925 Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate crime, & jailed

Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate crime, &
jailed

Newsletter published on 2 July 2017

(1) Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'? - Eric Walberg
(2) More Revelations of Intolerance from Gay Marriage Activists
(3) Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate
crime, & jailed
(4) California bans state employees from traveling on official business
to anti-LGBTQ states
(5) Canadian Parents refused adoption unless they accept accept Gender
ideology
(6) Swedish PM tells priests to carry out same-sex marriages ‘or do
something else’
(7) Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption cases involving gay parents
(8) Harvard discriminates against Male Clubs
(9) Google renames Margaret Court tennis arena after her anti-Gay comments
(10) Top Gear gay joke

(1) Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'? - Eric Walberg
    Eric Walberg<walberg2002@yahoo.com> 2 July 2017 at 00:17

Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'?

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=664:gay-marriage-or-gay-shame&catid=41:culture-and-religion&Itemid=94

Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'?

Thursday, 29 June 2017 15:05   Eric Walberg

  It's official: gay marriage is as legit as marriage between a man and
woman. Dissenters to this new self-proclaimed truth are pilloried as
dinosaurs or bigots. The Pope is an object of ridicule, as is, of
course, Islam. Bakers who refuse to take an order for a gay couple's
wedding cake are convicted of discrimination and given a hefty fine.

The 'yeas' have triumphed among straights (heterosexuals) in the
secular, rich West, where gaylib established itself 50 years ago as the
latest trendy social movement. Larger and popular Gay Pride Day marches
in June have more straights than gays in attendance, and floats by
(straight) Google employees, Starbuckers, what-have-you, are the
centrepieces. June has been declared 'gay pride month' in Canada, the US
and much of western Europe, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall riots, a
series of spontaneous, violent (yes!) demonstrations against a police
raid that took place June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the
Greenwich Village.

Legalization of homosexual activity came both before (UK and Canada) and
after 'Stonewall', and "buggery", the last frontier of sexuality (for
both gay and straight), was grudgingly removed from the legal code, with
only a few US states still holdouts. Of course, this is all part of the
western secular world bubble, though Russia legalized homosexuality in
1993 and China decriminalized it in 1997.

Gay marriage and the state: win-win

Gay marriage became the focus of the 'struggle' in the 21st century, the
final frontier. Why is gay marriage so important to activists? Civil
unions are perfectly adequate to cover the secular legal issues of
divorce. Those who opt for marriage should presumably be religious, but
there's not much left of religion these days, so what's the big deal?

The gay Christian Metropolitan Community Church (222 member
congregations in 37 countries) led the campaign for government approval
and it paid off. Today, MCC congregations around the world perform more
than 6,000 same-sex marriage ceremonies annually. Some gays are sincere
Christians and reform Jews, but marriage is being embraced by secular,
non-religious gays, who rarely frequent a church, even the MCC. Why? Is
it just the latest fashion? Or is it a recognition that marriage is as a
kind of commitment beyond just sex and material needs? Or is it more a
sign of acceptance by straight society? 'We are just as good as you.'

Why would the state and media embrace it, coolly throwing aside
millennia-old legal and public traditions? The legislative drive to
legalize marriage is a sign of how insignificant these traditions are in
our secular world. Most Protestant Christian churches gave in to state
and media pressure with little resistance. Only the Catholic Church,
Islam and Orthodox Judaism are holdouts.

Gay marriage is suddenly as kosher as 'motherhood', or rather
'parenthood' -- as 'mother' and 'father' too are being relegated to the
dustbin of history. Ontario Premier Kathleen Gwynne tried (so far,
unsuccessfully) to change all government documents and laws to erase
those supposed anachronisms from our minds. Parents can now be 'two
mommies' or 'two daddies'.

Marriage bandwagon

The loud voices touting marriage are not necessarily representative of
gays. No polls look at the actual numbers of gays who tie the knot, only
different ethnicities, age levels, political affiliates, i.e., straight
views. Some sleuthing shows 0.3% of marriages were of same-sex couples
in 2016 in the US. Given 3-5% of the population self-identify as gay,
this is roughly 10% of gays,* vs roughly 50% of straights, suggesting
gays are actually far less interested in gay marriage than the broader
population are interested in either straight or gay marriage.

Many homosexuals reject marriage, calling themselves "queer" in defiance
to what they see as a trivialization of their uniqueness. There is even
a Gay Shame movement, rejecting the commercialization and mainstreaming
of sexual nonconformists. Some, for religious reasoning, who hesitate to
tamper with millennia-old traditions, some, for the misuse of language
-- What can 'two husbands' possibly mean? What do the two pictures above
-- 2 straight-looking middle class guys vs a flaming queen -- have in
common?

Many take pride in their radical, slightly subversive nature and
history. Where would western civilization be without the culture that
sexual nonconformers have produced over thousands of years? Culture
means a critical analysis of society, best done by outsiders, a love of
beauty for its sake alone, without the distractions of sex, or a
starving family to support.

Gay marriage - a western stopgap

That said, given the decadence of western society since WWII, where
'anything goes', where AIDS and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are
of epidemic proportions, and where gay male-fueled promiscuity is now
the norm for both gays and straights, the less cynical supporters of
this new 'morality' see there's a problem, and implicitly realize it is
not a stable state of affairs.

The sexual instinct is a very uncontrollable, dangerous impulse. In
Plato's Republic, a friend asks Sophocles: "How are you in regard to
sex, Sophocles? Can you still make love to a woman?" "Hush man," the
poet replied, "I am very glad to have escaped from this, like a slave
who has escaped from a mad and cruel master."

That is why historically marriage became the foundation of civilization
everywhere, why the violation of marriage bonds is (or was) considered
the worst sin in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. With the rise of
secularism and the waning of Christianity and Judaism, only Islam
maintains this. The eagerness of gays to join in the marriage ritual
ironically reflects the realization by gays themselves that maybe the
old ritual is not such a bad thing, and is a good way to tame the beast.

Get married, live longer

Monogamy appears to be gaining the ascendancy again, replacing
promiscuity as the long-term goal in social life. In the first place for
physical health reasons, including mental well-being. Studies confirm
for both straight and gay that having a committed monogamous
relationship extends life, improves the quality of life. Marriage is the
most sophisticated version of monogamy, as a sacred commitment, not just
a casual agreement, reflecting both the power of the sex drive in our
lives, the need to control it in the service of our own selves, and of
society at large.

Now, when population growth is a world problem, 'barren' marriages are
not so unusual, where foster children are many, and there is a huge and
growing population of refugees, 'two daddies' can be an acceptable
alternative to no parents at all. The issue of surrogate mothers and
sperm donation is perhaps, then, the last of the last frontier,
something for rich, designer parent wannabes. The moral issue there is
to say the least, cloudy.

The international branch of western gaylib would have this new scenario
being shaped in the West's Petri dish extended to the whole world, by
force if necessary (as the proverbial missionary handmaidens of
imperialism). This is most unlikely to succeed. Far better to deal with
our precarious western cultural bubble and make it less self-destructive
all round.

What's to be proud of?

Perhaps gay marriage is a hint of a return to morality and spirituality
in our relationships. So I would not spurn attending a gay marriage in
principle, though you won't catch me at a Gay Pride march. Gays are
humans and deserve civil rights. They long ago won them Canada, and
marches on Yonge St today will not do gays in Russia or Egypt any good.

What's there to be proud of? No one wants to be gay, and no parent wants
their child to be gay. It's something to be accepted and dealt with by
you and your relatives. A Gay Pride march is really the latter day
equivalent of a St Patrick's Day Parade, a quaint reminder of a
minority, once repressed, now celebrated or pitied (or to be gawked at,
like visiting a zoo).

Andrew Holleran, in Dancer from the Dance (1978) captures the
bittersweet tragedy of being born gay:

I don't think two men can love each other ... in that way. It will
always be a sterile union, it will always be associated with guilt.
Sometimes I think that God was sitting up above the world one day, after
He had created it and someone said 'Now what could we throw in to spoil
it? You've created such a perfect existence, how could it go amok?'
Someone said, 'Confuse the sexes. Have the men desire men instead of
women, and the women desire women.'
Life would be marvelous if we weren't homosexual. To grow up, to fall in
love, to have children, grow old and die. But then God threw in that
monkey wrench. As if out of sheer mischief!

When those affected realize their dilemma, they have to work hard to
make their antisocial lifestyle work – for themselves and society. It
will always mean higher suicide rates and social isolation. The 'gay
ghetto' is here to stay. So good luck with your marriage vows. The odds
of 'till death do us part' are probably less that one in two, given the
stats for straight marriages. But it may make your hard life a little
less hard, and disrupt society a little less.

XXXX

*According to Gallup, 11.4% of LGBT men are married to a same sex
partner. 13.2% of LGBT men are married to an opposite sex spouse, which
would mean more gay men are married to women then other men.

Gaym Intolerance

(2) More Revelations of Intolerance from Gay Marriage Activists

http://australianmarriage.org/revelations-intolerance-ssm-activists/

More Revelations of Intolerance from SSM Activists

It’s been another big week in the marriage debate. Around the world, the
fallout from countries that have legalised same-sex marriage is becoming
more and more evident and the future of freedoms in these countries is
looking bleak.

According to Huffington Post: "California has banned state employees
from traveling on official business to four additional states that have
passed anti-LGBTQ legislation." Would you believe that these states
require people to use toilets that correspond with their biological
reality and/or grant foster kids their chance at enjoying the equally
valuable input of a Mum AND a Dad. How outrageous!

Canada is charging towards a totalitarian regime with yet another Bill
restricting freedoms for those who support traditional, science-based
views of gender. The Christian Institute reports: "The Bill adds ‘gender
expression’ and ‘gender identity’ to Canada’s Human Rights Code and to
existing hate crime legislation. Dr Jordan Peterson, of the University
of Toronto, previously warned that [the Bill] could result in him being
charged with a hate crime for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns."

And according to RT: "Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has suggested
that all Church of Sweden priests be compelled to perform gay marriages,
despite the Lutheran Church’s position that clergy members should have
the right to refuse."

"We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate
everyone, including same-sex couples," Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning
magazine."

Imagine a "male only" political party hosting an event to celebrate a
total lack of female representation in parliament. A baker is asked to
create and decorate a cake to commemorate the occasion. The baker
rightfully declines the invitation because he cannot, in good
conscience, participate in an event that denies the equally important
and invaluable role of women in Parliament. He would be lauded a hero
for standing up for gender equality!

This same baker is asked to create a cake to celebrate a union that
denies the equally important and invaluable role of a woman in marriage
and family. He is vilified and fined. This is what is happening in the
USA right now to bakers who are simply fighting to maintain their
artistic freedom. These bakers happily bake birthday cakes for members
of the gay community, but cannot, in good conscience, participate in an
event that denies gender equality.

This article from Christianity Today highlights the issue: "Jack’s
ability to make a living and run his family business shouldn’t be
threatened simply because he exercised his artistic freedom. Artists
speak through their art, and when Jack creates custom wedding cakes, he
is promoting and celebrating the couple’s wedding," said ADF senior
counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "He simply can’t put his artistic talents to use
on a custom cake for an event so at odds with his faith convictions."

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation of bullying and intolerance has
come from our own shores where a SSM activist has once again published
the family home address of ACL’s Lyle Shelton, along with current and
former members of the ACL board.

"There is only one reason for publicising someone’s home address and
that is to bully and intimidate," Lyle said.

"ACT Police have advised me that there is little they can do and I
should engage a private security firm to make recommendations about
upgrading security at my house."

Just days later, Christopher Pyne was caught out boasting that SSM is
closer than we think. According to The Australian: "Malcolm Turnbull
says he will not let any private member’s bill to legalise gay marriage
be debated in the parliament if a plebiscite is not held first, as
conservatives urge colleagues to return to the ‘main game’."

If you value freedom of conscience, freedom of artistic expression and
freedom of speech, you must speak up now, before we are all compelled,
by the full force of the law, to "forever hold our peace".

Written by AJ

(3) Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate
crime, & jailed

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/canada-law-force-citizens-affirm-trans-agenda/

Canada law could force citizens to affirm trans agenda

     22 Jun 2017

Canadians who refuse to endorse transsexualism could be charged with a
hate crime, fined or even jailed under a controversial new law.

Critics say Bill C-16 may compel citizens to use the terms ‘ze’ and
‘zir’ when asked, instead of ‘he’ and ‘she’.

It was passed in the Canadian Senate by a vote of 67 to 11, and welcomed
as "great news" by the country’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Bill adds "gender expression" and "gender identity" to Canada’s
Human Rights Code and to existing hate crime legislation.

Dr Jordan Peterson, of the University of Toronto, previously warned that
C-16 could result in him being charged with a hate crime for refusing to
use gender-neutral pronouns.

After it was passed, Peterson tweeted:

Senate passes Bill C16 without amendment 67 for 11 against. Compelled
speech has come to Canada. We will seriously regret this.

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) June 15, 2017

‘People of faith’

The Bill has also been criticised by the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC).

"This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth
degree, all in the name of political correctness", said Jeff Gunnarson,
CLC Vice President.

Jack Fonseca, Senior Political Strategist for CLC, added: "this law will
not be used as some sort of ‘shield’ to defend vulnerable transsexuals,
but rather as a weapon with which to bludgeon people of faith and
free-thinking Canadians who refuse to deny truth".

‘Totalitarian’

The Bill is the latest piece of Canadian legislation to restrict free
expression.

It follows an Ontario Act, which mandates the use of gender-neutral
pronouns on parents looking to adopt.

Critics say that Ontario’s Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act,
will bar parents from adoption or fostering, who oppose gender ideology
for not providing a home ‘in the best interests of the child’.

The Bill, described as "totalitarian" by critics, was passed earlier
this month by a vote of 63 to 23 by the Ontario Legislature. It was
pushed through by Ontario’s Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is herself in a
same-sex marriage.

(4) California bans state employees from traveling on official business
to anti-LGBTQ states
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/california-travel-ban-lgbtq_us_594d7c22e4b02734df2a71ae

California Extends State Worker Travel Ban To 4 'Discriminatory' States

Restrictions now target eight states that have passed anti-LGBTQ laws.

24/06/2017

California has banned state employees from traveling on official
business to four additional states that have passed anti-LGBTQ legislation.

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a speech in San Francisco
on Thursday that state employees will no longer be permitted to use
state funds to visit Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky or Texas. A
September 2016 law already prohibits state-funded travel to Kansas,
Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

"While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people,
discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several
steps back," Becerra said in a statement. "That’s why when California
said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our
community, we meant it."

The state travel ban went into effect on Jan. 1 in response to the
anti-LGBTQ "bathroom bill" passed by North Carolina in March 2016. The
law, repealed a year later in an equally controversial "compromise
bill," required people to use public restrooms corresponding to their
biological sex. Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee had proposed similar
anti-LGBTQ legislation.

California’s travel ban allows exceptions for enforcing state laws, or
to comply with requests from the federal government to appear before
committees. The law was written to allow the addition of other states
that enact anti-LGBTQ policies.

"If other states try and pass similar laws, we will work to stop them,"
state Assemblyman Evan Low, who co-authored the measure, said in a
statement in January. "Our zero-tolerance policy says there is no room
for discrimination of any kind in California, and AB 1887 ensures that
discrimination will not be tolerated beyond our borders."

The four new states on the list have enacted legislation that the
California Department of Justice deems discriminatory. Laws in Alabama,
South Dakota and Texas could prevent same-sex couples from adopting or
fostering children. A Kentucky measure makes it possible for student
groups at public schools and colleges to turn away LGBTQ students.

The discriminatory state laws "are completely out of step with the
values that make California the vibrant economic powerhouse that it is,"
Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, said in a statement.

Ashley Morris, organizing director of the ACLU of Northern California,
also supported the ban.

The travel ban will apply to a state for as long as any law deemed
discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression remains in effect, the state Department of Justice
says on its webpage. Becerra told SF Gate he wouldn’t rule out extending
the ban to more states.

(5) Canadian Parents refused adoption unless they accept accept Gender
ideology

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/parents-told-accept-gender-ideology-refused-adoption-canada/

Parents told to accept gender ideology or be refused adoption: Canada

    30 Jan 2017

Families in Ontario, Canada are being threatened by a proposed Bill
which could be used to promote gender ideology in the home.

The "Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act" is being pushed
through by Ontario’s Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is herself in a
same-sex marriage.

The Bill described as ‘totalitarian’ has been widely criticised since
being put forward.

Gender ideology

Critics say that under the Bill parents who oppose gender ideology may
be ruled out for adoption and fostering for not providing a home
considered ‘in the best interests of the child’.

This would encompass the notion that there are more than two sexes or
that someone can be ‘trapped in the wrong body’.

Jeff Gunnarson, Vice President of Campaign Life Coalition, said: "The
premise that banning traditionally principled Canadians from becoming
parents is in the children’s best interests is a lie that must be exposed."

He added: "This Liberal government is actually telling Canadians who
don’t believe in the theory of gender identity or the gay lifestyle:
‘You are unfit to be parents. You are second class citizens who must be
banned from adopting children.’"

State control

Gwen Landolt, Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, said the Bill is a
reflection of the gender ideology of a Premier who "doesn’t think much
of the family, who thinks the state should be in control of children,
with her sex education".

"It’s a reflection of her ideology, but not that of the rank and file
parents", she added.

The Bill also removes the religious faith in which the parents are
raising the child as a consideration for child protection services.

Instead, it instructs parents to raise their children "in accordance
with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and
cultural identity".

(6) Swedish PM tells priests to carry out same-sex marriages ‘or do
something else’
https://www.rt.com/viral/393867-sweden-gay-marriage-priests/

Published time: 24 Jun, 2017 13:50

Same-sex weddings have been legal in Sweden since 2009, although priests
can decline to carry out these ceremonies under the country’s marriage code.

This could now change, however, given Lofven’s recent comments about the
role of priests in Swedish society.

The prime minister indicated in an interview with a church magazine that
if a priest cannot bless a gay marriage, they should consider another
vocation.

"We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate
everyone, including same-sex couples," Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning magazine.

"I see parallels to the midwife who refuses to perform abortions. If you
work as a midwife you must be able to perform abortions, otherwise you
have to do something else… It is the same for priests," he said.

Official documents from the church say it "offers" both heterosexual and
homosexual marriage ceremonies. Although it is not against gay marriage,
the Church of Sweden’s official stance is that "no priest should be
obliged to officiate at the wedding of a same-sex couple."

In the interview, Lofven, who is not religious, defended the perceived
political incursion into the practice of religion, saying "the church
must stand up for human equality."

"The church will continue to play a major role, especially in times like
these with terror and refugee crisis," he added.

"The church binds society together and provides security," he added.

From: Peter Myers <petermyersaus@gmail.com> Subject: Kentucky judge
refuses to hear Gay adoption cases; Harvard’s nondiscrimination
hypocrisy To: Peter Mailstar <peter@mailstar.net>

(7) Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption cases involving gay parents

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/01/as-a-matter-of-conscience-a-kentucky-judge-refuses-to-hear-adoption-cases-involving-gay-parents

As ‘a matter of conscience,’ a Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption
cases involving gay parents

By Samantha Schmidt May 1

Judge Mitchell Nance says he won't hear anymore adoption cases that
involve gay adults.https://t.co/0LhGamWtV5

— WKYT (@WKYT) April 28, 2017

Two years after a Kentucky county clerk stirred national attention for
refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a family court
judge in the same state announced he will no longer hear adoption cases
involving gay parents, calling his stance on the issue "a matter of
conscience."

Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who sits in Barren and Metcalfe counties in
Kentucky, issued an order Thursday saying he believes that allowing a
"practicing homosexual" to adopt would "under no circumstance" promote
the best interest of the child, he wrote in the order obtained by The
Washington Post.

The judge disqualified himself from any adoption cases involving gay
couples, citing judicial ethics codes requiring that judges recuse
themselves whenever they have a "personal bias or prejudice" concerning
a case. Nance’s "conscientious objection" to the concept of gay parents
adopting children constitutes such a bias, he argued.

The announcement garnered support from some conservative groups, while
also spurring intense criticism from some lawyers and judicial ethics
experts who viewed the blanket statement as discriminatory, and a sign
that Nance is not fit to fulfill his duties as a judge. Kentucky state
law permits gay couples to adopt children, and the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in 2015 that all states must allow same-sex marriage.

That ruling came in four cases consolidated as Obergefell et al. v
Hodges, one of which specifically involved a couple who wanted to adopt
but was barred from doing so because Michigan banned same-sex marriage
and adoption by unmarried couples.

Nance’s recusal drew some comparisons to the case of Rowan County Clerk
Kim Davis, who was jailed after she refused in the face of multiple
court orders to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
saying she couldn’t issue the licenses because her name was on them, and
it violated her religious beliefs. Eventually, deputies in her office
began issuing licenses. Kentucky’s governor and General Assembly would
later remove the name of clerks from the marriage licenses.

Reached by phone Sunday night, Nance told The Post he stood by his
order, "based on the law, based on my conscience," and to "minimize any
disruption in the litigation," he said. He declined to comment further
on the order or calls from the public for him to resign. But he gave no
indication that he would be stepping down.

Nance told the Glasgow Daily Times he issued the order so there wouldn’t
be a lag if an adoption case was filed in his court concerning adoption
by gay parents. Because Nance’s court, the 43rd Circuit Court, has two
divisions, the judge of the other division will hear any adoption cases
affected by Nance’s recusal. Gay parents seeking to adopt a child in the
affected counties should not expect a legal delay as a result of Nance’s
decision.

"I don’t have any plans to recuse myself from any so it should not
affect the ability of any same sex couples to adopt in Barren or
Metcalfe counties," the judge of the other division, Judge John T.
Alexander, told the Glasgow Daily Times.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law school professor who specializes
in judicial ethics, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that by issuing
such an order, Nance could be violating his oath to uphold the law,
"which by virtue of the equal protection clause does not tolerate
discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation," he
said.

"If he is unable to set his personal views aside and uphold the law —
not just in an isolated case, but with respect to an entire class of
litigant because he finds them odious — it leads me to wonder whether he
is able to honor his oath," Geyh said.

Chris Hartman, Kentucky Fairness Campaign director, told the Glasgow
Daily Times Nance’s decision not to hear adoption cases for gay parents
is "clear discrimination."

"And if Judge Nance can’t perform the basic functions of his job, which
are to deliver impartiality, fairness and justice to all families in his
courtroom, then he shouldn’t be a judge," Hartman said.

Yet other groups, such as the Family Foundation, a Lexington-based group
that promotes "family-first conservatism," expressed their support of
the judge’s decision to recuse himself.

"If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and
prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and
sexuality," spokesman Martin Cothran said in a statement on the group’s
Facebook page, "then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have
to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from
such cases."

Cothran added that he was unaware of any state law that would require a
judge to place a child in a home with same-sex parents, prompting him to
wonder why judges were being held to such a standard.

"When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest
of a child to grow up with both a mother and father, people can’t expect
judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee," said Cothran.
"Judges have a right of conscience like everyone else."

[‘Mexican heritage’ judge bashed by Trump will oversee deported
‘dreamer’ case]

Lawyers told the Courier-Journal that Nance should now also have to
recuse himself from any legal cases involving gay people, including
divorces involving a spouse coming out as gay. Nance told the newspaper
he understands that gay and lesbian people would have reservations about
appearing before him.

Nance, who was first assigned to family court in 2004, performs
marriages, but has never been asked to marry a gay couple, he told the
Glasgow Daily Times. If he were asked, Nance said he would decline.

He told the Glasgow Daily Times he could recall being assigned to two
adoption cases involving gay parents, including one from which he
recused himself several years ago. About two to three months ago, Nance
was assigned to a case in Metcalfe County involving a same-sex couple
seeking to adopt. Nance said he ruled in favor of the parents, but
decided then he should take action to recuse himself permanently from
hearing such cases.

"It made the matter come to my awareness more directly, I would say,"
Nance told the Glasgow Daily Times. "I felt it would be more prudent to
go ahead and address it," he said.

(8) Harvard discriminates against Male Clubs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harvards-nondiscrimination-hypocrisy/2017/04/21/519cff78-2540-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html

Harvard’s nondiscrimination hypocrisy

Harry Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College, is a computer science
professor at Harvard University.

When should traditional liberal values be sacrificed to important but
narrower ends? That is the question behind Harvard University’s effort
to subordinate freedom of association and freedom of speech to a locally
fashionable form of "nondiscrimination."

Last spring, the university decided to attack the off-campus, all-male
Final Clubs by disqualifying their members from Rhodes Scholarships and
other distinctions — unless the clubs admitted women. A few of these
clubs are infamous for loud parties and drunken misbehavior. The new
strategy against them had the merit of novelty, even in the absence of
evidence that coed clubs would behave any better.

Faculty members reacted with alarm, recalling Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s
persecution of Harvard professors in the 1950s simply for belonging to a
hated organization. Students deserve a better lesson from Harvard than
an attempt to solve social problems by blackballing members of unpopular
groups.

The policy covers all "single-gender social organizations" consisting of
Harvard students, so the same sanctions would be visited on women’s
clubs, including sororities. More women than men are affected, even
though most of the women’s clubs don’t have real estate, much less
raucous parties. Hundreds of women staged a surprise protest in response.

The current rationale for punishing single-gender groups is that they
are discriminatory. Problems that the policy was initially supposed to
address — sexual assault, elitism, drunken parties — have fallen away
under scrutiny, leaving gender exclusivity as the clubs’ irreducible
sin. As a university official stated, "Our commitment to a
non-discriminatory experience is unwavering."

That invites serious thought about discrimination.

Most of the newer clubs arose as the Harvard student body became more
diverse. They come, go and change as students and social mores change.
They receive no Harvard funds. One alumnus who had been an immigrant
student on scholarship described his multiethnic, multinational
fraternity as a comforting "ragtag group of misfits." Students whose
high school classmates joined fraternities and sororities at state
universities resent the implication that doing so at Harvard makes them
shamefully discriminatory.

I asked some female students what they thought. "Well, I am in a
sorority," one said. "You can guess what I think." When I pressed her,
she icily responded, "Give me a break. I’m a math major. I am the gender
inclusivity in most of my classes. After being taught by men and
surrounded by men all day, I don’t need a lecture from Harvard about
hanging out with women at night." There is, in fact, not a single
tenured woman in the Harvard Mathematics Department.

In response to such resistance, Harvard last month delayed enforcing the
policy against women’s groups, but not men’s. The "unwavering"
institutional commitment to nondiscrimination will be implemented in a
curiously and perhaps unlawfully discriminatory manner.

Don’t students have the right to associate with whomever they want off
campus? President Drew Gilpin Faust thought not, darkly comparing
freedom-of-association arguments with the tactics Southern racists used
to preserve segregated schools.

American society still accepts single-gender institutions such as
Faust’s alma mater Bryn Mawr College, long after turning against
all-white organizations. Harvard is coed, but even at Harvard race and
gender aren’t parallel categories. Men and women are roomed separately
but ethnic groups are not intentionally segregated. Gender may be a
social construct, but when it comes to the tensions of physical
proximity, gender does have something to do with sex.

Using "nondiscrimination" as a cudgel against students’ private
associations is odiously patronizing. No similar policy applies to
Harvard faculty or staff. Even worse, Harvard will compel students
seeking scholarships and leadership positions to affirm their compliance
with the policy — to respond to a McCarthyesque "Are you or have you
ever been a member" question, under the threat of punishment for perjury.

Harvard prohibits such questions in job interviews. It is an old
authoritarian trick to compel speech and then punish lies, a trick
Harvard has a history of resisting. For decades, Massachusetts teachers
had to swear their loyalty to the Constitution — until MIT and Harvard
professors refused in the 1960s and the law was overturned.

Could Harvard today require oaths about club memberships but resist if
the government required students to swear that they are lawfully on U.S.
soil?

In civil society, freedom of association is built into the Bill of
Rights because the state does not always know what is best for
individuals. It is an expression of American confidence that even when
authorities disapprove, the energy of heterodox private associations
improves society in the long run. And freedom of speech includes the
freedom not to be compelled to speak.

Ironically, Harvard is now in the process of writing a reference to the
Puritans out of its alma mater — to update the anthem "for the 21st
century" — even as it reasserts their practice of harsh, intrusive
judgments on private lives. A backlash is arising against this
institutional overreach. Students, faculty and alumni are marshaling
venerable liberal values — freedom of thought, of association and of
speech — against a twisted new nondiscrimination orthodoxy.

(9) Google renames Margaret Court tennis arena after her anti-Gay comments

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/google-prematurely-renames-margaret-court-arena/8600168

Margaret Court Arena prematurely renamed to Evonne Goolagong Arena in
Google Maps By Jon Healy

The calls for Margaret Court Arena to be renamed appear to have been
heeded by Google, albeit slightly prematurely.

The tennis legend has come under fire for a host of recent comments
surrounding homosexuality, primarily for saying she planned to boycott
Qantas for its support of same-sex marriage.

That prompted fellow tennis star Martina Navratilova to write an open
letter in Fairfax Media calling for, among other things, Margaret Court
Arena to be renamed to remove all traces of the 64-time major winner.

"I think the Evonne Goolagong Arena has a great ring to it," Navratilova
wrote.

"Now there is a person we can all celebrate. On every level."

Well, on Thursday it looked like Google had jumped the gun, with their
maps displaying the new moniker. Evonne Goolagong Arena Photo: Someone
should probably let Evonne Goolagong know she has a court named in her
honour. (Supplied: Google)

Court need not worry, though, as a quick click into Melbourne's famed
tennis precinct changed the court back to its regular name. Margaret
Court Arena Photo: Court's name has not been completely erased on Google
Maps. (Supplied: Google)

By the afternoon, Google had fixed the problem.

A spokesperson for Google said the organisation's use of "a wide range
of sources, including third-party providers, public sources, and user
contributions" helped make their maps all-encompassing, but there was a
trade-off.

"We recognise that there may be occasional inaccuracies that could arise
from any of those sources," the spokesperson said.

But calls for the change to become a reality are growing louder. More on
Court:

Aussie doubles star Casey Dellacqua opens up on life as a mother in a
same-sex relationship Margaret Court tennis academy 'targeted with
abuse' after same-sex marriage comments The Conversation — Note to
Margaret Court: Don't read the Bible that literally Stosur clarifies
comments after Australian Open boycott confusion Margaret Court Arena
furore could spark scheduling chaos, Andy Murray says

After Navratilova's letter, Tennis Australia (TA) released a statement
saying Court was unmatched as a player, but her personal views were out
of line with TA's "values of equality, inclusion and diversity".

There was some discussion around a boycott of the second-biggest stage
at the Australian Open after Samantha Stosur said "[we will see] who
wants to play on Margaret Court Arena and who doesn't".

Since then, the 'Rename the Margaret Court Arena the Evonne Goolagong
Arena' petition on Change.org has garnered more than 8,500 supporters.

"We think it is unsuitable for your arena to continue to be named in
honour of someone who has been consistently outspoken about her
opposition to equality, diversity and inclusion," the blurb reads.

"Evonne Goolagong, who was Australian of the year in 1971, is also a
great Australian tennis champion. She has a reputation for generosity
and inclusiveness. She is a far more suitable candidate for the official
name of your stadium."

(10) Top Gear gay joke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38442533/richard-hammond-is-criticised-for-gay-ice-cream-joke-on-amazon-show-the-grand-tour

Richard Hammond is criticised for gay ice cream joke on Amazon show, The
Grand Tour

27 Dec 2016

TV presenter Richard Hammond has been criticised after making a joke
about eating ice cream being gay.

He was responding to a comment made by Jeremy Clarkson on The Grand Tour.

Talking to an audience, co-host Clarkson points at a photo of a Volvo's
interior and says: "The only problem is that in one of those, you
couldn't enjoy a chocolate Magnum ice cream."

Richard Hammond replied: "It's all right, I don't eat ice cream. It's
something to do with being straight." More related stories George
Michael How I featured on a George Michael song This is a photo of a
stack of Christmas gifts. What your Christmas behaviour say about you
People in the barber shop 2016 viewed from the barber's chair

After the audience on the Amazon Prime show applauded, Jeremy Clarkson
asks: "Why are you applauding him? What do you mean? You're saying all
children are homosexual?"

Richard Hammond replies: "What? What? Ice cream is a bit - you know...
There's nothing wrong with it, but a grown man eating an ice cream -
it's that way, rather than that way.

"I'm right. I can't believe you can't see that. It's easy. It's in front
of you."

But Twitter users aren't happy about the comments.

Years & Years singer Olly Alexander made a joke about it while others
people went further.

LGBT campaigner, Peter Tatchell, has also criticised Richard Hammond.

Speaking on BBC 5 Live Daily, he's told Adrian Chiles that he thinks the
comments "pander to prejudice".

"It's a perverse world when everyday pleasures like ice cream becomes
the butt of homophobic innuendo," he said.

"That Richard Hammond thinks he needs to boast about his heterosexuality
is weird and it will get people wondering, 'Why? Why is he saying that?'
Jeremy Clarkson Image caption Jeremy Clarkson asked the audience why
they were applauding Richard Hammond

"His pandering to prejudice is bad enough, of course. But the audience
applause that he got makes it even worse, and I think it shows that we
still have some way to go to end bigoted banter."

There's no word yet from Richard Hammond or the producers of The Grand Tour.

The comments were made on the sixth episode of the Amazon Prime show,
which was called Happy Finnish Christmas.

It was released on 23 December.

A spokesman for LGBT equality charity Stonewall said: "Hammond's choice
of words were not just ridiculous, but chosen purposefully to mock and
belittle.

"This is the sort of childish language heard in playgrounds across Britain.

"Stonewall trains teachers to tackle homophobic, biphobic and
transphobic slurs like these, so to hear this sort of language on
television is extremely disappointing and sends the wrong message to
young people."

In the same episode Richard Hammond also takes a dig at the Top Gear
scene filmed at the Cenotaph in central London earlier this year.

Driving a Mustang on a tour of the city, he says: "That is the Cenotaph,
where we remember those who died fighting for us. Slow down a bit here,
show some respect." Mustang going past the Cenotaph

The BBC show, formerly fronted by The Grand Tour's Richard Hammond,
Jeremy Clarkson and James May, was criticised after new host Matt
LeBlanc and a professional driver performed "doughnuts" near the war
memorial. Matt Leblanc takes part in filming for the new BBC Top Gear
series near Cenotaph in Whitehall, London, on 13 March 2016

Former co-host Chris Evans apologised for the stunt, and said he and the
crew were "mortified".