Peter LaBarbera

Of all the advances of the homosexual agenda, perhaps none is more disturbing than the penetration of the nation’s schools with messages and programs designed to teach homosexuality as normative. In recent years, homosexual advocates have injected pro-homosexuality discussions into early grade classrooms — including kindergarten — in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity.” In middle school and high school, youngsters are being encouraged to “come out” as “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” or even “transgender” through pro-homosexuality school clubs. Meanwhile, activist teachers are incorporating homosexuality-affirming lessons in curricula and defending their “right” to be openly homosexual in the classroom — regardless of parental opposition.

Here are the top 10 strategies used by the burgeoning pro-homosexuality school movement to influence impressionable and often troubled students:

  1. PROMOTE VICTIM STATUS; EXPLOIT “SAFETY” RHETORIC. The main theme undergirding appeals for pro-homosexuality school programs is the idea that “gay youth” are victims in need of special protection by school administrators. Thus, “gay” activists have taken the “victim” strategy that has always been at the core of their overall “civil rights” strategy and ingeniously tailored it to schools. Homosexual groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) routinely highlight the alleged high suicide rate of “gay youth,” despite the faulty methodology of research used to make such claims.1 Some have used hyperbole, such as comparing “gay youth suicide” to a “hidden holocaust,” to justify pro-homosexuality programs in schools.2 Recently, GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings indicted the Wyoming public school system, which he considered insufficiently pro-homosexuality, as an “accomplice” in the murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard — since his assailants were from Wyoming.3

    Emotional, overheated rhetoric of this sort fuels the pro-homosexuality education movement, which adopted the “Safe Schools” mantra to neutralize pro-family resistance to its agenda. Jennings laid out the thinking behind a “gay” rhetorical strategy used in Massachusetts, where the pro-“gay” education movement has advanced further than in any other state:

    We immediately seized upon the opponents’ calling card — safety — and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. … We knew that, confronted with real-life stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would automatically be on the defensive: they would have to attack people who had already been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. … In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame [of the debate] and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves.’ This allowed us to set the terms of the debate.4

    Pro-family advocates concede that students who identify as homosexuals face added risks and harassment, but argue that the homosexual lifestyle itself is far more dangerous than so-called “homophobia” — especially for males, due to the dangers associated with unnatural sex practices such as anal sex.5 It is particularly galling to those who understand this that homosexuality-affirming programs and lessons in schools — and radical sexual “identities” for teenagers — are being advanced in the name of “safety.” Says former homosexual Alan Medinger, director of the Baltimore-based ex-“gay” ministry group Regeneration: “From every medical and health aspect … including the probability of becoming infected with AIDS — it is tragic, even criminal to lead a child into homosexuality because he or she showed some degree of sexual confusion in adolescence.”6

  2. START WITH VERY YOUNG CHILDREN. Like other crusaders before them, homosexual activists seek to change cultural norms by targeting society’s youngest members with their ideology. Since all sides agree that it is inappropriate to discuss sex with the very young, homosexual advocates have taken to promoting “tolerance” of “gays” and lesbians — a seemingly innocuous goal. States one pro-homosexuality report: “It is in the younger years that students form their impressions of lesbian and gay people. It is imperative, then, that they learn about lesbian/gay issues in an age-appropriate way from the beginning of their schooling.”7

    One of the methods used to accomplish this goal is to intervene whenever the teacher or school administrator hears a student using a homosexuality-related term in a negative context (e.g., saying “That’s so gay” as a putdown), even if the child is unaware of the actual meaning of the slur. In such “teachable moments,” the teacher steps in and informs the student that such language is inappropriate. If that were all that was involved, pro-family critics would not object, but homosexual groups also advise teachers to use these “teachable moments” to give the children a wider lesson on tolerance of homosexuals in society — in other words, to use unkind speech as a springboard to teach a positive lesson about homosexuality. Consider this recommendation by Wisconsin “gay” activist Paul Varnell:

    First and foremost, teachers must act promptly to stop anti-gay comments at their first appearance, explaining to children why they are wrong, and that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Students who persevere need to be disciplined or suspended to show children and their parents that the schools are serious.8 (Emphasis added.)

    Certainly educators can teach decency and kindness without affirming homosexuality as normal and good. By using such incidents to dispense “politically correct” shibboleths about homosexuality, educators are confusing children and undermining the moral instruction of parents.

    GLSEN is at the forefront of those advocating pro-homosexuality lessons for elementary-age children. At a 1998 GLSEN-sponsored conference in Boston, GLSEN member and New York kindergarten teacher Jaki Williams said teaching five-year-olds about homosexuals is important because children at that age are just “developing their superego” and “that’s where the saturation process needs to begin.”9

    Shocking as it may seem, pro-homosexuality advocates now advise exposing even kindergarten-age children to their “gay”-positive measures. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) ran an article in its newsletter, “Young Children,” suggesting answers to a question from 5-year-old Ethan about whether day-care classmate Tommy can marry his best friend Sam when the two grow up. The excerpt below includes one of the authors’ suggested answers:

    Sometimes a simple, honest answer suffices. One teacher response might be, ‘Tommy and Sam can choose to live together when they grow up. There are men who prefer to make a family with another man instead of with a woman. And they love each other just like other families. They can even have a wedding if they want.’ This is a clear and factual response that answers the question directly, although it does not raise new questions about the complexities of laws about and societal attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Some children will be satisfied; others will have more comments and questions.10

    NAEYC, based in Washington, D.C., accredits day care centers across the country.11

  3. DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE “FAMILIES”/CELEBRATE “DIVERSITY.” Another teaching tactic used by homosexual advocates, beginning with very young students, is to encourage discussion of homosexual-led families as normal. Among elementary-aged students, this phenomenon is exacerbated by the enrollment in schools of children from lesbian- and “gay”-led households. Debra Chasnoff, a lesbian and co-producer of the video It’s Elementary: Talking about Gay Issues in School — which shows grade-school children receiving pro-homosexuality lessons in class — says her motivation for making the film was that her son was entering kindergarten in public school.12 Private schools are not immune to pro-homosexuality lobbying; in Maryland, lesbian mother Lina Ayers, whose daughter had entered first grade at Friends School in Baltimore, successfully lobbied for the privilege of reading the pro-lesbianism “children’s” book “Heather Has Two Mommies” to each first-grade class in the school. Ayers said she wanted to reduce the stigma her daughter would face from other students.13

    A leading force in promoting an approving view of homosexuality is the National Education Association (NEA) teachers union, which has a powerful “gay and lesbian” caucus. The following is the NEA’s view of diversity, laid out in a 1997 pro-homosexuality “Action Sheet”:

    Recognizing that our world is heterogeneous and not homogeneous is a first step toward validating the existence of diverse groups of people. The second step is talking about and acknowledging differences. And the third step involves accepting as contributing members of society those we previously considered as “other.” No longer can we expect people to be alike, under the assumption that likeness will produce a shared culture and generally harmonious relationships. Now, we must be prepared to respect people who are different, even though their beliefs may conflict with our own and make us feel uneasy.14

    Curiously, the same liberal education activists who champion “diversity” and respecting “people who are different” are disinclined to consider fairly the abundant evidence that men and women can abandon the homosexual lifestyle.

    To illustrate the NEA’s deep commitment to the pro-homosexuality education agenda, consider the following excerpts from the same “Action Sheet” (note how opponents of homosexuality are denigrated as “extremists”):

    Gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual people experience the same basic developmental issues. … All of us learn to express our sexuality through intimacy, sensuality, and identity. And all of us act through a sexual orientation that is bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual. … These orientations are not chosen but are discovered through normal child development. … The degree to which we accept who we are is the degree to which we can accept those who are different. …

    In counseling programs, sociology classes, and school-wide events, [homosexual] students don’t find their concerns about gender identity, peer relationships, alienation, or suicide addressed. Counselors are often prevented from mentioning these topics because of right-wing extremists’ opposition. Among the events documented in Hostile Climate [a report by the Washington-based People for the American Way], a presentation by three lesbian parents to high school sociology students in Idaho was squelched by Focus on the Family; and a Diversity Day program at an Oregon High School was axed by Citizens for Excellence in Education.15

  4. ENACT SCHOOL NONDISCRIMINATION CODES. Homosexual legal strategists recognize that policy change often precedes cultural change. So they have steadfastly — and often silently — been working to add “sexual orientation” to the nondiscrimination codes of school districts, school boards, education-oriented professional associations and other institutions to lay the groundwork for further pro-homosexuality efforts. These are often “stealth” campaigns that meet success before pro-family citizens are able to mount a counter-campaign. However, vigilance is rewarded in turning back such policies. In Maryland, homosexual advocates were well on their way to adding “sexual orientation” to a section of the nondiscrimination code of the multicultural policy of the state board of education. But conservative activist Tres Kerns of Citizens for Parents’ Rights learned of the plan and launched a grassroots campaign — targeting the usually anonymous board members — that succeeded in stopping the revision.16

  5. PROMOTE “COMING OUT” AND “GLBT PRIDE.” Homosexual publications and researchers have reported on the phenomenon of young people “coming out” as homosexuals (and bisexuals and “transgenders”) at younger and younger ages. According to several studies, the average “coming out” age for “gay/bisexual males” has plummeted from around 21 years old in 1979 to under 15 today, with young people identifying “gay” attractions at age 13.17 Though many “gay” activists say they cannot explain the phenomenon, it is obviously the result of years of pro-homosexuality advocacy in the larger culture (combined with the earlier exposure of children to sexual themes in general). That is, by creating a vast “gay” movement built around the notion that homosexual behavior is natural and acceptable, homosexual activists have made it very easy for teens and even preteens to self-identify as “gay.” In fact, homosexual youth organizations now cater to young teens, who mingle with older homosexuals.18

    Grooming young students for “coming out” as homosexuals, bisexuals and “transgenders” is a central plank of the homosexual education movement. Schools are ignoring the societal debate over homosexual identity (and the possibilities of preventing “gay” identity formation and of change for homosexuals) and working hand-in-hand with homosexual activists to direct youth to “gay” advocacy groups.

  6. ENCOURAGE (AND FUND) PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY STUDENT CLUBS. Another central component of the “gay” education agenda is the formation of school-based “Gay-Straight Alliances” (GSAs), which are de facto homosexuality booster and propaganda clubs. In Massachusetts, where GSAs are taxpayer-funded, over one-half of about 300 public high schools host the clubs, which seek to combat “homophobia” and generally advance homosexual activist ideology. Every year, the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth helps bus “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” students from across the state to Boston for a pro-homosexuality pep rally on the steps of the state capitol.19

    As an example of the radical teachings fostered by GSAs, Newton North High School, in Rep. Barney Frank’s hometown of Newton, Massachusetts, held a panel discussion for students, titled, “What Is Transgender All About?” The panel, which students were encouraged to attend (during what normally would have been class time), featured three transsexuals who advocated for “transgender rights.” The school newspaper, the Newtonite, featured a sympathetic report about the event.20

    Massachusetts teacher-activists have had considerable success in spreading the concept of GSAs to other states, especially in large metropolitan areas with large homosexual populations. In addition, Massachusetts’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth has proposed $1.5 million for pro-homosexuality school programs in the next school year.21

  7. ADOPT HOMOSEXUALITY-AFFIRMING CURRICULA. Pro-homosexuality teachers are using their position to “mainstream” homosexuality in the classroom. In high schools and colleges, the main tactic has been to stress that famous historical figures were “gay,” even if there is no definitive proof for the claim. For example, Vassar English Professor Paul Russell, a homosexual, listed St. Augustine in his book “The Gay 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Gay Men and Lesbians,” published in 1995 with research funding provided by the federal National Endowment for the Arts. Russell admitted that he could not prove his claim, but states, “What I am claiming here is that Augustine appears to have indulged, in his early life, in pleasures of the flesh, both with males and with females.”22 Similarly, a pro-homosexuality agency in the Los Angeles Unified School District suggested that Abraham Lincoln was “gay,” relying on the discredited accusation of pro-pedophilia University of Massachusetts Professor Charles Shively.23

    As if maligning the dead were not bad enough, it appears the homosexual education movement is now moving beyond the “soft sciences” to spread the pro-“gay” message into areas having nothing to do with sex. Consider these recommendations in a pro-“gay” report urging “subject-appropriate applications of lesbian/gay issues” in math classes:

    1. “The use of same-sex couples in word problems;
    2. “The use of gay/lesbian specific situations in explaining mathematical procedures (example: if 10,000 people marched in the Gay Pride March in 1990 and 25,000 in 1992, what was the average increase?).”24

    Such politicization of basic education, which arrogantly ignores a student’s right to disagree with the homosexual viewpoint, threatens to further erode academic standards and student performance as more and more class time is wasted on “politically correct” discussions.

    As discussed above, the effort to infuse curricula with pro-homosexuality messages has seeped down into elementary schools. Obviously, this is more manipulative, given that such lessons are targeted at children who don’t know about or are just learning about sex. It’s Elementary co-producer Debra Chasnoff said, “I would like to see mandatory homophobia prevention education integrated into elementary and secondary school curricula.”25 There can be no doubt that homosexual activists seek to displace the moral and religious teachings of parents about sexual morality with their own doctrine — revolutionary in the light of history — that homosexual relationships are as natural and valid as normal relationships between men and women.

  8. USE OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL TEACHERS AND “ROLE MODELS.” Homosexual activists now assert their “right” to be open about their homosexuality to the students in their care. Such situations can cause grave problems for students who are opposed to homosexuality yet enrolled in the classes of openly “gay” teachers. “Gay” activists assert that straight teachers have always been able to be open about their spouses in the classroom (e.g., displaying a photo on the desk), but that argument posits a moral equivalence between normal relationships and homosexual behavior that the majority of people reject. In Bakersfield, Calif., openly homosexual high school teacher James Merrick sued to stop students from dropping out of his class, claiming that he was a “discrimination” victim. Merrick, an outspoken “gay” activist in his community, won his case, and parents were forbidden to pull their students out of his class. The decision was a tremendous blow to parents’ rights.26 This case typifies the homosexual lobby’s insistence on treating homosexual issues like racial issues, even though the former involves changeable behavior widely regarded as immoral while the latter is an immutable, inborn, and innocuous trait.

  9. PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY COUNSELING FOR TROUBLED YOUTH. Sadly, many young men and women are encouraged to embrace a “gay” sexual identity by their school counselors. The American School Counselor Association now endorses the claim of a natural and “unalterable” homosexual identity for “sexual minority” youth.27 At Groves High School in Birmingham, Mich., the alma mater of this writer, homosexual activist Frank Colasonti, Jr., is the school guidance counselor. The local Detroit-area media has championed Colasonti, founder of GLSEN’s Detroit chapter, as an advocate for “gay” youth without critically examining the conflict-of-interest issues surrounding his position as a school counselor.28 Obviously, most parents would prefer not to send their son or daughter to be “counseled” by someone who celebrates homosexuality, especially if the child were troubled over sexual matters. Parents would be wise to inquire about their school counselor’s position on issues of sexual identity and sexual morality at the start of the school year.

  10. EQUATE OPPOSITION WITH HATE, BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE. Pro-family parents committed to grounding their children in traditional moral beliefs, including the ancient Judeo-Christian view that homosexual behavior is wrong and unnatural, are usually not surprised to learn that “gay” education activists have no respect for their position and in fact seek to undermine it. Homosexual education activists such as Kevin Jennings of GLSEN claim to respect biblical beliefs but assert that all children must be taught to live in a diverse world in which “gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders” are part of the mix. It would seem to follow, then, that schools should take special time to teach children to live with a number of other social problems and errant behaviors that have existed since time immemorial. Why not an all-day workshop on prostitution? Or an in-school seminar on adultery? The fact is that Jennings and his allies regard opposition to homosexuality, be it motivated by religion or practical concerns, as prejudice on a moral par with racism. They do not believe that homosexuals can change because they consider homosexuality a natural “orientation,” akin to being left-handed. The record of homosexual education activists is replete with quotations equating the sincerely held beliefs of their foes with “hate,” “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “prejudice.” It is better to approach all school conflicts over the homosexuality issue with this understanding than to count on “gay” activists to be respectful and reasonable.

Despite the special treatment homosexuality is receiving in today’s schools, homosexual practices are as immoral, unhealthy and unnatural now as they were 2,000 years ago. Discussions about this subject belong at home, not in the classroom — particularly since the school lessons that have come to light appear to lack any semblance of objectivity and instead are one-sided presentations that mimic the propaganda of homosexual groups like GLSEN. Schools have no right to undermine parents’ right to raise their children according to their own moral code. Parents must take every precaution necessary to ensure that their child’s school is not adding “re-education” to the three Rs of reading, writing and arithmetic.

[For information on how parents and pro-family activists can protect children from pro-homosexuality propaganda in schools, see “How to Protect Children from Pro-homosexuality Propaganda in Schools,” an FRC InFocus by Peter LaBarbera, 11/23/99, IF99J1HS.]


Peter LaBarbera is a senior analyst in the cultural studies department of the Family Research Council. He is editor of CultureFacts, a weekly fax/e-mail publication published by FRC that monitors the homosexual movement.


  1. See Peter LaBarbera, “Gay Youth Suicide: Myth Is Used to Promote Homosexual Agenda,” Insight, IS94B3HS, Family Research Council, which points out the flaws on a now generally discredited youth suicide report by a gay activist named Paul Gibson. Since the publication of this FRC paper in 1994, other studies showing high attempted suicide rates for homosexual youth have been published and touted by homosexual advocates. However, even some homosexual researchers, such as Ritch C. Savin-Williams, have begun to challenge the general portrayal of homosexual youth as suicidal.

  2. David LaFontaine, a homosexual activist who directs Massachusetts’s taxpayer-funded Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, commented, “Gay youth suicide is like a hidden holocaust in America,” in New York Native, a now-defunct “gay” newspaper, February 24, 1992, as cited by LaBarbera in “Gay Youth Suicide,” ibid.

  3. Kevin Jennings, speech to local GLSEN activists, Baltimore, Maryland, May 8, 1999, according to two people who attended the speech. (Jennings reportedly forbade any tape recording of his talk after learning that there were critics of homosexual activism in attendance.)

  4. Jennings, speech to Human Rights Campaign, 1995, posted on (but since removed from) the GLSEN website (then, now, as cited by LaBarbera in “Head of Homosexual Teachers’ Group Lays Out Victim Strategy,” Lambda Report on Homosexuality, Spring 1996, p. 3. He was describing the successful “gay” lobby effort to win passage of a law banning anti-homosexual “discrimination” in Massachusetts schools, the first of its kind in the nation, in 1994.

  5. See Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight, “Homosexual Teens at Risk: Victims of ‘Homophobia’ or Self-Destructive Behavior?” Family Policy, Family Research Council, 1998.

  6. Alan Medinger in Regeneration News (the newsletter of Regeneration), February 1993, pp. 1-2.

  7. The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project Organizing Handbook, “Appendix IX: Creating Safe Schools — the Seattle and Massachusetts Models,” available at the webiste of P.E.R.S.O.N. (Public Education Regarding Sexual Orientation Nationally), The quotation is found on page 5 of this document, in a section about a Massachusetts program, titled, “Making Schools Safe: A Blueprint for Action for Schools Addressing Lesbian & Gay Issues.”

  8. Paul Varnell, “Among School Children,” In Step, November 1998. In Step is a homosexual newspaper based in Madison, Wisconsin. Varnell adds, “Students who are repeatedly homophobic also need to be mandated to counseling to discover why berating others is so important to them. … Anti-bias programs must be required as early as kindergarten and continue on through high school.”

  9. Brian Burt, “Gay Leader Says Dream Is to ‘Promote Homosexuality,’” Lambda Report on Homosexuality, January/February 1998.

  10. Betsy J. Cahill and Rachel Theilheimer, “Can Tommy and Sam Get Married,” in Young Children, the newsletter of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, January 1999, pp. 27-31.

  11. See NAEYC’s website:

  12. Debra Chasnoff, interview with Maryland Public Television, June 7, 1999.

  13. LaBarbera, “Private Schools Are Promoting Homosexuality to Children,” Human Events, May 21, 1999. Ayers made the revelation in a workshop on “lower schools” at a pro-homosexuality tolerance seminar sponsored by the Association of Independent Maryland Schools, to which many religiously affiliated and prestigious private schools belong. The Human Events article is available at

  14. “Understanding Gay and Lesbian Students Through Diversity,” National Education Association “Action Sheet,” June 1997, p. 1.

  15. Ibid., p. 2.

  16. Tres Kerns, interview with LaBarbera. To reach Kerns, call Citizens for Parents’ Rights at (410) 544-2177, or write P.O. 4, Pasadena, MD 21123. E-mail:

  17. See the work of homosexual researcher Ritch C. Savin-Williams, a developmental psychologist at Cornell University. A summary of studies dealing with the development of homosexual identity can be found in his book, … And Then I Became Gay (Routledge: New York, 1998), p. 16. Savin-Williams told the Washington Post that the average age at which young men label their attractions as “gay” has dropped from almost 20 in 1979 to 13 in 1998. “Every time we sample these kids, the average age is getting younger,” he said. See Libby Copeland, “Out of the Closet, but Not Out of Middle School; Gay Youths Say They’re Aware of Sexuality Earlier,” The Washington Post, June 29, 1999.

  18. For example, one such group, the Boston Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Youth (BAGLY, Inc.), advertises itself as a “youth-led, adult-supported social support group for all youth ages 22 and under who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered (GLBT), or questioning their sexual or gender identities.” In an interview with The Massachusetts News (November 1998), BAGLY Executive Director Grace Sterling Stowell said that there is “officially” no minimum age for youth involved in the group. Stowell said, “It would be unusual for us to have anyone younger than 14,” but added that if a 14-year-old wanted to join BAGLY, he would not need his parents’ permission. Stowell is a “transgendered” man who identifies as a woman. For more information, see and

  19. Jim Hanes, “Youth Pride Day Hails New ‘Gay’ School Groups,” CultureFacts, May 22, 1999, reporting on the Fifth Annual “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Rally” at the state capitol in Boston, May 7, 1999. CultureFacts is a weekly fax/e-mail publication of the Family Research Council (to obtain a sample, call 1 (800) 225-4008 or see FRC’s website:

  20. Jason Shapiro, “Transgender panel discusses identity issues,” The Newtonite, April 16, 1999,

  21. Interview with Brian Camenker, Boston-area pro-family activist and founder of the Parents Rights Coalition (Newton, Mass.); phone: (781) 433-7106; e-mail:

  22. Russell’s book cited by LaBarbera in, “NEA Grant Funds Book Claiming St. Augustine, King David, St. Paul and Eleanor Roosevelt Were ‘Gay,’” Lambda Report on Homosexuality, July-September 1995, p. 1.

  23. LaBarbera, “L.A. Educator Asserts Lincoln Had Homosexual Affairs,” Lambda Report on Homosexuality, April-June 1995. The claim about Lincoln originates in a book edited by University of Massachusetts Professor Charles Shively, Drum Beats: Walt Whitman’s Civil War Boy Lovers (San Francisco: Gay Sunshine Press, 1989). Shively recently published an article in Gayme, a pro-pedophilia magazine published by Bill Andriette, the former editor of the NAMBLA Bulletin, the newsletter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (“Anarchist Lovers,” Gayme, Issue 3.2, May 30, 1997, pp. 16-19).

  24. The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project Organizing Handbook, Appendix IX, op. cit.; see section on “Mathematics.”

  25. Chasnoff, quoted in OutFacts (New York: Out Publishing, Inc., 1997), p. 43.

  26. Herb Benham, “Lessons taught are more than science,” The Bakersfield Californian, Merrick’s “sexuality became common knowledge when he took a public stand against Rev. Douglas Hearn, a member of the county’s Human Relations Commission,” who said that he would not want homosexuals teaching his children.

  27. See the American School Counselor Association’s position statement on “The Professional School Counselor and Sexual Minority Youth” at the organization’s website,

  28. See, for example, Nicole Bondi and Charles Hurt, “Schools battle over gay policies: Language that bars discrimination goes too far for some,” The Detroit News, March 27, 1998, p. D1.

The above article from the Family Research Council (FRC) Website.