Friday, September 12, 2008

The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning

I came across a brief article saying that the Minnesota Temple had been lit on fire by an arsonist. Something about this article peaked my interest:

Smoke and fire were reported in the front entry of [the] temple shortly before 3 a.m. Wednesday... authorities don't believe the case is a hate crime. (Emphasis added.)

Excuse me? How is it not a hate crime to light a church on fire? If you singled out a church as the object of your "burning passions" (pardon the expression), then you were trying to make a statement! I don't suppose it could have been any of those folks who are upset with the Church's current nationwide stance on gay marriage, could it? Of course not.

Now, if this were an exclusively Black church, there would be no doubt it was a hate crime. We must have too many White folks in the Church right now to afford that claim.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Stand And Be Counted

This afternoon, we all went out to a busy strip of road next to a high school just at the time that school let out, and parents were coming to get their kids, and also around the time people were just starting to come home from work. Last night, we made signs. We stood at this intersection for about 1 hour and 45 minutes.

We got a few "thumbs down," one guy who stopped and yelled unintelligible things from his car, and one crazy lady screaming "NOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOO!" at the top of her lungs, like we were about to about to commit infanticide or something. Funny about those Liberals, they poop their pants if you don't let gays get married, and they whoop and holler in favor of Obama, who actively supports baby murder.

On a brighter note, the large majority of responses were positive, from horns honked supportively, to comments, "thumbs up," and even a "Thank you!"

Overall, it was a great success.

We decided to do this on a whim, because we know that this time we're playing for keeps. All of us, quiet, keep-it-to-ourselves, Conservatives have to stand up now, and be counted. We need to let the world know that we will not let radicals and activists destroy our society. We also realized that many people don't know anything about the propositions that they will be asked to vote on in November. We wanted to make sure that those people were made aware of what Prop 8 was, and also wanted to show other Conservatives that it is okay to stand up for what is right. I kept having this verse from the Doctrine and Covenants run through my mind:

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— (D&C 123:12)

We invite all like-minded individuals, couples, and especially families, to make their own signs and stand up and be counted! Remember, there are only 2 months until election day!

We also printed quarter-sheet flyers to hand out, which you can download from here (.doc format).

If you have any cool friends, we think it would be cool to have one individual, couple, or family posted at every intersection for several blocks in a row along a busy street.

If you do anything, please let us know in the comments! A link to pics would be nice!

PS - Oh, and don't forget to check with property owners if you are not on public land, like a sidewalk. We left the sidewalk for a shady spot on the grass. This grass is apparently considered part of the high school we were beside, and someone tattled on us. The cops showed up and asked if anyone else was coming, but when we told them it was just our little family, and they saw that there was no shade on the sidewalk, they told us they would go smooth things out for us with the school. It was a little surprising to have them stop, but everything went fine! Yay for nice cops!!!

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

What if we legalized all drugs?

I just came across this article on MSNBC.

One of the major selling points for the idea of legalizing marijuana is that it would save loads of money by not having to fight its use anymore, and tax revenue would be increased by pot stores opening up.

Savings on drug-related law enforcement -- FBI, police, courts and prisons -- of $2 billion to $10 billion a year if marijuana were legalized, based on various estimates, or up to $40 billion a year if all drugs were legalized...

Okay, fine, those things are probably true. But, tell me something. Is there anything that is so worthwhile that no monetary value could be associated with it? I would argue yes.

Let's think back in American history 150 years. What if Americans then took the same view towards slavery? "Look, Jethro, these aren't people, they're property! If we give them their freedom, look at all the revenue we'll lose! The country will forfeit all that tax income because productivity will decrease!"

Good idea/bad idea? I'm sure you'll agree that even the thought is preposterous. A war was fought -and won- by people who believed that human beings were more important than money.

So, I have another take on the marijuana issue: Perhaps the mental well-being of our country is more important than boosting the economy by revising our morals. Perhaps, if we actually treated crimes like, oh I dunno... crimes, people would be less likely to commit them and it wouldn't spin into an out of control epidemic forcing so-called great thinkers to suggest legalizing them!

Maybe it's just me, but maybe the health of our society and its individuals is something that we should be taking more seriously! Once we allow something, it is almost impossible to retract. Like throwing feathers in the wind. Oops! I needed those for my quilt! I hope winter never comes! We need as many healthy people as we can get in this world.

The arguments in favor of legalizing drugs have several other points that have had equally little thought put into them:

Increased productivity as fewer people were murdered, drug offenders were freed to find work and those stripped of their criminal record found it easier to get jobs (including running drug boutiques). However, how many of those now in prison would turn away from crime is unknown.

There are a few "doozies" in this one paragraph, so we'll address them one by one.

1. What makes you think that fewer people would be murdered if drugs were legalized? Instances of people doing drugs and then killing other people will likely increase!

2. Will former criminals really find it easier to get jobs? I'm pretty sure this is an overly optimistic suggestion. Most businesspeople in America value the qualities of honesty, hard work, and self-control. Even if their particular brand of crime has now become legal, they still displayed the laziness and horrendous lack of judgment and self-control when they knowingly committed a criminal act!

3. What makes you think that legalizing a crime will lead freed prisoners to "turn away from [a life of] crime?" Most criminals are repeat offenders! Sure, they won't have their former life of marijuana-selling to return to, but what would probably happen is that they will move on to other things that are still illegal, since that's where the big money is.

C'mon, people. Let's think these things through!

The $65 billion market for all illicit drugs, he estimates, might bring in $10 billion to $15 billion in taxes.

Does it bother anyone else to accept money that cost other people's blood? Drugs kill people!!! Legalization won't change that fact. Of course, the government could mandate that health professionals provide counseling on the "safest" possible methods of drug use. And that won't have any effect on the already insurmountable fees we already pay for health insurance, I'm sure.

A new legal drug industry would create jobs, farm crops, retail outlets and a tiny notch up in gross domestic product as the black market money turned clean. A 1994 study... suggested 100,000 jobs and 60,000 retailers could emerge from a legal marijuana industry.

I've got another idea. Why don't we just stop requiring people to follow any laws? Imagine the potential jobs that could be created if American pedophiles could stay here to indulge their fantasies instead of flying halfway around the world to drop their cash in a Third World country? Think of the burgeoning economy we would develop if murderers-for-hire could report their income! I hear that the sex slave industry is still alive and well, too; that's gotta be worth something.

While we're at it, why don't we just turn ourselves over to the Communists? That way, we'll save ourselves the trouble of deciding how to govern a population that is uncontrollable. And we'll save them the trouble of taking us over by force in the future. Of course, that won't be too hard, since we'll all be stoned anyway.

PS- What kind of people do you think would be behind such a proposition? Certainly not the same kind of people who would like to see our country collapse. I'm sure that this is all being suggested with our country's best interests in mind. Right...?

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days...

D&C 89:4

Tuesday, September 9, 2008


I would like to coin a new term: homophobiaphobia ~ the fear or strong disapproval of the heterosexual disapproval of homosexuality; ie, when gays can't tolerate the fact that straight people are averse to homosexuality. The common term, "homophobia," is actually a misnomer: it suggests both a clinical condition as well as an irrational fear.

Everyone that I know that has an aversion to same-sex attraction has a logic behind it, some more reasonable than others, but a logic nonetheless. It is therefore a rational conclusion because it is based on ideas, experiences, and beliefs.

There are many logical reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, and all other licentious sexual behavior, but whenever these views are shared they are immediately put down as "homophobic," which suggests irrationality and automatically deems an idea unacceptable and it's author uneducated, uncouth, and unfit for consideration. Why has this attitude developed? Because those that participate in socially unacceptable behaviors are always seeking to normalize their ways by forcing acceptance of the behavior on the general populace.

A poet once said:

"Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

[vice = An evil habit or wicked tendency, mien = appearance]

First, the objectionable matter is put before us: we don't like it, but we are forced to see it and not allowed to object, so we endure. Next, after we have been caused to ignore our consciences, we begin to feel pity for the misfit and his ways. Then, we see defeat as the population begins to doubt his own moral conscience, to question why they even objected in the first place as they can no longer remember, and then to embrace the evil thing as equal to or above the moral behavior it replaces.

Stop the Homophobiaphobic!!!

The Sacrament

Not too long ago, I got a link to this Washington Post article from within the LDS Living email that is sent out by Deseret Book. It gives an accurate, straightforward description of the LDS view and practice of taking the Sacrament, showing how it might differ slightly from other traditions, and how it is entirely Christian. It's very well-written, and I would imagine it would be a good reference for an inquisitive non-Mormon acquaintance.

(Click on the title to jump to the article.)

Slander On The Sly

I came across this gem yesterday. It's a mostly interesting article cashing in on the current FLDS sensationalism. It wasn't bad, but I have to admit that what really struck me was the way the author, and sometimes horrible folk singer, Neil Young, found occasion to slide a little anti-Joseph Smith sentiment into his otherwise historical account of an attempted raid on a polygamous compound in 1953. You can read the entire article by clicking on the title above, but I will share the offending parts here (emphasis mine):

But as more time passed since the Short Creek raid, the fundamentalists began taking jobs outside their community and interacting more with the world around them. It was this decreasing separatism that Warren Jeffs sought to curb by moving some of the residents of Colorado City and Hildale to the Texas compound. Jeffs, who had succeeded his deceased father as leader and prophet of the FLDS Church in 2002, claimed direct lineage from both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, and he took more than 70 women as wives, many of whom had been his father's spouses, too. Jeffs' sense of his own power was immense, and he commanded absolute obedience from his community. In building the ranch compound in Texas, Jeffs hoped to prepare a perfect place where God's chosen could wait for His imminent return—the compound's name is Yearning for Zion—and he gloried in his status as God's leader on earth. "It was almost as if he thought he was invincible," Martha Bradley notes. "It was exactly how Joseph Smith acted in the last year of his life."

Martha Bradley, a University of Utah professor, author of a book about the Short Creek raid, and originator of the last line quoted above, apparently knows something about Joseph Smith that no one else does. I hope she writes a book to explain the similarities between Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs to the rest of us. As of now, I've never read a single comment from anyone who knew Joseph Smith to suggest that he "commanded absolute obedience" or "thought he was invincible." Sure, modern-day Mormon-haters will tell you things like that, but you aren't much of a historian if those are your sources for history.

And seriously, Mr. Young. You put this article together, so tell me - What does a (slanderous, contrived) knock against Joseph Smith do to further our understanding of the incident at Short Creek?

Justification Of Crooked Paths

In yet another LDS Living article, an organization of LDS gays are trying to meet with General Authorities of the LDS Church. Why, you ask? Well,

"Any time that two groups come together there's a possibility, and I hope the possibility can lead to more understanding, more acceptance and less isolation," said Larabee.

Among other things, they are seeking acceptance. Who is this group, you ask?

Founded in secret by gay students at BYU in 1977, Affirmation has traditionally been ignored by church leaders, Melson said.

Affirmation has several similar definitions, and among them I believe this one is most appropriate:

An affirmation has the same purpose as an oath: to compel truthfulness. An affiant may refuse to swear to a supreme being and may therefore choose the affirmation rather than the oath. The affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath. (

Notice the particularly religious direction that this term leans. When taken in context, the moniker suggests that the overarching purpose of this group might be to compel truthfulness to others, including a supreme being. Personally, I think I'd be hesitant to compel the truthfulness of homosexuality to a supreme being that has made it quite clear, on multiple occasions, through both ancient and modern prophets, that homosexuality is thoroughly and completely unacceptable. But that's just me.

Freedom of Religion

Since people really seem to not understand Mormonism, it is certain that most people do not understand the actual stance of Mormons concerning freedom of religion. To paraphrase: while we believe that our church is the only true church, we also vehemently support an individual's right to worship in whatever way they choose. This is based on the LDS belief that God does not force us to do anything, and therefore, we should not force others to do things, either. Rather, it is the responsibility of each individual to seek out and obey the promptings of the Holy Ghost. This link goes to a recent speech given by Mitt Romney at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty’s Canterbury dinner, where he elaborates on the connection between freedom and religion.

Pastor Wilson, Do Your Homework

The Washington Post has an article discussing opposition to a newly planned Mormon church on 16th Street in Washington DC. You can read the article here. The most striking bit in the article, though, is the following:

Dozens of homeowners have expressed opposition to the new church with lawn signs that read, "Too Big, Too Much, Too Many." And the Mormons are finding little support from the neighborhood's clergy, including one pastor who said his objection is rooted not in architecture, but theology.

"They don't accept Jesus as the Messiah; they accept him as the prophet," said Edward Wilson, pastor at Church of Christ, a block from the Mormon site. "It's wrong, I disagree with it, and I wouldn't want them in the neighborhood."

Aside from being downright unneighborly (not to mention un-Christlike), Pastor Wilson's comments about Mormonism are blatantly incorrect. And I mean incorrect as in, 5 minutes in front of the internet will cure your ignorance.

Pastor Wilson, you are confusing us with Muslims, who actually DO think of Christ as merely a prophet, and not the Messiah. If someone was kind enough to send you a link to my blog, here are a few things I think you should read:

1. Click here.
2. Click here.

For #1, I went to, the official website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. What you see after clicking on the link is articles from LDS magazines and lesson manuals, about how Jesus is the Messiah, most of the time not discussing how He IS the Messiah, but talking about His work on the Earth AS the Messiah, you know, almost as if the audience for which it was prepared already understood the concept.

For #2, I went to, the official internet edition of the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. And the funny thing is, Pastor Wilson, the ONLY verse that came back containing both words was from the Book of Mormon. How interesting is that for a bunch of heathens who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah?!?

In case you are unable to follow the above link, let me quote the verse for you:
For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 25: 19, emphasis added)
Today's lessons kids: many years at theological seminary does not a religious scholar make, considering you can learn more by spending 5 minutes in front of your computer monitor xP

Further Reading: "JESUS CHRIST, MESSIAH" (link to entry from topical guide at

Monday, September 8, 2008

Our Slow March to Communism

When I heard about the recent government bailout of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac banking institutions on the radio this morning, the first thing that popped into my mind was the word "Socialism." Yes, I've been reading a lot about Communism this weekend, but even so, this is not a usual reaction for me. But, I think there may be something to this.

When I was explaining to my wife about what Socialism is, and how it's exactly what Obama is, she asked me how they would go about changing our form of government from Capitalist to Socialist. I didn't have a very good answer for her at that moment.

And then I woke up to this morning's news about FM/FM, and things started to make sense.

Many people have been using the term "nationalization" in reference to the bailout. I think this term is correct, because if the government owns it, the "people" own it. This all started to disturb me when I reflected on the Marxist ideal that all private property cease to exist, and all things become the property of the government. With this bailout, the government now owns the two largest buyers of home mortgages in the US. In other words, until these loans are paid off, the government now owns the countless private properties that these loans are held against. In other words, private property is now falling directly into the hands of the federal government, which is now shockingly close to falling, itself, into the hands of the biggest outright Socialist presidential candidate the US has ever seen, Barack Obama!

If this doesn't concern you, then you don't yet grasp what Obama is all about.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Here Come The Brides, and Grooms, and Uh... Others

You may recognize the name of Stanley Kurtz by virtue of the fact that he is the one who recently blew the lid on the long, long, well-documented relationship that Obama "never had" with the radical terrorist, William Ayers, who is "just a guy who lives in [Obama's] neighborhood."

What you may NOT know is that he also wrote an amazing, eye-opening, looooong, article on the topic of the changing landscape of marriage in the modern world. While I strongly encourage you to read the original article, I would also like to share some of the comments and concepts that stood out to me as I read it.

Mr. Kurtz successfully presents the case that, despite the claims to the opposite, same-sex marriage has already opened the doors to other behaviors and definitions of marriage in some European countries, and that there are organizations here in America, waiting eagerly albeit quietly in the wings for their chance to demand acceptance. The reason, which conservatives and religious folks alike have said from the beginning, is obvious:

In a world fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

One group that was/is at the forefront of legalizing gay marriage is the Unitarian Universalist Church. They have formally allowed ceremonies to join polyandrous couples (multiple men and women in one relationship), but have kept this fact quiet for important reasons:

Unitarians understand that moving too swiftly or openly to legitimize polyamory could validate the slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage.

So, although they recognize the validity of the "slippery-slope" argument, they choose to keep it as inconspicuous as possible.

But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund: "It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. . . ." In short, the Unitarians are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost certainly begin.

Further, bisexuals are also waiting for their moment to spring into action and demand recognition in marriage. The following quote, in reference to a Unitarian Universalist minister, also takes a spine-tingling twist:

One polyamorist minister who had recently come out to his congregation as a bisexual treated polyamory and bisexuality synonymously. "Our denomination has been welcoming to gays and lesbians and transgendered people," he said. "Bisexuals have not received the recognition they deserve." In other words, anything less than formal church recognition of polyamory is discrimination against bisexuals.

This seems to suggest that a religious refusal to recognize non-monogamous relationships is equal to discrimination, an attitude which is already having stark results in America. (See my post prior to this one for examples.)

Yale professor Kenji Yoshino, a prevalent expert on bisexuality, provides the following perspective:

...heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing bisexuals that they've got to make an all-or-nothing choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of monogamy, and bisexuality "destabilizes" norms of monogamy. Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often the key to persuading a court that they have suffered discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in maximizing the number of people in their movement.

Thus, Prof. Yoshino provides some illuminating professional context to the debate on gay marriage: the "born that way" lie is the key to their political clout.

Of significant note to me, is the article's mention of a film that I had never heard of before, and its ungodly conclusion:

Three of Hearts is the story of the real-life 13-year relationship of two men and a woman. Together for several years in a gay relationship, two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one by each man. Although the woman marries one of the men, the entire threesome has a commitment ceremony. The movie records the trio's eventual breakup, yet the film's website notes their ongoing commitment to the view that "family is anything we want to create."

It is this very attitude, that "family is anything we want to create," that conservatives and religionists have long warned against, and that many liberals have long held would never become public opinion by our allowance of inappropriate sexual behaviors. This notion is refuted, unintentionally, in an article in New York magazine:

According to New York, the growing popularity of polyamory among New York-area straights is largely inspired by the increasing visibility of gay relationships, with their more "fluid" notions of commitment.

Perhaps there is, after all, truth to the old conservative standby that says:

Vice is a monster of such frightful mien,

As to be hated needs but to be seen.

Yet, seen too oft,

Familiar with her face,

We first endure,

Then pity,

Then embrace.

The ironic twist, though, is that the same article

...also found that the most stable polyamorous groupings have as their core element a straight man and a bisexual woman who sticks to one man.

In other words, even promiscuous, "open-minded" relationships require a "One man, One Woman" core to remain intact. An interesting fact, indeed.

Mr. Kurtz discusses the fact that gays and bisexuals are generally treated with respect and compassion by traditionally religious members of society, but he finds that:

Somehow the idea has taken hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a radical remake of the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.

As I have said before, these minority groups are seeking to force their own brand of change on the whole of American society, despite the fact that they are generally treated well by the mainstream.

Says Mr. Kurtz:

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to stay bound as a family for the sake of their children. Our liberalized modern marriage system is far from perfect, and certainly doesn't always succeed in keeping parents together while their children are young. Yet often it does. Unfortunately, once we radically redefine marriage in an effort to solve the problems of adults, the institution is destined to be shattered by a cacophony of grown-up demands.

Allowing the "marriage" of multiple partners also allows an "easy out" to partners who wish to leave a polyamorous relationship later, since, they will reason, there will still be others left behind who can take care of their offspring for them. This is sure to be the norm, when the obvious comparison to unmarried couples is made. The only difference will be that they will be in a legal relationship. The courts, however, are sure to be indifferent to an individual's "divorce" from a polyamorous relationship, since, as I have stated, the children will have other "parents."

In the discussion of polyamorous relationships, I was surprised to learn, for the first time, of the De Bruijn's, a Dutch trio who were all basically married to each other officially in 2005, and Koen Brand - a married man who publicly declared his bisexuality and then entered into a public homosexual relationship with another married man. These stories were all kept out of the American public's view due to the obvious damage they would have done to the ongoing social engineering by supporters towards the acceptance of gay marriage.

Mr. Kurtz concludes his article thus:

The De Bruijn trio, Koen Brand, the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, the legal arguments of Elizabeth Emens and Kenji Yoshino, and the bisexual/ polyamory movement in general have been launched into action by the successes of the campaign for gay marriage. In a sense, though, these innovators have jumped too soon. They've shown us today--well before same-sex marriage has triumphed nationwide--what would emerge in its aftermath.

Liberals may now put behind-the-scenes pressure on the Dutch government to keep the lid on legalized polyamory for as long as the matter of gay marriage is still unsettled. The Unitarian polyamorists, already conflicted about how much recognition to demand while the gay marriage battle is unresolved, may be driven further underground. But let there be no mistake about what will happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in the United States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven't already launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go public. It took four years after the full legalization of gay marriage in the Netherlands for the first polyamory test case to emerge. With a far larger and more organized polyamory movement in America, it might not take even that long after the nationalization of gay marriage in the United States.

It's easy to imagine that, in a world where gay marriage was common and fully accepted, a serious campaign to legalize polyamorous unions would succeed--especially a campaign spearheaded by an organized bisexual-rights movement. Yet win or lose, the culture of marriage will be battered for years by the debate. Just as we're now continually reminded that not all married couples have children, we'll someday be endlessly told that not all marriages are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second time, the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage out of existence.

Homosexuality Is Eroding Religious Freedoms Already

According to an article in the LA Times, the courts are already ruling against the free expression of religion when pitted against the gay agenda:

Conflicts about the rights of gays and those of religious believers demonstrate that these are not hypothetical fears. Consider the following:

  • A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

  • Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

  • A Lutheran school in Riverside County, Calif., was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.

  • Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending

The gay agenda loudly proclaims that this WILL not happen, while in reality it IS happening ALREADY! It's time to face the facts and reject this behavior.