"John Garza responds to Allan Lichtman op ed"

Allan Lichtman wrote an op ed in the Gazette titled “Sex education, yes, ignorance, no.” Mr. Lichtman supports the “new” sex ed curriculum recently passed by the Montgomery County BOE. My question is, did he read the curriculum? For example, he complains that a sign held at recent protest by 50-75 parents said “NO UNISEX BATHROOMS.” Yet, this is exactly what the curriculum suggests. The curriculum presents the story of “Portia” the boy who becomes a girl. When Portia finally becomes a girl, “she” gets a key to the teachers’ unisex bathroom. When our children follow the curriculum and chop off body parts, take hormones and “reassign their gender,” won’t they expect the key to the bathroom like Portia?

Lichman wants to open the door to “sexual orientation.” But not all 30 orientations found in the DSM-IV-R such as Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump of an amputee; Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces; Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing; Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement; not to mention pedophila, necrophilia and many others are discussed, yet. When will we hear about these? We believe if you want to discuss orientation, put them all on the table. We don’t want our children to be ignorant. After all, Sexual Identity Disorder is celebrated in the curriculum by Portia.

The one orientation virtually absent from the curriculum is abstinence. Lichtman seems to hate abstinence because President Bush supports it. He is either ignorant of or ignores numerous studies showing abstinence at least delays the onset of sexual activity, thus saving many students from stds, unwanted pregnancies, and suicides.

He calls those opposed to the curriculum a small but vocal group showing their ignorance. Notwithstanding the fact that these groups, adduced a petition from 270 local physicians and 4000 parents and local citizens all opposed to the curriculum.

Lastly, Lichtman is very upset at the idea that students with unwanted homosexual desire should be told about ex-gays. He refuses to accept or tolerate the thousands of people leaving the gay lifestyle, some after as many as 20 years and having over 2000 sex partners. But, he is very much in favor of Gay Student Alliance Clubs already in the schools which promote homosexuality, telling students with heterosexual desires that they can change or are simply bisexual.

We believe its time to take politics out of the classroom, teach the truth, that anal sex IS more dangerous than vaginal sex, that gay men ARE at a much higher risk of stds and AIDS than heterosexuals, and that sex is not the same as playing basketball or swimming in a pool. Rather, sex is serious and emotional and physical consequences result from casual sex.

Lichtman’s solution to teen sex is condom distribution. But, for 30 years progressive sex education has pushed condom use and has failed our students. Std, abortion and suicide rates have only dropped as abstinence education has increased. There is no money in virtue, the big dollars flow to those who push a curriculum that leads to abortion, pornography, and the emotional trauma in the aftermath of teen sex.

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum has appealed to the State Board of Education. Lets hope Nancy Grasmick and the State Board do good for the students and undo this tragedy.

Montgomery County, Md. School Board finds “gay gene,”

According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn. The board could not produce any factual evidence for what it will now teach students -- only political “pledges” and payoffs for last year’s school board elections as claimed by gay rights activists. The BOE only need drive down Rockville Pike to talk with the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins, like all mainstream medical professionals would tell the BOE that homosexuality is NOT hardwired.

The board further demonstrated its bias and arrogance by ignoring the March 7 Order of Maryland State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick which stated that the Maryland Board of Education will render its decision in July on the legal appeal of the curriculum. PFOX, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and Family Leader Network filed an appeal of the proposed curriculum, citing factual inaccuracies and violations of state and federal law. The BOE gave no explanation on why it could not wait for Grasmick.

In her Order, Grasmick cites the curriculum’s attempt to address harassment problems relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. PFOX has documented how the curriculum fails to provide instruction on tolerance of ex-gays -- a group that is the object of harassment encouraged by Montgomery County public school staff and students, a fact which the Montgomery County Board of Education does not deny.

When PFOX distributed flyers to the high schools urging tolerance of the ex-gay community, the faculty at multiple schools cooperated with Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) student clubs to oppose the distribution. The PFOX flyer advocated tolerance toward ex-gays, but in MoCo tolerance does not apply to ex-gays.

For example, at Winston Churchill High School GSA students were encouraged to place trash cans in the school hallways and carry trash bags labeled “PFOX” to urge all students to trash their ex-gay flyers. The principal, Dr. Joan Benz, stood by the trash cans to support the gay students trashing the PFOX flyers.

At Wootten High School, a gay teacher and co-sponsor of the school’s GSA club warned PFOX to stay out of the public schools, compared sexual preference to African-Americans’ skin color, and also compared PFOX to the Ku Klux Klan.

This discriminatory treatment is not corrected by the curriculum on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation because former homosexuals are not included in the curriculum. Why did the Board approve a curriculum that is supposed to teach respect for diverse sexual orientations when it excludes former homosexuals -- the only sexual orientation that is subject to intolerance by both students and teachers?

Will the Maryland State Board of Education correct the failings of Jerry Weast and the BOE and protect the civil rights of all groups, and not just gays, bisexuals and cross-dressers? Stay tuned.