sex attracted individuals have certainly contributed to the good of society, it is undeniable that the 'great significance to both California and U.S. history' of the LGBT movement in 'contemporary society' has been the ongoing attempt at the destruction of marriage and the near self-extermination of male homosexuals through the AIDS epidemic."

We could add the role that the "LGBT movement" has played in the eradication of sexual modesty. The LGBT movement is not solely resposible for this, of course, but they bear their share of responsibility--certainly in San Francisco. Example: these two guys are in San Francisco's 2008 "Pride" parade--right in the center of the city:

Sorry if anyone is offended, but that is reality. For a very forthright bit of church teaching on the issue of same-sex attractedness, see this article about Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Milk Day

Mark Leno, San Francisco’s gift to our State Assembly, announced that he plans to introduce a measure that would establish Harvey Milk’s birthday, May 22, as a non-fiscal state holiday.

So In addition to Columbus, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez Days, California next year may have another holiday – Harvey Milk Day. What a model for our California youth!

It is meant to honor the first homosexual activist who held an important position with political power, when elected in 1977, as a supervisor in San Francisco.

It will certainly promote homosexuality, always under the guise of tolerance and understanding--this travesty of morality and good family living!

Lenten practice suggestion: Let Sacramento know you are not interested in that memorial day.

Legislation to Alienate Children from Parents Introduced by Same-Sex "Married" Assemblywoman

In California, there is an ongoing legislative war against the family. It is being led by openly homosexual legislators.

Four times this year we have reported on SB 48, a bill that would change California textbooks and curriculum to bring the sexuality of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people to the attention of all students K-12 in social studies classes. Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good noted that the bill was so bad even the Los Angeles Times editorialized agains it. The bill was authored by openly homosexual state Senator Mark Leno.

Mr. May also notes that SB 48 "...replaces the word 'sex' with 'gender'. This is significant considering that word 'gender' in the Education code is being redefined in AB 887, a bill sponsored by Equality California and authored by gay rights advocate Assemblywoman Toni Atkins of San Diego. In that bill 'gender' is defined as 'sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression. ‘Gender expression’ means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.'”

Today, California Catholic Daily reported on Assembly Bill 499, also introduced by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins. Ms. Atkins is a same-sex "married" open homosexual. AB 499 would allow children 12 years and older to be vaccinated for contagious and specifically venereal diseases without the consent of their parents.

On June 24, the California Catholic Bishops sent out an action alert: “The bill would allow children aged 12-18, access to the HPV vaccine Gardasil without their parents’ knowledge or permission,” said the bishops. The bill is an unfortunate -- but not unforeseen – continuation of California’s trend to diminish parental rights and give teenagers ‘permission’ to keep secrets from their parents.”

The bishops also said "Urging young teens to engage in behavior that is designed to be kept hidden from their parents may cause irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship to say nothing of the exposing children to physical danger from an adverse reaction to the vaccine itself."

We (and certainly not only we) have noted the totalitarianism inherent in the homosexual activist movement. Like all totalitarianism, it is based on alienation from the natural world. They try to make the alienation the reality by forcing others, including our children, to share it.

The Bishops' webpage allows you the opportunity to express your opposition to AB 499.

Thank You

Thanks, Governor, for your veto on Leno's bill.

Courts should enforce, not make laws.

Same-sex marriage is still under attack, but thank God for this victory.

Thanks to the Governor, not the legislature: the will of the people still counts in California.

Walk For Life: "You can avoid the truth, but you can't avoid the traffic!"

A shorter version of this article appeared in today's California Catholic Daily.

Apostolic Nuncio, 50,000+ Pro-Lifers at SF’s Walk For Life West Coast
“You can avoid the truth, but you can’t avoid the traffic!”

On Saturday, January 26, more than 50,000 pro-lifers overflowed San Francisco’s Civic Center and Market Street for the Ninth Annual Walk for Life West Coast. Pope Benedict XVI’s representative to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano delivered a message from the pope along with his papal blessing. Pope Benedict’s message, which was also sent out on a Vatican Twitter feed, said, His Holiness “is grateful to all those who take part in this outstanding public witness to the fundamental human right to life and the moral imperative of upholding the inviolable dignity of each member of our human family, especially the smallest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters.”

“You are a powerful witness that God’s truth cannot be silenced,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, who blessed participants to begin the event. “Yes, we are here to stay because life is good and life is holy.”

The speakers at the Walk included Lacey Buchanan, the mother of a disabled child; Elaine Riddick, who was forcibly sterilized by the state of North Carolina at age 14; Kelly and Matthew Clinger who regret their abortions; and the Rev. Clenard Childress, Jr., who has spoken at nearly every walk since its founding in 2005.

The rally closed with an impassioned speech by Reverend Childress, Director of L.E.A.R.N. and one of the country’s leading crusaders against (especially) the holocaust of African-American babies slaughtered by abortion. Rev. Childress shared the story of St. Telemachus, a fifth century monk, who attempted to stop a gladiatorial combat in a Roman Colliseum. Telemachus was stoned to death by the crowd, but his example moved the Emperor Honorius to put an end such contests--permanently. Three times Childress quoted the Saint: “The killing must end!”

“Truth is rising up and you are the picture of that truth,” said Rev. Childress to loud cheers. “We will not draw back until every child is free.”

As always there were small counter-protests. A 10:00 AM counter-rally held at Justin Herman Plaza, drew “more than 300” pro-abortion demonstrators, according to ABC. The rally featured San Francisco Supervisors Eric Mar, David Chiu, and David Campos, as well as state Senator Mark Leno, and free-contraception advocate Sandra Fluke. According to the Bay Guardian, Magalie Bonneau-Marcil, director of Oakland nonprofit Dancing without Borders, was to attend the opposition rally with a “flash mob” and expected “… between 400 and 500 dancers to descend upon the plaza.” That apparently did not happen.

By all accounts the rally and Walk were the largest in the event’s history. ABC TV gave a figure of more than 40,000; Walk organizers would only give an estimate of “more than 50,000.” An observer at the corner of Kearny and Market Street, about halfway down the Walk’s route, said that walkers took 50 minutes to pass. That squares with ABC accounts that it took “the better part of an hour” for pro-lifers to empty Civic Center Plaza and enter Market Street. Confirmation of the Walk’s magnitude came from unusual sources.

Commenting on the media’s downplaying of the Walk, co-founder Eva Muntean said: “We got some decent coverage from our local ABC affiliate. The San Francisco Chronicle’s and KTVU television coverage attempted to ‘balance’ the two events. While that appears to show objectivity, it doesn’t really, because it ignores the difference in magnitude. It’s like giving equal time to kids playing a pickup game and the Super Bowl, just because they’re both football games. When the media does not report on an event the size of the Walk for Life West Coast they are objectively not doing their job, with consequences for the citizens. We saw a post yesterday on an online message board from a man who was complaining about being stuck in traffic because of the Walk. He said he had not known about the Walk, and that he was ‘shocked’ at the number of people in attendance, and that he was stuck in traffic for two hours. Well, why didn’t he know? Why was he ‘shocked’? Every year the Walk For Life West Coast is here. We are one of the largest annual events in San Francisco. And every year we hear the same thing—these are actual quotes: ‘I’m shocked’, ‘I ran into this absolutely enormous anti-abortion march,’ and ‘I never heard of this!’ That’s the media failing their responsibility.”

Co-founder Dolores Meehan added “You can avoid the truth, but you can’t avoid the traffic!”

Broke California Commits $68 Billion to "High Speed Rail"

Jerry Brown, Mark Leno, and their minions get their wish. The project had met major opposition due to the calamitous state of California's finances, but Brown tied funding of local transit to the enormous expenditure.

From the Associated Press:

"California lawmakers approved billions of dollars Friday in construction financing for the first segment of what would be the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line, eventually connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The state Senate voted 21-16 on a party-line vote after intense lobbying by Gov. Jerry Brown, Democratic leaders and labor groups.

The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $2.6 billion in voter-approved bonds to build an initial 130-miles stretch in the Central Valley. That would allow the state to collect about $3.2 billion in federal funding that could have been rescinded if lawmakers failed to act Friday.

Critics call the bullet train a boondoggle, but supporters hailed the vote as the start of a much-needed infrastructure project. The bill also includes about $1.9 billion in funds for local rail projects.

The bill, which passed the state Assembly, now heads to the governor. The final cost of the completed project from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be $68 billion."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney