Houston Overwhelmingly Votes to Repeal ‘Bathroom Bill’

RestroomHOUSTON, Texas — Residents in Houston, Texas voted overwhelmingly Tuesday night to repeal the city’s controversial homosexual and transgender equality ordinance, also known by opponents as the “bathroom bill.”

As previously reported, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an open lesbian, had promoted an “Equal Rights Ordinance” in 2014 designed to quell any discrimination in America’s fourth largest city—including any discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” Most opponents were especially concerned about the “Public Accommodations” section of the ordinance, which would allow men to use women’s restrooms, and vice versa, if they identity with the opposite sex.

“It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to intentionally deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity,” the ordinance states.

The only stipulation, according to the ordinance, was that people who use the opposite sex’s facilities must dress, behave, and clothe themselves in a way that is “consistent with the gender designation of the facility the person attempt[s] to access.”

Last June, Houston City Council passed the bill, resulting in the creation of an initiative signed by area residents who requested that either City Council repeal the ordinance or that it place the matter on the ballot for voters to decide.

The matter soon turned into a lawsuit against Gov. Parker, which generated national attention after attorneys for the City of Houston subpoenaed several area pastors not a party to the lawsuit, and issued discovery requests demanding “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the ordinance], the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity…”

In August, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Houston officials must either repeal the city’s “Bathroom Bill” or place it on the November ballot for a vote. Officials opted for the latter.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Tuesday, voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal the bill, defeating it 61 to 39 percent.

“I fear that this will have stained Houston’s reputation as a tolerant, welcoming, global city,” Parker said last night after the results were released. “I absolutely fear that there will be a direct economic backlash as a result of this ordinance going into defeat and that’s sad for Houston.”

But Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick, who opposed the ordinance, expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

“The voters clearly understand that this proposition was never about equality—that is already the law,” he stated. “It was about allowing men to enter women’s restrooms and locker rooms, defying common sense and common decency.”

“[The vote] was about protecting our grandmoms and our mothers and our wives and our sisters and our daughters and our granddaughters,” Patrick continued. “I’m glad Houston led tonight to end this constant political-correctness attack on what we know in our heart and our gut as Americans is not right.”

Some opine that city council might decide to revisit the issue at a later time and present an altered version of the ordinance for consideration.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Emmanuel

    Way to go Houston.

  • Jean Adams

    So any male rapist could have dressed as a woman and had access to a female toilet. Thank goodness Houston saw sense. If the law had gone through it would have driven tourists/business away not vice versa. Why are people in the minority getting their rights and people in the majority being denied theirs?

    • Michael C

      “So any male rapist could have dressed as a woman and had access to a female toilet.”

      No. That would have still been a crime.

      …and do you really think that a person who would commit a rape cares whether or not it is legal for them to enter the women’s restroom?

      • afchief

        Let’s institute this policy at 0liar’s daughter’s school.

      • Wayne Snell

        It wouldn’t arouse suspicion if a man dressed as a woman entered the woman’s bathroom if it was legal. Whether it is legal or not, he would get his brains beat out if he went in after my wife entered.

        • Michael C

          …but you’d be perfectly comfortable if that same person walked into the men’s restroom behind your young son?

          • Wayne Snell

            Yeah, because I would be IN the men’s bathroom with my young son with a 9mm in my holster.

    • gizmo23

      So how would this law stop a rapist? You don’t think someone now could dress like a female and go in ?

    • JGC

      “So any male rapist could have dressed as a woman and had access to a female toilet.”

      At any time, yes, whether this law were in place or not. Did you have a point?

      “Why are people in the minority getting their rights and people in the majority being denied theirs?”
      What right is being denied those “people in the majority”, jean? Be specific.

    • WGB

      I agree 100%. I am a Christian minority who supports the majority on this issue. Dan Patrick said everything I thought and I pray that more leaders will stand up for righteousness in Jesus’ name.

    • Nofun

      Where has this happened ever?

  • Faithwalker

    An overwhelming majority voted with common sense, thank God!

    • Nofun

      Silly bigots over concerned about toilets.

  • The Last Trump

    Houston, we no longer have a problem.
    Common sense to the rescue. For now…

  • Rebecca

    If you were born male, use the men’s bathroom.
    If you were born female, use the women’s bathroom.
    It doesn’t matter what sex you “feel” you are. You were born what you are. Learn to accept that and quit being intolerant of it.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Why?

      • afchief

        Because that’t the way God made you…..that’s why!!!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay, but neither law nor medicine, nor psychology is interested in what the Bible. Do you have an answer that doesn’t fall back on the Bible?

          • JGC

            afcheif doesn’t have a thought that doesn’t fall back on the bible

          • afchief

            As a Christian the word of God is the FIRST thing I fall back on!!!

            that which is known about God is evident ]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            God’s law is evident within you. You know the truth. You just suppress it with lies.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How about we stay on topic, hm? Do you have any evidence for your claims that doesn’t come from the Bible?

          • afchief

            The bible IS truth, but since you who have NO understanding of what chromosomes are, let me help that little liberal cranium. Let me be blunt! There is no such thing as a “transgender” person, just mutilated males and females.

            There are roughly 50-100 trillion somatic cells in the human body (estimates vary widely), and each cell “knows” whether the person is male or female, regardless of plumbing. The plumbing operation has absolutely no impact on the DNA structure of the somatic cells. The hormone treatments also have no impact on somatic nuclear structure. The clothes a person wears also has no impact on the DNA that determines gender.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, we’ll the American Psychological Association disagrees with you, so what is your evidence for this world-shattering revelation?

          • afchief

            Let me get this straight! You are telling me that the APA is saying chromosomes can be changed? Is that what you are saying?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the APA 1) acknowledges that transgender individuals exist and 2) believes that regardless of your body chemistry, a male-to-female transgender is, in all aspects that matter, a female.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! The inmates are running the asylum!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why is it that whenever I point out a fact to you that you’re unequipped to respond to, you resort to insults and name-calling?

          • afchief

            Because liberals cannot use their craniums to think rationally and logically. I see ALL the time!!!!

            November 7, 2015

            There Is No Such Thing as ‘Transgendered’

            By Tom Trinko

            Conservatives win when people have the truth, because modern liberal causes are always built on lies.

            When conservatives buy into the lie, we lose. For example, gay marriage is culturally accepted, in part, because for 30 years conservatives have been unwilling, out of misplaced sympathy, to correctly describe the gay lifestyle.

            Sexually active gays are essentially never monogamous, die young due to diseases they get from their promiscuous lifestyle, are depressed and despondent, are likely to use drugs, and are fixated on sex, not love. Being a sexually active gay is worse for one’s health than being a smoker.

            Yet conservatives generally haven’t objected to the lie that gays are just like heterosexuals. But once one agrees to that, it’s really hard to explain to low-information voters why gays don’t make great parents and shouldn’t be allowed to marry. On the other hand, conservatives have been constantly pointing out the lies of the climate alarmists, and as a result, the average American couldn’t care less about climate change. Given the truth, the vast majority of people will pick the conservative position most of the time.

            The latest round in liberals’ assault on Judeo-Christian morality is their demented desire to normalize insanity – namely that one’s sex is merely a matter of what one wants it to be. As usual, their position is based on the totally false claim that a person’s sex is not biological, but psychological.

            Christians, whom liberals constantly label as “anti-science,” have no problem realizing that DNA defines our biological identity but not who we are. Yet modern liberals reject settled science and claim that someone with a woman’s DNA can really be biologically male.

            The reality is that the only time a man is trapped in a woman’s body is before he’s born. Similarly, a man can no more will himself to be a woman than he can will himself to be Napoleon – a side-effect of this thing called reality.

            Now, men and women can suffer from gender identity confusion, but while we should strive to help those who think they’re something they’re not, the right way to do so is not to enable their delusions. If an Elvis impersonator suddenly declared that he was Elvis, no sane person would think that the loving response would be to start calling him The King.

            Showing true love to people who identify as transgendered is helping them love who they really are, not telling them that they have to change because they’re not good as they are.

            Sadly, there are signs that some conservatives are buying into the liberals’ false narrative. You might have seen conservative sites that said that the Houston “anti-discrimination” law didn’t pass. This is a bit of terminology that buys into the transgender lie. Letting biological men who simply say they think they’re women into women’s restrooms is not anti-discrimination; it’s pro-discrimination against women. Does the phrase “sexual harassment” ring a bell?

            Similarly, conservatives use the term LGBT as though it were a valid description of biological diversity rather than a purely psychological construct, developed by psychiatrists who tend to self-identify as members of the LGBT “community.”

            Like all other groups, the “transgendered” are viewed by liberals in terms of how they can be used to further the expansion of liberal power and control. If liberals really cared about the “transgendered,” they’d be helping those suffering from gender identity confusion accept who they truly are. Instead, liberals support the “transgender” cause because it’s a direct repudiation of the Judeo-Christian view that men are not gods and that men and women have a biological identity they can’t change. Additionally, by supporting the “transgender” cause, liberals attack the Judeo-Christian view that sex is about more than recreation and is intended to be between a man and a woman.

            Some conservatives feel bad about condemning the “transgender” lifestyle because they think that’s not compassionate. That’s a result of another liberal lie: the lie that saying that a person’s lifestyle isn’t good for him is an attack on the person. Liberals clearly don’t believe that, since they have no problem attacking smokers’ and overweight people’s lifestyles. However, it’s a convenient bit of intellectual octopus ink to muddy the waters and deflect the train of thought of people who aren’t very analytical.

            The reality is that it’s not cruel or unloving to point out the reality of the “transgendered” any more than it’s uncaring to describe the disaster that is the gay lifestyle. What kind person would purposely lie to a smoker about the health consequences of smoking? Yet if we lie about what being “transgendered” or gay really means, we’re lying to people confused about their sexuality about the consequences of their choices.

            Even worse, by buying into the “transgender” lie, we’re directly supporting discrimination against sane people. When a man wants to be in a women’s locker room because he claims he thinks he’s a woman, one of two things is true:

            • He’s lying, because he’s a pervert who’s pretending. This may be more common among teens than one might think, since saying one identifies as a woman does not require one to dress or act like a woman, much less mutilate oneself.

            • He actually thinks he’s something he’s not, which means he’s not really mentally stable.

            In the former case, supporting the “transgender” cause is synonymous with supporting sexual harassment. It’s amazing that the same women who decry “micro-aggressions” by men and who say that a woman can decide days after having sex with a man that she was raped believe that making a teenage girl shower with a boy is just fine.

            In the latter case, allowing a testosterone-powered boy to compete with women in sports is unfair to women. Additionally, many young girls will be emotionally disturbed by the fact that even though this guy claims to be a gal, it’s visually obvious that he isn’t when he looks at them in the shower.

            While liberals claim to worship at the altar of the nonexistent “privacy” clause found in the penumbra of the emanations of the Constitution, in this context, they appear to believe that young women have no right to privacy at all – unless, of course, they want to kill their unborn daughters.

            Once one strips away the liberal lies, the reality is that to properly live the love and compassion that comes so naturally to most Americans, one should not follow unscientific and disproven liberal dogma that one can changes one’s sex merely by willing it. Rather, one should help people suffering from delusions about what they are to become comfortable with reality.

            Once we get voters in general to realize that just as the most loving thing to do for a smoker is tell him that smoking is bad, the most loving thing to do for the “transgendered” is to point out that they can never become the other sex and that they are wonderful just the way they are. Then we’ll be able to block liberals’ attempts to force acceptance of the “transgendered” on Americans.

          • John N

            Afchief, please warn the medical sector to stop any organ transplantations!

            Before you know it, some doctor will give you a female kidney and you risk to turn partially female (or vice versa if you are female).

            >’The clothes a person wears also has no impact on the DNA that determines gender.’

            DNA (I guess you mean the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome) is only part of the story. Hormones – created and regulated by other genes – and brain development also plays a role in gender determination. But of course you already knew this, because it is in your bible, isn’t it?

          • afchief

            The word of God is SO true about homosexuality!!!

            Romans 1:18-28 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • John N

            So if science can’t save you, you fall back on the bible for arguments? Why starting with science in the first place?

            I guess saying something like ‘I believe that. ..’ or ‘My holy book says…’ wouldn’t be that convincing, maybe?

            By the way, you are mixing homosexuality with gender definition. Or do you mean our cells ‘know’ they are heterosexual?

          • afchief

            I just gave you evidence about chromosomes. They cannot be changed.

            Homosexuality is a sickness. It was classified as a mental disorder before 1974. There was no new medical evidence to declassify it. The APA was bought by homo lobbyists to change the classification. It still is a sickness. Any rational and logical mind knows this. A depraved and perverted mind does not. Using the “back door” as a sexual organ proves this.

            And NO, very few hetros participate in “back door” sex as homos like to lie about.

          • John N

            >’I just gave you evidence about chromosomes. They cannot be changed.’

            And your point is? Do you understand that cells actually ‘know’ nothing? That the presence of a Y-chromosome in somatic cells makes only a small difference? All the genes necessary for the somatic cell to function can be found on the X-chromosome.

            >’Homosexuality is a sickness.’

            No it isn’t. And the APA has change its idea about it when new scientific evidence came up. Or do you really believe that a small minority of homosexuals forced the APA to change their mind?

            >’Using the “back door” as a sexual organ proves this. And NO, very few hetros participate in “back door” sex as homos like to lie about.’

            I guess you have done a lot of investigation on this. Please publish your results soon.

            Meanwhile we accept the little research that is available from the Kinsey Institute, which says that around 10% of heterosexual couples engage in this kind of activity. Now that is a lot more than there are homosexuals …

            And since neither the Kinsey Institute nor myself are homosexual, neither of us have a reason to lie about it.

          • afchief

            Yes, you are a liberal and/or homosexual. Which makes you a liar!!! I see these same arguments from homosexuals ALL the time!!! They are lies!!!

            Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

            Posted by Tony Listi on October 1, 2007

            BY RYAN SORBA

            “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

            “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

            -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

            Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

            In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

            Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

            Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

            On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

            Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

            After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

            On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

            Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

            Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

            Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

            Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

            Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

            It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

            Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

            Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

            Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

            Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

            Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

            Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

            The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

            Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

            Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

            Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

            If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

            Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

          • John N

            Calling me a liar again, afchief? You really must be desparate because you have no rational argument to defend your case.

            And dumping texts from a well known homophobe and woman abuser will not help you either.

            Maybe if you could give us some actual evidence the APA changed its mind due to the pressure by homosexuals and not due to the overwhelming scientific evidence?

          • afchief

            Yes, I’m calling you a liar again! It is quite obvious!!!

            Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

            by PHIL HICKEY on OCTOBER 8, 2011

            According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

            Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

            The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

            Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

            Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

            So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

            The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

          • WGB

            Well said Chief. Ask them if they have an answer that doesn’t fall back on a book written by men/women or the opinions of men/women. I put my hope in God the Incorruptible One and His Word.

            Acts 5:29 It is better to obey God than man.

        • JGC

          Afcheif, your evidence that god exists would be what, exactly? be specific.
          After we establish god actually does exist we can consider whether of not god should or does determine which bathroom transgendered individuals should use.

          • afchief

            God has made it evident within you that He does exist. You just suppress it with lies and sin.

            that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            Romans 1:19-20

          • JGC

            Actually, no: god has not made it evident–for something that’s widely reported to be both omniscient and omnipotent, god seems singularly unable to communicate the fact of his/her existence to their creation. is an aphasic god still god?

          • afchief

            You are proof that the word of God is true!!!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

            Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

            A debased (reprobate) mind does see the truth. It is blinded by sin and lies.

            I promise, one day you will meet Him. I guarantee it!!!

  • afchief

    Homosexuality is a spiritual and mental disorder!!! We shouldn’t be considering forcing all the NORMAL people in the world to have to live by THEIR PERVERTED VIEW OF LIFE.

    • JGC

      By what rational argument does homosexuality represent a perversion, rather than simply being representative of normal variability within human sexual expression?

      • afchief

        The road to dehumanizing humans began long ago. The homosexual lobby and the left is merely one in a long line of lobbyist’s lobbying to change the nature of humanity to appease the masses who, after rejecting the truth of God, entered into fanatical worship of self. Read Romans 1.

        Man is becoming his own god now. Sex became and is, the only high calling of humanity. Sex, separated from procreation, love, and marriage has been THE opening of Pandora’s Box and the major reason humans are returning to a state of barbarism and devaluing humanity on a scale never known before in human history. Yes, Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

        • JGC

          I find it hard to see how treating everybody–male, female, straight, gay, cis- ore trans-gendered–with tolerance, acceptance and respect could be reassonably characterized as ‘dehumanizing’.

          To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “Dehumaniizing–you keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.”

          • afchief

            A society has to make a stand for morals. When it is anything goes, that society will so fall. Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. And homosexuality IS an immoral act.

          • John N

            >’One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it.’

            And of course you have investigated this throughly and have the evidence to back this up. And of course you can explain why homosexual people, estimated to be less than 10% of the population, could ever be a dominant force over it.

            What is for sure is that most of the civilizations that have come to pass – from Egyptians to recent European empires- were very religious, with a large majority of religious people having a driving and dominating force over it. How do you explain that?

          • afchief

            Read Judge Bork’s book titled “Slouching toward Gomorrah.” The judge was wrong, we’re running as fast as we can toward Gomorrah. It will lead to our destruction. All kinds of documentation in there.

            Not with Christianity!!! Proverbs 29:2 (NASB) 2 When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan.

          • John N

            Why would I read a book written by an conservative American lawyer to learn about history? Don’t you have real scientific sources at hand?

            And empires having christianity as state religion have existed and have fallen – see he Byzantine Empire – and not through homosexuals ‘becoming a driving, dominant force over it.’

          • afchief

            Go read about ancient Rome and Greece. Once they embraced homosexuality their culture and society soon fell.

            Christianity is at always at the vanguard of any group of people who want to bring down a nation. We represent Jesus. Satan hates our guts because he knows he loses in the end. But! That doesn’t mean he plans to be thrown into Hell all by his lonesome. And he most assuredly wants ALL Christians to feel his pain before he is defeated.

          • JGC

            Actually, Rome thrived during the periods when it’s populace embraced homosexuality and when it’s most perverse emperors ruled. It’s decline and fall (over a period of about 300 years) instead coincided with Christian emperors who forced their new religion on the Roman citizens, such as Emperor Constantine who implemented anti-religious laws banning the Roman people’s traditional beliefs which included laws against homosexuality.

          • afchief

            Why are you lying to me every time I post something. That you are living in a lie, shows your true character…..lying!!!

          • John N

            No they didn’t. Homosexuality has existed in every society, fallen or still existing. The Greek and Roman empires fell because of external and internal conflicts, some of which driven by religious causes.

            ‘Christiannity is always at the vanguard …’
            Correct. That is way Christians started the crusades, witch burnings, the inquisition, pogroms against jewish people, and now their attacks against equality for Lgtb-people. Some history to be proud of.

          • afchief

            I always know when i’m conversing with a liberal and/or a homosexual. They continuously lie!!! I have come to learn that when you are dealing with liberals, I have discovered that truth and reason do not enter into the equation. It is akin to dealing with hardened hearts to whom Truth is a category to be ignored, at all costs.

            You are evidence.

          • John N

            So when you are out of arguments, you start insulting people. Nice attitude. Typically for Christians?

            Show me where I lied and I will apologize.

            By the way, I’m neither a liberal nor a homosexual. So even your mind reading abilities are below zero.

          • JGC

            “One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it.”
            I’m unaware that any society ever existed where homosexuality represented a driving and dominant force, or where that was the root cause of that society’s downfall can you provide examples?

            “And homosexuality IS an immoral act.”
            By what rational argument should homosexuality be considered any less acceptable than heterosexuality?

          • JGC

            “And homosexuality IS an immoral act.”
            By what rational argument is exhibiting a homosexual orientation inherently any less moral than exhibiting a heterosexual orientation?

          • afchief

            As I have said several times you do not have eyes (spiritual) to see. It is a “sign of the times”!!! For thousands of years homosexuality was looked at as an immoral lifestyle. It was against the law is this country for a long time and as recent in the military until 0lawless came into office. So what has changed to view homosexuality any different today? We Christians know, but you who cannot see it. You see it as a cultural change. That we have evolved and become enlighten.

            Sorry, but that is the lie that you, the homosexual community and liberals believe. We Christians KNOW this has to happen. Jesus said it would before He returns.

            Your time on earth is short. If fact the bible compares this life to a vapor that exist momentarily compared to eternity. Don’t spend eternity wishing you were back on earth to change your life around. Because when you leave this earth, there are no second chances.

          • JGC

            At least attempt to craft a rational argument, afcheif.

          • WGB

            Well said. God bless you. I DO NOT argue with reprobate minds (anymore).

  • Matthew Newgarden

    When you accept that a person’s gender can be a purely psychological or social construct it will inexorably undermine the premise behind all existing sex based affirmative action laws and undermine the rationale for sex based civil rights laws.

    • JGC

      How does that follow? Surely you aren’t arguing that if we extend protections to males and females who are transgendered we can no longer extend those same protections to males and females who are not transgendered?

  • WGB

    Hooray for Houston!