Box Turtle Bulletin

Michelle Obama Speaks At LGBT Delegates Lunch in Denver

AZ Ballot Will Describe Prop 102 With Legally Accurate Language

A headline like that should be a given, but — this being Arizona — one cannot always take such things for granted.

Thanks to a deal between Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard, the November ballot describing Prop 102, Arizona’s latest anti-marriage amendment, will remind voters that Arizona law already bans same-sex marriage. This clarification is especially important this year with all the attention being given to California, where same-sex marriage is currently available. Not only is there intense national attention on California, but a large portion of Arizonans live in California media markets.

Similar language was placed on the ballot for a previous anti-marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment was defeated by nearly 3.6%, making Arizona the only state in the union to have turned back an attempt to further ban same-sex marriage in the constitution.

Prop 102 supporters have filed suit against Brewer and Goddard, demanding that any reference to state law be stripped from the ballot descriptions. The lawsuit, however, may be too late. The final go-ahead was given Tuesday night to start printing the publicity pamphlets, which will be sent to the home of every registered voter. The pamphlets, like the ballots themselves, will have the agreed-upon description.

Arizona has had a law banning same-sex marriage since 1996. That law also bans recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in other states. On October 8, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the Arizona Defense of Marriage law against a challenge brought by two men who were denied a marriage license by a court clerk. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal on May 25, 2004.

Supporters of Prop 102 have out-fundraised opponents by more than 150:1. Please support our campaign to defeat Prop 102 again.

Are Gays Politically Intolerant?

A couple of weeks ago Jonathan Crutchley, the co-founder of the gay male hook-up site Manhunt.net, was discovered to have contributed $2,300 to the campaign of John McCain. Crutchley identifies himself as a liberal Massachusetts Republican and shares both the social goals of the gay community and the economic and foreign policy perspectives of the Republican candidate.

The gay blogosphere erupted in vitriol and invective and eventually Crutchley was forced to step down from his position with Manhunt.

In a somewhat similar story, the New York Post reported yesterday that Paul Colichman, the die-hard Democrat who owns Advocate and Out Magazines, is choosing not to support Barack Obama for what Colichman believes is inadequate support of the gay community. Colichman was villified.

I find it ironic that Crutchley was criticized – and lost his job – for not placing gay issues at the highest of priorities and Colichman was criticized for precisely doing so. Which makes me wonder, is there room for political diversity within the voices of the community?

It is just this question that drives James Kirchick’s Op-Ed in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times.

The hue and cry over Crutchley’s politics is all too familiar. Why can’t gay activists countenance the idea of a “Massachusetts Republican”? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise — that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don’t follow the left-wing line — is to be a traitor to the gay “community.”

There is no question. On the issues of gay equality, Barack Obama has presented positions that are more acceptable to our community. While neither he nor John McCain favor marriage and both are opposed to a federal marriage amendment, his answers on ENDA and DADT are more in alignment with the equality goals of the community.

But, campaign rhetoric and partisan posturing aside, Obama is not perfect and McCain is not a homophobe.

Further, a president’s ability to impact the lives or freedoms of most gay persons is limited, and both candidates seek to keep it that way. And while both seem to have long established professional and political relationships with gay people, neither seem completely comfortable around gay people nor do either seem to have personal relationships that suggest familiarity.

Single-issue voters may wonder how a gay person could possible consider voting for John McCain. But those who are concerned about the economic viability of the nation may look at Barack Obama’s tax plan and wonder how anyone would entrust the top job to him. We each have to weigh the issues and take risks; and we each come from different communities which demand our loyalty or consideration.

And, though this may not be a popular fact, about one fourth of self-identified gay men and women voted Republican in the past several presidential elections. And, despite internet surveys, this is not likely to change materially in November.

Does our community have room for, as example, my gay African-American Democratic friend who is concerned that Barack Obama does not have adequate experience or maturity for this position? Is there a place for my gay Republican friend who thinks that McCain is a move in the right direction by the Republican Party and who wants to vote to support this improvement? What about women who believe that Hillary Clinton was treated grossly unfair by DNC operatives?

Or are gay activist correct in demanding that those who do not give unqualified support for the Democratic Party candidate are traitors and should be reviled and punished?

Personally, I tend to agree with Kirchick:

Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Aside from their sexuality, gay people are no different from heterosexuals. There are gay people of all races, income levels, occupations, body types and, yes, political beliefs.

And I believe that when we demonize each other and segregate and exclude, we weaken ourselves and hurt our cause overall.

Where Has Burroway Been?!?

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting much lately. And the way things are shaping up, I won’t be posting much between now and the election.

Last week, I was selected to serve as co-chair of the Vote No on Prop 102 campaign. Vote No on Prop 102 is a broad based coalition of citizens working at the community level to conduct a grass-roots “retail” campaign to get out the vote and carry the message on Prop 102 to the different constituencies. We will be focusing our efforts on southern Arizona , but we are also interested in facilitating similar efforts elsewhere in the state.

The reason we’ve chosen to focus on Southern Arizona is threefold: 1) it’s where we are, 2) we haven’t been able to raise much money, and we need to make sure it is used effectively, and 3) Southern Arizona is where our greatest opportunity lies in defeating Prop 102. Let me explain.

In 2006, Arizona defeated a similar marriage amendment by 3.6 percentage points. Five counties voted to defeat the amendment, and the remaining ten voted to approve it. The largest margin of votes came from Pima County in Southern Arizona, which defeated the proposition by 42,806 votes, or 15.6%.  That margin was large enough that even if all the other four counties which defeated the amendment had merely tied, the proposition would have still gone down by 18,532 votes state wide — 1.2% — on the strength of Pima County’s vote alone. Pima County was the only county to provide a large enough margin to guarantee defeat in 2006, and it is imperative that the grass-roots effort which worked to ensure that margin is repeated again in 2008.

This is not to say that working in other counties to defeat the amendment is not important. We are working alongside Equality Arizona on similar grass-roots efforts throughout the state. But based on voter data from 2006 and the successful grass-roots campaign that was waged throughout Southern Arizona, we feel that the anchor to another victory is in southern Arizona.

Nevertheless, we are also interested in supporting and facilitating grass-roots campaigns in whatever way we can elsewhere in the state, particularly in Apache, Coconino, Maricopa and Santa Cruz counties — all of which contributed to victory in 2006. We are already engaged with local efforts in several communities in Cochise county, and we believe there are similar opportunities in Yavapai and elsewhere. Our financial health will determine the extent of the support and resources we can extend throughout the state, but as you know, our finances are very poor at the moment.

We are busy formulating a campaign plan, we’re lining up some exciting allies, and we will have more information to share as the outlines of the campaign takes shape. We don’t have much time, and more critically, we have very little money. Please do what you can to help and contribute generously.

Thank you.

Lesbian Kicked Out of Fed Building by Rogue Security Guard

The quirky little Contra Costa Times surprises me with how many stories they report that somehow are overlooked by larger higher-profile papers. And again, while the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News both covered international news, the Contra Costa Times found a little story from Van Nuys:

A routine trip to the Social Security office Monday turned into 30 minutes of shock, disbelief and irritation for Lapriss Gilbert, who was forced to leave the federal building by a guard who objected to her “lesbian.com” T-shirt.

As she headed for a line to pick up a Social Security card for her son, Gilbert was stopped by a guard who said her T-shirt, naming an educational and resource Web site for gay women, was offensive.

As it turned out this story says much more about the attitudes of Southern California than it does about this particular security guard. The police showed up with a federal agent to allow the woman to conduct her business only to find that another security guard had led her to the front of the line. The federal spokesperson filed a complaint with the security company.

As a bystander reported:

Paul Dumont said he witnessed the entire incident.

“For her to be told to leave was completely unnecessary, especially considering how peaceful and quiet she was responding the the security officers,” Dumont said. “Nobody in that office felt her T-shirt was offensive by any means.”

Forgotten Arizona?

Remember when Arizona became the first and only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment in 2006? I don’t know about you, but I’d that that this victory would be one worth preserving. But our national LGBT leaders, movers and shakers — and ordinary contributors — haven’t come through yet:

Funding for a proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage has hit at least $1.3 million. The largest contributors to Proposition 102 are two Mesa couples, David and Nancy LeSueur and Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Gary and Lori Wagner of Peoria, and the Pete King Corp. of Phoenix, each of who gave $100,000.

Opponents have so far accumulated less than $8,000.

This disparity is shocking. As of our filing deadline last Thursday, we had only been able to raise $8,000. Since then, we’ve had a great fundraising event at Congressman Raul Grijalva’s office on Friday, and we plan on having more events in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, please do what you can to preserve our 2006 victory and donate to Vote No on Prop 102.

Biden Seems Good on Gay Issues

In the swirl of speculation leading up to the announcement of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s running mate, several names were tossed about. They ranged from the those we cannot call a friend (Chet Edwards of Texas was one of a handfull of Democrats to support the federal anti-gay marriage amendment) to those who have long been allies of the gay community.

His selection, Joe Biden, has a mostly favorable history when it comes to gay issues. From On The Issues

Nobody asks if you’re gay in a foxhole

I’ve been to Afghanistan, I’ve been to Iraq seven times, I’ve been in the Balkans, I’ve been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they’re gay in those foxholes. Our allies — the British, the French, all our major allies — gays openly serve. I don’t know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, “Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?” This is ridiculous.

Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Civil unions ok; gay marriage is probably inevitable

Q: In November 2003, you were asked, “Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?” And you responded, “I’m not sure. I think probably it is.”

A: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don’t think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there’s a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by you?

A: Yes. Yes, it is.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Apr 29, 2007

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority.

The proposed amendment is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim’s sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.

Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define ‘marriage’ as ‘between one man and one woman.’
Reference: Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1

Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill S. 2056 ; vote number 1996-281 on Sep 10, 1996

Rated 78% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

Biden scores 78% by the HRC on gay rights

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

0% – 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
20% – 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006

Gay Diver Wins Gold

The Chinese expectation of sweeping diving was thwarted by 20 year-old gay Australian Matthew Mitcham. From OutSports,

Mitcham’s win denied China a sweep of the the men’s and women’s diving gold medals. On his final dive, Mitcham to decided to go for broke, attempting a routine with a high degree of difficulty — a back 2 1/2 somersault with 2 1/2 twists. He nailed it and scored a stunning 112.10 points, getting perfect 10s from four of the seven judges.

Outsports and other gay news sites have been following Mitcham’s journey and while his victory is personal and for his country, many gay people are overjoyed to see the gold go to one of their own.

Dire Consequences Theology

I have noticed a trend in those who seek to defend a traditional theology on homosexuality. Rather than base their objection on their understanding of Scripture or upon divine revelation, they base their argument, at least in part, upon The Dire Consequences of a Homosexual Lifestyle.

The argument goes something like this: Homosexuality is a miserable lifestyle full of sickness, misery, and death. We as Christians are not doing God’s will when we accommodate this miserable existence with civil protections and recognition. No, the compassionate action is to oppose homosexuality in any way possible so as to compel these miserable sinners into finding God.

As one theology professor recently wrote in an online magazine for Baptists:

I am sure to be accused of lacking compassion for those embracing a homosexual lifestyle, and that grieves me. Yet, is it a rightly applied compassion that affirms a lifestyle that too often compromises the physical and emotional well being of fellow human beings? The data seems to indicate that homosexual practice for both couples and individuals leads to a greatly reduced life expectancy (as much as three decades, and not just due to AIDS). Among homosexual men, for instance, there exists a much higher risk of rectal cancer and rectal trauma (which causes a much higher risk of a wide range of diseases). Is it compassionate to affirm such a lifestyle?

I’ve had the opportunity to correspond with that individual and found him to be sincere. He was not a homophobic propagandist seeking to spread lies; he was simply reporting what he had heard.

But while his basis for his beliefs about homosexuality rested in his understanding of Scripture, his article shows that he found his hermeneutical argument less compelling than the warning and example he found in Dire Consequences.

The roots of Dire Consequences Theology run deep in Christianity. There is a firmly held belief that true peace and happiness cannot be found without Christ and that those defined as sinners have an emptiness and hunger in their soul. It is but a short step to assume that those one thinks of as godless are deeply miserable and joyless.

Another tenet of faith is that sickness, misery, and all that is bad are the result of sin in the world. Before Adam’s fall, life was Eden. But sin brought sickness; while one’s own sickness may not be the result of one’s own sin, it is nonetheless the result of a sinful world.

Further, there is a belief that God richly rewards and blesses the faithful. This is especially emphasized by some of the more evangelical branches of the faith.

So combining these ideas, it’s not hard to see that the misery and pain and sickness and hopelessness in the homosexual lifestyle are an evidence of its sinful nature. And conversely, the evident sinfulness of homosexuality must surely result in most dreadful results.

But conservative theologians should be very cautious in adopting Dire Consequences Theology. Because it is built upon a logic process that could ultimately be their undoing.

If homosexuality is bad because it results in bad things, then if bad things are not evident, their theology breaks down completely. If the tragedy of homosexuality is an evidence of its sinfulness, what would a lack of tragedy mean? Would that indicate God’s blessing?

Taking the professor’s example above, a greatly reduced life expectancy and a much higher risk of rectal cancer tell him that it isn’t compassionate to “affirm such a lifestyle”.

But we know that there is no known reduced life expectancy at all. And we know that rectal cancer only impacts one thirtieth of one percent of gay men. So what does this say to the theologian?

To his defense, his personal understanding is probably founded in his Bible studies and not on his adopted Dire Consequences. But to those who know that his “statistics” are wrong, his adoption of false calamity may have lost him any credibility he had with them.

Which may help explain why some anti-gay Christians will go out of their way to ignore or disbelieve anything which says that most gay people live normal lives. They champion blatantly false “studies” and dredge up irrelevant and out-of-date AIDS statistics and anything else they can find to try and shore up their claim that Gays All Live Sordid Lives of Misery and Desperation!!!

Their theology is not built on Scripture, faith, or revelation but on bigotry. They need to believe that gay persons are hedonistic, miserable people who suffer greatly as a consequence of their homosexual lifestyle in order to keep their anti-gay theology in place.

But as more people come to know their gay neighbors, the falsity of such claims become more apparently. And more and more, average people – be they Christian or not – will lose trust in those who make proclamations of Dire Consequences.

It may well prove in time that the insistence by anti-gay Christians on relying on Dire Consequences Theology may result in the death of anti-gay theology altogether.

Nicolosi Makes Cameo At APA Taskforce

My former therapist Joseph Nicolosi made a somewhat odd appearance on Aug 14th at the APA’s Taskforce report on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions according to BTB reader Matthew Calamia who was also attending. Calamia, a graduate student in clinical psychology, wrote in an email to BTB:

Nicolosi showed up (late) to the APA Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions session. He asked the panel what they would tell parents who were concerned about their gender variant children, a “70% predictor of homosexuality.” Randall Ehrbar, a member of the task force, acknowledged it was a controversial topic and that the members didn’t all agree. Then Nicolosi said he was able to cure those children and plugged A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. Following the audible groans from the audience, someone mentioned another book that people might find helpful, The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals.Nicolosi left soon afterwards. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen him at any of the other LGBT sessions, but there are two days of the convention left…

Indian Tribe Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage

The Coquille, a Native American tribe in southern Oregon have become the first in the United States to decide to recognize same-sex marriage (The Oregonian).

As a federally recognized sovereign nation, the tribe is not bound by Oregon’s constitution. And on May 8, the tribe adopted a law that recognizes same-sex marriage and extends to gay and lesbian couples all the tribal benefits of marriage.

And while the state cannot interfere in inter-tribal matters, the planned marriage between Kitzen and Jeni Branting could play a part in a larger legal question.

Because the Coquille is federally recognized, a marriage “occurring within the tribe would actually be federally recognized,” Gilley said. And that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that says the federal government “may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose.”

As a result, the marriage between the Brantings – who share the same last name after changing it to reflect their commitment – could become a test case if challenged by the federal government. Gilley said it could test the boundaries of tribal independence nationwide. .

“This could be a test of sovereignty,” he said.

Jindal to Relegalize Anti-Gay Discrimination

If you are a Louisiana State department head that wished to rid your taxpayer funded office of gay people, you only have to wait until after Friday. That’s when an anti-discrimination order put in place by former Governor Kathleen Blanco expires. And current Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal has no intention of renewing it. (Forbes)

The order – enacted by Blanco on Dec. 6, 2004 – bars state agencies and contractors from various sorts of harassment and discrimination by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation or disabilities.

Jindal says that he only wants to protect from discrimination those categories that are protected by Federal or state law. And neither federal nor Louisiana state law protect gay persons from blatant intentional discrimination.

Jindal has a reason for making sure that anti-gay discrimination is perfectly legal in Louisiana. It could cause problems with faith-based organizations’ ability to contract with the state. If anti-discrimination policies are in place then Jindal cannot give taxpayer money to religious groups who practice such discrimination in their state funded activities.

“We’re not going to renew it. That shouldn’t come as a surprise,” he said when questioned about the order’s expiration. “We oppose discrimination. I think we’ve got strong federal and state laws that protect our people.” [emphasis mine]

Jindal is believed to be on John McCain’s short list of potential running mates.

I’ve Arrived…

…in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) — a group that just happens to be very open and welcoming to those among us who practice those alternative journalism-styles you’ve heard rumors about (i.e. “bloggers”). I’ll be here to participate on a panel discussion on scientific research and journalism:

Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics: Writing On Research
Increasingly, reporting scientific research can be like walking through a minefield. Advocacy groups are interpreting research findings for their own political ends and some are even creating research to support their positions. This session will provide advice on how to win the science spin game.

* Moderator: Rick Moore, Director of Communications, Rockway Institute
* Cindi Creager, Director of National News, GLAAD
* Jim Burroway, Editor, Box Turtle Bulletin
* Neil Savage, Freelance Science & Technology Writer

For readers who happen to be in the area, stop by and say hi. I’ll be the nerdy-looking one.

More Nonsensical Claims in Australian Red Cross Tribunal

We told you yesterday of Doctor Brenton Wylie, an expert witness for the Red Cross appearing before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to explain why gay men are excluded from giving blood. Dr. Wylie presented some statistics that are mathmatically ludicrous.

Now the Red Cross runs the risk of sounding like a bunch of extremist homophobes with little to no connection to reality.

US professor Dr Paul Holland, a former blood source executive testifying for the Red Cross, claimed even digital penetration of the nose or ear would justify the lifetime ban his country imposes on gay men.

“That would usually be sufficient to exchange fluid and qualify as sex,” Dr Holland told the Tribunal. When asked if that included gay men who had done nothing more than kissing, Holland replied, “Yes, sir, because they increase their chance of transmitting an infection such as HIV.”

Really, Dr. Holland?

In theory prolonged kissing of a rough nature could result in bleeding which could in the right circumstances enter the bloodstream of an uninfected person through a cut in the mouth. To date I believe the CDC lists a grand total of one person (a heterosexual woman) for whom this may have been a possible cause of transmission.

But is there a sane person out there who thinks that kissing is a significant risk for HIV transmission? And the logic behind excluding gay men who kiss from blood donation based on the example of this heterosexual woman evades me.

As for a “wet willie“, well that’s just stupid.

But Holland’s later comments help give context to his claims.

The Red Cross’ lawyer also took a page out of the anti-gay Christian lobby’s strategy stating gay male monogamy was a myth.

The Tribunal has heard a flurry of statistics from the Red Cross based on a New Zealand focus group of 11 couples that appeared to show gay men have 10 times as many partners as heterosexual men.

In a manner worthy of Paul Cameron, the focus group that Holland quoted explicitly excluded men who practice safe sex in monogamous relationships.

It seems that in an effort to shore up their policy, the Red Cross in Australia has signed on a bunch of anti-gay loons unafraid to make the most bizarre and irrational of claims. And that is unfortunate.

All of us rely on the safety of the blood bank in our country. And if there are legitimate reasons based on sound science for excluding all gay men, they should be given careful consideration and not be tainted by extremist anti-gay nonsense.

And if there are other areas of concern that need immediate attention which are being ignored or given less emphasis – such as the growing epidemic in the Asia Pacific region or the highly increased mortality resulting from old blood – then the health of all Australians or visitors is being threatened just to accomodate the outmoded homophobic presumptions and attitudes of those in charge.

Heterosexual Agenda: They Want To Breed Sex Slaves

Hot of the AP wires:

A Pennsylvania medical student told a classmate he was trying to recruit a New Zealand woman and her 4-year-old daughter to start a society of sex slaves that would live on a farm or island, the FBI said.

…[Thirty-year-old Jeremy] Noyes wanted them to move in with him, she said, and his intent was to have sex with the woman and her daughter and breed a family of female sex slaves, according to the affidavit.

And they will let nothing stand in their way:

The tipster, using a pseudonym, submitted a complaint on an FBI Web page in June in which she wrote, “Noyes has threatened to kill me and my family … (and) will not rest until we are dead. All the evidence you need is in his computer and that little girl’s mind. Please save her.”

And get this — the classmate had already been Noyes sex slave.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. You can read more about what heterosexuals have planned for your children in “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”