Box Turtle Bulletin

Ex-Gay Leader Admits To “Naked Therapy” Within His Organization

In 2010, two former ex-gay clients of an unlicensed therapist associated with JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing) came forward to describe a “psychological striptease” in which their ex-gay therapist had them strip and touch their genitals as part of their ex-gay “therapy.” The therapist, Alan Downing, who admits that he is still attracted to men, has declined to comment. But in an article published in the New York-based The Jewish Week last December, JONAH founder Arthur Goldberg both admitted and defended the practice of asking clients to undress, but denied that anyone was asked to touch their genitals:

On very rare occasions, for those suffering from “severe body image issues,” a JONAH therapist may have asked a client to undress, but only with three people present in the room, said the group’s founder, Arthur Goldberg.

“As far as I’m aware,” a JONAH therapist has never asked a client to touch himself during a session, he said. (Former ex-gay client Chaim) Levin said there were no witnesses in the room with him and Downing and that the door was locked.

Downing is a therapist for the Jonah Institute for Gender Affirmation and is listed on the People Can Change website as a “Senior Facilitator” for Journey into Manhood, which is a controversial “ex-gay” backwoods retreat designed to supposedly make gay men more masculine.

In February 2010, it was revealed that Arthur Goldberg had been convicted as a Wall Street swindler in 1989.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, January 12

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Celebrations This Weekend: Aspen Gay Ski Week: Aspen, CO; Melbourne Pride’s Midsumma Carnival: Melbourne, VIC.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Gay Men’s Health Crisis Founded: 1982. Several dozen men gathered in writer Larry Kramer’s New York apartment to discuss the mysterious “gay cancer” that had been claiming the lives of their friends and lovers and to figure out how to raise money for research. The group originally thought they were coming together for a one-time thing: persuade a club to hold a benefit, invite a bunch of A-listers to come and donate, give the money to a suitable research organization, and go home. But it quickly became apparent that there was much, much more work to be done. Forced by bureaucratic apathy on the part of city officials, local health authorities, and even Mayor Ed Koch, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) quickly went from being an ad-hoc group to organize a fundraiser to a full-fledged charitable service organization to fill the void that the city revused to fill.

GMHC would go on to raise money to provide services and assistance for people with HIV/AIDS, including assistance from a large army of volunteers to meet day-to-day needs like cooking, housecleaning, dog-walking, and transportation to medical appointments, as well as help in navigating the apathetic bureaucratic maze. GMHC started a crisis hotline, which became one of the organization’s most important avenue for distributing AIDS information in the pre-Internet era. They also distributed material to help educate the general public on the need for safer sex. In these areas, GMHC worked hard to meet the needs which had been, at best, ignored by local and national health authorities and charities (most shockingly, including most faith-based charities). GMHC also battled the overt stigmatization and hostility which grew among well-known public figures, nationally as well as locally.

GMHC quickly established itself as a well-regarded authority for HIV/AIDS education and service. By 1984, the Centers for Disease Control called on GMHC’s help in planning public conferences on AIDS. As the epidemic continued to grow, GMHC expanded its reach by assisting heterosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, intravenous drug users, and children. Today, the GMHC continues its work as one of the nation’s leading non-profit, volunteer-supported AIDS service and educational organizations.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Remember when it seemed like the entire world was waiting on pins and needles for Texas Gov. Rick Perry to do what God had called him to do and enter the race for the GOP presidential nomination? Remember how everyone knew that he was just the right candidate for the right wing? Remember how he was going to take his amazing twelve-year track record as governor of Texas and suddenly inject some excitement into the campaign of loonies and also rans, and how he was going to show everyone how it was done? How he was going to show everyone how a true conservative who hated the gays with the best of them would sail to the nomination and unseat the socialist Kenyan athiest-islamic traitor in the White House and return America back toward its true destiny?

And remember how, before he did all that, he paused for prayer, at a giant prayer rally called The Response which was put on by his Christian Dominionist friends? And how on the seventh day after The Response (keeping it Biblical, you know) he announced his candidacy? And how he vowed to protect America from all gays, foreign and domestic?

Remember how all of that turned out?

He doesn’t. He’s going to try it again. A prayer rally, that is, again called The Response, again put on by the same folks who organized last August’s rally in Houston, this time in Greenville, South Carolina. He will be a special guest at the “apolitical” event on Tuesday, January 17.

You know the definition of insanity, don’t you?

Santorum challenges box of rocks for the imbecile vote

Chafing at the Box of Rocks’ showing in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum was quick today to prove that he – not a box of rocks – is the truly stupid candidate this year. (WSJ)

In South Carolina, Mr. Santorum plans to hit Mr. Romney on issues like championing “Romneycare,” the health-care law he advocated and signed as governor of Massachusetts and “signing marriage licenses for homosexual couples,” said Mr. Gidley [Santorum’s national spokesman].

The Box of Rocks’ national spokesman marveled at that comment, noting that governors don’t sign marriage licenses.

Another Email from Eugene Delgaudio

And now? The Radical Homosexual Lobby has legalized sodomy and bestiality in the military.

It made me sick to hear it, but it’s true.

You see, our military has always been governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This code requires the men and women serving in the military to maintain proper conduct.

But now, thanks to the radicals in Congress, a key regulation has been removed: Sodomy and Bestiality.

Unbelievably, the radical homosexuals made it a priority to legalize these acts for homosexuals serving in the military.

They actually consider the “right to violate animals sexually” a basic human necessity, even while serving alongside our nation’s greatest heroes.

I am just terrified of what else they have planned for our service men and women.

He says if I can send him $10, he can afford to send out more emails asking for more $10 contributions because “Public Advocate is the only force in our nation that is fighting back!” Go get ’em, tiger!

(Ohhhhhh….. tigers….!)

What New Hampshire Means

As with Iowa, not much in national terms, but for different reasons. It remains to be seen whether New Hampshire or Iowa will stand out as an anomaly. But it may mean something in state politics where there are murmurings that the state legislature may take up a bill repealing that state’s marriage equality law. If state lawmakers looked to these results as an indication of their own electoral futures, they may notice that two of the three top finishers have kept the National Organization for Marriage at arm’s length. Yes, Romney signed and won the primary, but 40% of the the GOP’s own voters backed candidates who didn’t. What’s more, audiences openly booed Santorum’s making Teh Gays a central talking point of his campaign, making that the most visible indication of how Granite Staters feel about anti-gay politics.

Whether that matters in the state legislature or not however isn’t a given. State Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) seems to understand the temperature of the state electorate, and warned the GOP candidates to avoid discussing the state’s effort to repeal its 2009 marriage equality law, declaring such talk “off message” even though she herself is a staunch opponent of marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples, having resigned as Attorney General in protest after Governor John Lynch signed the marriage equality bill into law. But social conservatives have an amazing capacity for self-delusions of power and grandeur. Gingrich’s victory speech last night, which didn’t mention Romney’s inconvenient existence, had Gingrich crowning himself the winner of “the conservative primary” as he all but measured the White House’s drapes. And in a related late-breaking development, a box of rocks moved ahead to edge him out of his third place finish. Meanwhile Perry has already saddled up for South Carolina after pulling out an upset victory over the write-in candidates. Santorum is already there as well, where he hopes his Iowa streak will leave a mark.

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, January 11

Trooper James Wharton on the cover of the July 2010 issue of Soldier, the British Army's official magazine.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Britain Lifts Its Ban on Gay Military Personnel: 2000. Once they put their minds to it, there wasn’t much dithering. It just took them a while to put their minds to it. Unlike the U.S. (in theory, anyway), Britain had an outright ban on gays serving in the military, whether they were open about it or not. Anyone was subject to being followed or interrogated by the SIB (Special Investigations Branch) for any suspicion, or even no suspicion at all. In 1997, three gay men and a lesbian sued after they were discharged from the Royal Navy and RAF. Their case went all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in September 1999 that the Ministry of Defense’s policy violated the service members’ human rights.

The following December, the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the MoD would comply with the ruling. Members of the opposition Conservative Party were appalled. M.P. Gerald Howarth said, “This appalling decision will be greeted with dismay among ordinary soldiers in the armed forces, many of whom joined the services precisely because they wished to turn their back on some of the values of modern society.” Officers predicted sexual mayhem in the barracks or — horrors! — male couples dancing at a mess function. But one month after the announcement was made, the ban was lifted, and all of the fears came to naught. A review two years later across all the branches found widespread acceptance for lifting the ban, and gay and lesbian service members served with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside their American counterparts who still had to remain hidden and in the closet.

Prop 8 Trial Begins: 2010. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state of California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 began their opening remarks. Attorney Ted Olsen promised to argue the case on three fundamental points:

1. Marriage is vitally important in American society.
2. By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.
3. Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

Olsen and co-counsel David Boies would ultimately prevail and U.S. Federal District Judge would rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. The case is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Romney Again

The results are in for last night’s New Hampshire GOP Primary. There weren’t too many surprises with the final results: Romney, as expected, came in with a strong first place showing. Given that he was governor of neighboring Massachusetts, he was practically a native son in political terms, making his strong showing unsurprising. Also, as expected, Ron Paul came in second. Huntsman was expected to do well in the state, having put all of his eggs in the Granite State basket. He came in third, and it’s not clear where his campaign goes from here.

Gingrich came up short, pulling on only 10% of the vote, as further evidence of his rapidly dropping popularity. A Box of Rocks came on surprisingly strong, ahead of Santorum and Perry. Cowboy Perry barely outpaced the write-ins to finish at the rear, with Santorum settling in just a short distance up it.

And that’s a wrap at BTB Elections Central for New Hampshire. Now it’s on to South Carolina where the fun really begins.

Huntsman surges in New Hampshire

Maybe it was just his time. Maybe it was the fact that in the debates he actually answered questions that reveals an understanding of the issues rather than a memorization of cue cards. And just maybe New Hampshire primary voters wanted someone who wasn’t committed to coming in and overturning their laws.

But over the past few days, Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah (where he has received credit for working with the gay community) and ambassador to China, has had a surge in the polls. And with early poll results coming in, it looks as though Huntsman has performed well above expectation. A strong third place tonight would strengthen Huntsman’s campaign.

At (admittedly small) 14% of precincts reporting, the numbers are:

35.6% Mitt Romney 10,393
24.1% Ron Paul 7,029
18.0% Jon Huntsman 5,243

UPDATE:

With 19% of precincts (still small), Huntsman is holding well

35.5% Mitt Romney
24.7% Ron Paul
17.0% Jon Huntsman

UPDATE:

24% are in. Huntsman’s initial number is proving a bit weak, but I think he can leave tonight with his head held high. Incidentally, Huntsman is the only remaining Republican nominee to support civil unions because he thinks “this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality.”

35.4% Mitt Romney
24.9% Ron Paul
16.9% Jon Huntsman

UPDATE:

With 26% in, I have to leave you for a bit.

35.1% Mitt Romney
25.1% Ron Paul
16.8% Jon Huntsman

UPDATE:

With 96% reporting

39.3% Mitt Romney
22.8% Ron Paul
16.8% Jon Huntsman

In all, not a great night for the extreme wing. And perhaps the results will give Huntsman greater credibility for his more moderate message.

Box of Rocks begins exploratory committee

I just received this. I guess it means the box of rocks is encouraged by comparison to Santorum and is exploring its options.

Box of Rocks coasts on to another day of victory

Today the Box of Rocks sat quietly and was bothered by no one. However, Rick Santorum found himself subjected to chants of “bigot” as he entered a campaign event. Which got me thinking, what does Santorum say on his website about matters of equality (Santorum, not santorum… that’s a different website).

In the section of “What I Believe” titled “Appointing Constitutionalist Justices and Judges Who Refuse to Legislate from the Bench”, he says the following:

Rick Santorum is no stranger to the issue of judges. … in 2004 when activist judges sought to legislate from the bench and redefine marriage, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

First, let’s consider whether that makes any sense at all. As of 2004, not a single Federal Judge had found anything favorable about marriage. However, a number of state judges had concluded that state constitutions disallowed discrimination against gay people and had demanded that either marriage or some equivalent be provided so that citizens can have equal access, so these must be the judges he’s talking about.

Which seems to suggest that Santorum thinks that as President he could appoint “Constitutionalist” state judges. But surely that can’t be the case. Even a box of rocks knows better than that.

But on to his performance. If I were considering how effective a president Rick Santorum could be, I’d look to the issues he spearheaded. And I’d have to say that on the Federal Marriage Amendment, Rick Santorum was a phenomenal failure.

To pass the Senate and be considered by the states, the FMA had to pass both houses of Congress by a two thirds vote. In the House in 2004 that was 290 votes in favor, and in the Senate it required 67. So Sentorum’s goal, his measure of competency, was obtaining 67 Senate votes in favor of the amendment.

There were at that point 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 Independent. To achieve his goal, Santorum needed to keep hold of the presumed support of all 51 Republicans and pick up support of a third of Democrats.

But before he could pass the FMA and start campaigning in the states, he had one further roadblock. He needed to get a vote. And if the Senators don’t want to vote on an issue, they can fillibuster – or just keep talking. As long as a Senator wants to talk – be it about the bill or his neighbor’s dog or reading the phonebook (as as happened) – they are entitled to do so.

However, there is a ‘sit down and shut up’ provision to keep any one Senator from disrupting business. If any Senator wishes to end debate and just vote already, he can call for cloture. And if three fifths (60) Senators agree, debate stops immediately and the bill itself is voted on. So before he could get his 67 Senators to send the FMA to the states, he needed 60 who were wanted to take a vote.

He didn’t even get half.

Santorum managed to get three Democrats to vote on whether to vote (Byrd, Miller, and Nelson), but he lost twice as many Republicans who refused to bring the FMA to cloture (Campbell, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, and McCain – yes, that McCain). His cloture vote fell flat 48 to 50 (Senators Kerry and Edwards were unavailable.)

So what Santorum is loudly touting on his website is that on the FMA, he is a failure. A colossal failure. The box of rocks doesn’t have a website and is making no claims as to its ability to spearhead anything. On this matter of intellect and wit, the rocks win. Again.

But to really set himself apart from a box of rocks, Rick Santorum goes further to explain his understanding of the judicial process and the roll of the judiciary in a checked and balanced government:

Rick Santorum believes that the Judiciary is a critical part of our system of government, but it is the third branch of government under our Constitution, and should not act like the first. President Obama often prefers when it does legislate instead of Congress. For example, when he refuses to defend the Congressionally approved Defense of Marriage Act.

Okay, it can be difficult to understand the workings of Santorum’s brain, but if I have this correct, when the President chooses not to defend a law he thinks unconstitutional, then the judiciary is acting like Congress. By hearing argument in a lawsuit brought by the State of Massachusetts, the judiciary is, in Santorum’s words, “legislating from the bench” and is “usurping” the role of Congress.

I’m a bit at loss as to what Santorum thinks the Judiciary is to do when a lawsuit is presented. Really, I’m not being facetious. I have no idea what he thinks is the appropriate response when a State sues the federal government for what it perceives to be an encroachment on states’ rights. I suspect that it all depends on what the position of his Church is on the matter.

Although Rick Santorum served in the Senate for twelve years, it’s abundantly clear that a box of rocks has a far better grasp on the separation of powers and role of the judiciary.

Goodbye to “marriage equality”

A while back it was noted that discussing the issue of marriage using the term “gay marriage” played into the notion that there were various different types of marriage, one of which was gay. Of course, marriage is marriage and there is no material difference between a marriage in which the partners are of different sex, different race, different religion, or of all the same sex, race, and religion. We were advised to adopt “marriage equality” as an alternate term, one that more correctly addressed the issue. And, as this seemed right and fair, I quickly complied.

But I am now ready to let go of the term “marriage equality”. For the same reason that I adopted it.

Equality is equality. It is not compartmentalized. One does not support equality for all (but not for people with red hair) or equality for all (but not for the poor, or Latinos, or middle age white men with executive jobs). Equality is a simple term and easily understood. It doesn’t need qualifiers.

I don’t support “racial equality” or “religious equality” or “marriage equality” or equality with any other adjective.

What I support and demand is equality, the unfiltered equality expressed in the engraving on the face of the Supreme Court Building: “Equal justice under law” and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Equality is equality and it should not be presumed to come with asterisks, qualifiers, exceptions, and omissions. Nor should my language suggest that one can be in favor of equality, but well there’s this other thing over here called “marriage equality” that is maybe not really part of the package and you don’t have to fully accept it. And so, when possible (which I recognize will not be always), I intend to remove that qualifier from my writing.

The question is no longer, “Do you support marriage equality?”, but “Do you support equality?” Let those who make exceptions to their concept of “equal” explain and defend them. Let’s not make it easy on them.

The Daily Agenda for Tuesday, January 10

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Episcopal Church Ordains First Open Lesbian: 1977. Before Bishop Paul Moore of New York ordained Rev. Ellen Marie Barrett as a priest in his Episcopal diocese, there is a point in the service in which the ordaining bishop asks the congregation, “If any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now, and make it known.” Rev. James Wattley, who was an active opponent of the church’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood, rose to denounce the ordination as a “travesty and a scandal.” He went on: “my objection is for myself alone on the grounds that she is a self-proclaimed lesbian.”

Bishop Moore appeared prepared for the answer. “Attention has been drawn to the ordination because Ms. Barrett has not made a secret of her homosexual orientation,” the Bishop announced. “However, her personal life has never been under criticism. Many persons with homosexual tendencies are presently in the ordained ministry. Ellen Barrett’s candor in this regard is not considered a barrier to ordination. She is highly qualified intellectually, morally and spiritually. … Historically, many of the finest clergy in our church have had this personality structure, but only recently has the social climate made it possible for some to be open about it.”

Rev. Barrett’s ordination sparked another round of controversy in the church which was already deeply split over the 1976 decision to admit women to the priesthood. By a month later, it appeared that about nine parishes had announced they were leaving the church. In an unusual move, one Florida pastor read out an “excommunication decree” from the altar of his church against Bishop Moore and Rev. Barrett. The following October, the church’s House of Bishops sought to calm the controversy with a resolution declaring that gay people should not be ordained as priests, saying that such an ordination would “require the Church’s sanction of such a lifestyle not only as acceptable but worthy of emulation.” The House of Bishops also gave a nearly unanimous consent to another resolution to support Bishops who “by their own conscience” refuse to ordain women priests or allow them to serve in their dioceses. But in a 28-62 vote, the House refused to censure Bishop Moore, and in a 49-68 vote refused to advise California Bishop Kilmer Myers against licensing Rev. Barrett in his diocese. Thus the precedent was set, and bishops continued ordaining openly gay priests under the same “conscience” principle which permitted other bishops to bar women from the altar.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAYS:
Johnnie Ray: 1927. When his career broke open in 1951, he was quickly dubbed “The Prince of Wails” in a nod to his highly emotional brand of white R&B. His intense performances forshadowed the energy of Rock And Roll which would hit the charts hard a few years later. Ray’s first hits, “Cry,” and “The Little White Cloud That Cried”, were sides A and B of his first “single”, with both sides dominating the charts for several months. They were followed by a string of a couple dozen top-forty hits through 1957. He married very briefly in 1952, a marriage that ended a year later. His wife knew he was gay going in — he had been arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer in Detroit for sex before his career took off — but the aspiring Mrs. Ray was confident she could “straighten him out.” All the while, it appears that Rays true long-term relationship was with his manager, Bill Franklin.

His popularity in the U.S. faded by the late ’50s, but he continued to do well in the UK, where his show at the Palladium became legendary. But by 1960, his star began to fade, dimmed by alcoholism and a bout of turberculosis. There was a brief possibility of a revival in the early 1970s, but it turned out to be short lived. Frankin left him in 1976 and cut off all contact a few years later. By the time the 1980s rolled around, gen-X’ers had little idea of who he was except for a line in the 1982 hit “Come On Eileen” by Dexys Midnight Runners. (“Poor old Johnnie Ray sounded sad upon the radio / he moved a million hearts in mono.”). He died of liver failure in 1990.

Here is a performance of “The Little White Cloud That Cried.” When you watch this, imagine seeing it in 1951 when the top acts that year included Perry Como, Nat King Cole and Tony Bennett — five years before Elvis.

Sal Mineo: 1939. He was a talented young actor who some say peaked with his first major role as John “Plato” Crawford in Rebel Without a Cause, the 1955 classic staring James Dean and Natalie Wood. That role got him an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor. He also appeared in another James Dean vehicle Giant as a Mexican boy, and for a while he became typecast as a troubled teen. In 1957, he made a brief stab at pop music, and in 1959, he appeared as the famous jazz drummer Gene Krupa in The Gene Krupa Story. He received another Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor in the sandal epic Exodus in 1960. By the late 1960s, Mineo became one of the first Hollywood actors to acknowledge his homosexuality. He died in 1976, stabbed to death during a mugging as he was walking home from a rehearsal in West Hollywood. He was only 37.

But back to Rebel Without A Cause. By the time I saw the film for the first time as a teenager in the late 1970s, I had already read a lot about the classic. Critics and observers wrote about the movie’s themes of alienation, aimless adolescence, the ambivalence of impending adulthood — all those things and more. And so when the movie appeared on television one night (remember, this was before you could rent movies on VHS), I was unprepared for what looked to be the most obvious theme of the movie: the sexual tension between Sal Mineo and James Dean. At the time I had no idea that Mineo was gay or that Dean was bi. But seeing their chemistry together on the screen, it was so bright, so combustible, so obvious! Well good lord, why wasn’t anybody talking about that? Yeah, I know. I would later find out that others noticed it too. But remember, this was the 1970s and I was growing up in Appalachia. And man, what an eye-opener.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Colorado Republicans start pro-civil unions group

With very high support for civil unions in Colorado – including from one in five Republicans – a new group has formed to give voice to that support. (Colorado Statesman)

“Coloradans for Freedom” enters the scene less than one year after a bill to legalize civil unions was voted down by Republicans on party lines in the state’s House Judiciary Committee last March.

Coloradans for Freedom spokesman Mario Nicolais, a Jefferson County attorney who served as a Commissioner on the Colorado Reapportionment Commission, said the group exists primarily to serve as a resource for Republicans and anyone else interested in a conservative argument for civil unions.

I wish them well.

And just when you thought the Catholic Church couldn’t out-crazy itself

Meeting in Spain under the motto “Christian Family: the hope of Europe”, Catholic leadership revealed some startling discoveries. Startlingly stupid, that is.

From El Pias (and no, this doesn’t appear to be a spoof)

The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. “The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”