Is this Letter real,

by Howie

I have been reading Tell Me Pastor all these years and I am beginning to be convinced that some of these letters aren’t real. The letter below that appeared in today’s Star has aroused my suspicion yet again.

In our caustic environment of homophobia generally, I find it strange that a lesbian would write a letter to this Pastor stating that she is in love with a married woman and judging by the response I am convinced it’s a platform for him to preach to people his anti homosexual position.

Not that persons aren’t entitiled to express their position but context and place are important.

Here is the letter:

Lesbian in love with a married woman
Dear Pastor,
I have a problem. I am a female who is in love with a woman, but she is married. I do respect the fact that she is married. We have been having this wonderful relationship for the past 10 months and we have kept it on the down-low, as much as possible. She told me about her past relationship with other women and so on.
She tells me, every day, that she loves me very much and I do believe her but she does not trust me because I live alone and she thinks that I will have other women at my home.
Another woman
Well, she has this other woman in Barbados, who she was seeing, but has not been with her in a long time. Now, she is telling me that she will be visiting her in the new year.
What do you think she is up to, pastor?
T., Clarendon, Jamaica

Pastor’s response
Dear T.,
Well, let me put it straight to you. I do not support or encourage this type of lifestyle. You are a woman, yet you have chosen to become intimate with another woman. As a Christian, I cannot encourage you to have a sexual relationship with a person of your own sex. And, I take the liberty to encourage you to desist from this type of lifestyle and to seek professional help.
Pastor

What you think?

Will we ever have this kind of inclusivity in Jamaica from our leaders??

Here is a quote from US President Barack Obama’s speech during his inauguration exercise. Take note his direct references to the mix of persons. As the post title asks, we wonder when Jamaica will ever reach that stage of inclusiveness or if we will at all ever see people blind to labels and stereotypes and just respecting people as people…..what changed for us?

“…As I stand here tonight, what gives me the greatest hope of all is not the stone and marble that surrounds us today, but what fills the spaces in between. It is you – Americans of every race and region and station who came here because you believe in what this country can be and because you want to help us get there. It is the same thing that gave me hope from the day we began this campaign for the presidency nearly two years ago; a belief that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; Latino, Asian, and Native American; black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not – then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process.”
Howie seh so

Mason guilty of manslaughter in priest’s death

TWENTY-six-year-old mason, Prince Vale, was yesterday found guilty of the 2006 stabbing death of Anglican priest Father Richard Johnson.

Following more than three hours of deliberation, the jurors returned a verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Vale, a resident of Stony Hill, St Andrew, is to be sentenced on February 4.

Vale has been on trial in the Home Circuit Court since last week for the November 12, 2006 murder at Johnson’s home at the St Jude’s Anglican Church rectory in Stony Hill.
He said in an unsworn statement, that he did not intend to kill the priest, but that he was only protecting himself from an attempt by Johnson to sodomise him.

Following the verdict, Vale, who has been a friend of Johnson, knelt down in the dock as he wept and begged for mercy.

“Your honour, mi a beg you, send mi go somewhere where mi can go back in a society. Please mi a beg you,” Vale beseeched before being hushed by his attorney, Melrose Reid.

To believe or not to believe


Court hears accused pressured for sex

The details of the alleged intimate acts that took place between a priest and the man accused of murdering him were revealed yesterday in a document which was tendered in evidence and read to the jury.

The revelation was made during the trial of 25-year-old labourer Prince Vale of Tommy Hill district, Stony Hill, St Andrew, who is charged with the murder of Anglican priest Father Richard Johnson.

The priest was fatally stabbed on the night of November 12, 2006, at the Anglican church rectory at Stony Hill.

Deputy Superintendent Roy Boyd testified in the Home Circuit Court yesterday that on November 15, 2006, he interviewed Vale. He said attorney-at-law Arthur Kitchin represented Vale during the interview that was in the form of questions and answers.

Vale said he used to go to the priest’s house and they would discuss work and Bible knowledge. He said that they would telephone each other as well.

Vale said during the interview, that on previous occasions when he went to the rectory, he and the priest watched television in the bedroom. He said they also watched ‘blue movies’.

Questioned as to whether the priest had ever said anything to him about having sex, Vale said “yes”. The accused man further said that the priest had asked him if mi could have sex with him, which he refused.

Vale told the police during the interview that on the night of the incident he went to the priest’s house sometime after 9 p.m for a pair of pants and to discuss work.

He said that when he went to the house, the priest let him in. He said that he asked the priest for a drink and it was given to him.

After he tried on the pair of pants, it could not fit and he told the priest it would be better for him to keep it.

He said that after he took off the pants the priest tried to fondle him. Father Johnson, he said, touched his penis and chest but “I told him I was not in those things”.

Vale said that the priest who was wearing a pair of shorts took it off and tried to make him touch his erect penis. Questioned further Vale said “mi put mi hand on it.” Vale said that for about three to five minutes, the priest was trying to have intercourse with him but he told him to stop.

In response to the question “why did you stab Johnson?” Vale replied “mi never want him to ….. me.” Vale said at the time when he stabbed the priest he had been lying on top of him.

A lesbian couple’s ordeal in Antigua

(published with permission)
Date of Incident: 11/8/08 Location: The Island of Antigua
Report by: Shannon Anderson and Molly Anderson
At approximately 4:30pm Antiguan time, we walked down to the beach next to the Cocobay Resort, accompanied by the photographer. She had been taking pictures of us at the resort. The dining pavilion was already set-up on the beach, as were the dining tables and flower arrangements. The barbeque was set up and the steel drum band had arrived. 13 of our friends and family were already waiting for us on the beach and greeted us on arrival with cheering and clapping. After a few more photographs, we started the readings we had written for our party. We had several readings which were started by a female family friend. Shannon noticed a man in a straw hat and t-shirt behind our group who was speaking loudly on a cell phone and also saw a police vehicle and policeman standing further back by the tree. Shannon mentioned the police presence, however did not think it was regarding the party. Kelly, Shannon’s sister started reading her poem and at this point the policeman started to walk through our group telling us to stop. The man in the straw hat was clearly directing the police at the scene. The policeman started to talk to Larry, one of Molly’s friends, and we watched as more police cars showed up. There appeared to be three police vehicles and 6 to 8 police officers on the beach.
We walked towards the tree to get out of the direct sun and one of the female officers started shouting at us to stop walking. We told her that we just wanted to get out of the sun and still she shouted at us to stop walking. We continued to the tree and three officers physically blocked our exit and prevented us from leaving the beach. The police officers would not talk to us. Shannon introduced herself twice and extended her hand asking for them to introduce themselves, which they initially refused, then one of the female officers muttered her name and refused to give it again. O’Neal Richards the manager of the resort, was talking to the policeman in charge Officer Crumb(?) and another police officer was telling our female friend that she had to go with them. She asked if she was under arrest. The police officer refused to answer and told her that it would be better for all of us if we went with them. O’Neal came over to us and explained that we would have to go to the police station for questioning. Officer Crumb(?) walked over with him and also refused to shake Shannon’s hand and only introduced himself after she asked his name.
He said that we needed to come for questioning. Shannon asked him what questions they needed answered and he said that we would find out at the station. She asked him if this was an option and he said no, that we had to go to the station with them right away. Shannon asked if we could get changed out of our dresses and into something more comfortable. The officer said absolutely not and we had to come as we were. Shannon asked if we could at least grab something to cover our shoulders and chest area and again the officer refused and started to herd us towards a police car. Officers on the scene had their handcuffs out in case we did not cooperate with them. Officer Crumb (?) said that our family could bring clothes for us and there would be a place we could change at the police station. At that time, the police confiscated the readings we had created. We asked if we would be able to see our family at the station and he said yes. At this point all of the officers started to tell us that we had to go now. Shannon asked to get shoes for Molly, as Molly was barefoot. One of the female officers told us that she could not get shoes and that our families could bring her shoes to the jail. We both shouted for Molly’s mother to run over to us with flip-flops and were able to get them to Molly before being placed inside the vehicle. There seemed to be some discussion as to where the female officer should sit and which car our friend was going into, but our friend was then brought over and placed into the vehicle with us. A male officer drove and a female officer was in the front passenger seat.
During the ride, the police officers joked about their lives and that they were going to be working overtime tonight because of us. The male officer said that he was happy that President elect Obama was going to be President of the United States because he was black and that he was one of “them.” The police drove us through a large market in town and everyone jeered at us. Through town, the police officer drove no faster than 10 mph.
They drove the car to a side alleyway with no signs on the building to identify it as a police building. There were no police vehicles in this alley and all three of us became increasingly frightened. The police directed us towards a staircase that led to a second floor. A man in a dirty polo shirt and sweat pants met us and directed us towards a room at the back. We all sat down in the 3 chairs placed in front of a desk. Eventually the man in the polo-shirt came in. Shannon introduced herself and extended her hand.
The man initially refused to shake her hand, then did so reluctantly and introduced himself as Superintendent Henry Christian. Our friend asked him why we were here and he told us that he didn’t know all of the details and it was what they were finding out. He told us that laws had been broken and we were all in serious trouble. Our friend asked him what laws he was speaking of and he refused to answer. Our friend then asked him if we were under arrest and again he refused to answer. He took our names, nationality and place of residence. The officers who drove us to this jail also sat in the room with us. Henry asked us to start discussing what had happened and Molly started to explain. Henry interrupted her and told her that anything we said could be used against us. Our friend spoke up and asked if we all needed attorneys and he said that was what we needed to find out. He started to question her about her profession back in the United States and she refused to comment and at this time asked to speak to a lawyer and also asked to speak to the US Embassy. Henry called for Officer Crumb(?), and around this time several people walked in the room. It was difficult to tell who was in the office as many people were behind us, but the photographer from our party came in as did her boss (I believe the photographer was there because she had refused to give the police the photographs she had taken of us) and another man came in and sat behind us. As before, none of the new men in the small room introduced themselves or were in uniform. The man behind us was wearing baggy street clothes and had on a baseball cap that sat at an angle on his head like a teenager. Our friend asked his name and he said that it was Ryan and was the Station Officer. He had no badge and offered no credentials.
The photographer asked why we were all here and why she was there. She was concerned that there was no hotel representative with us for this line of questioning. Henry smiled at her and told her it was not her concern. Shannon told him that we were all very worried about not knowing what was happening and wanted to know what was going on. Henry told us that by the laws of Antigua, he had the right to hold us for 48 hours without charging us with anything. He further explained that it was the weekend and Monday was a holiday- so we would be held until Wednesday or Thursday before we even knew what was going on. Molly asked again why we were here and he said that we had attempted to hold an “illegal marriage” and that attempting to carry out an illegal act carried the same punishment as actually committing one. We told him that we were not getting married, but instead having a party/barbeque on the beach with our friends and family to celebrate our recent vows taken in the state of California and that no actual legal ceremony of any form was taking place on the island of Antigua. Shannon asked if she could ask a question and he interrupted her and refused to let her ask.
Henry asked us where our travel documents (passports) were, and we told him that everything was back at the hotel. Henry asked for our hotel room numbers and seemed upset that we were both in the same room. Henry made us repeat that we were indeed sharing the same room. Our friend asked why he needed our travel documents and he told us that before the end of the night, he would have all of our travel documents in his possession and that we were not going anywhere. He then instructed one of his officers to go to the hotel and retrieve our documents. The boss of the photographer asked Henry why we were still being held and told him that our family was waiting below in the station and asked that we could see them. Henry refused. We told him that they had brought clothes for us to change into, he refused to let us see them and walked over to the thermostat and turned the air conditioning colder. We all said that we were cold already and he just ignored us. Henry kept walking in and out of the office during this period. He would come in and sit at his desk and just stare at our breasts. He made sure we knew he was staring as he would stare then raise his eyes to meet ours then lower his stare back to our breasts smiling. Our friend thought she was going to throw up and needed to go to the bathroom.
The female officer escorted her and we were left alone with the male officers, who just stared at us and our breasts. Ryan started moving his chair closer and closer to us and was leering. When our friend returned, Ryan started talking to her and acting inappropriately. He started to ask her to talk to him in private; “just you and me lady, come on, come on lady, you know you want to talk to me, come on lady, come on lady.” He kept on like this, scooting closer in his chair. She flat out refused. His manner was not professional, and we began to feel that we were in actual physical danger of being attacked or sexually assaulted. The way the officers kept leering at us and bullying us, we really became frightened and told them so. Molly started to cry for a moment and the officers seemed happy that she was afraid. We tried to reassure each other and say that it would be okay, but the officers told us not to speak in hushed tones and that we had to say everything loud enough for them to hear. But when we did, they told us it wasn’t loud enough and we had to keep repeating ourselves. We were told that if we needed the bathroom then we would have to use the inmate toilet. As Molly and I were still in revealing dresses, we both were too frightened to use the bathroom.
Henry kept asking her what her profession was, she told him that it wasn’t relevant and she did not have to answer his questions without an attorney present. We told him that our friend was simply our friend and we had asked her to read our words and poetry. Henry had the readings in his hands and said that these were wedding vows and our wedding was illegal. Shannon told him again that this was an unofficial ceremony – not a marriage- without any legal bearing. It was simply to voice our promises to each other in front of our loved ones. Our friend said that we were aware that gay marriage was not legally recognized in Antigua, but that did not make any renewal of vows or promises illegal. Henry refused to answer her and again demanded her to say what her profession was. She again declined to answer. He again asked why and she told him that none of us knew the laws of Antigua and as he had told us what we said could be used against us, she wanted counsel. O’Neal arrived into the room and spoke to Henry. He asked why we were still being held here and that no laws had been broken. Henry told him that we had possibly breached laws very severely and that we were waiting for further information. O’Neal told him that he was going to call for the resorts attorneys.
Henry then told him if he was getting a lawyer, then he was getting his own and told us that he was calling the top prosecutor for Antigua. Officer Crumb(?) entered and Henry asked him for his “on the scene account.” He told Henry that he had received a phone call “tip” at 12 noon from …… At that point, Henry cut him off and told him that that information was not important and to continue on with his report. Crumb said that we had scheduled a wedding ceremony on the beach and that we had applied for a wedding license and had been denied but we chose to do it anyway. He said that when he arrived at the beach, the ceremony was set-up and under way and that he had stopped it. Shannon told Henry that we had never applied for a wedding license as we were not getting married. Henry asked one of his officers to go and get three “devices”. Our friend asked him what the “devices” were and Henry told her they were “Legal devices” and would not elaborate. He then asked if Molly and I owned property together, we told him no and he told his officer that we would need three “devices”. Another man came in at this time and he sat down next to Henry. Henry started to fill him in on the situation and told him that we had applied for a marriage license and even though we were denied, continued with our wedding. Henry tried to get him to look over our readings that were confiscated at the scene and the new man said no and asked us why after being denied a marriage license we continued with our wedding. Shannon explained again that we never applied for a license that we were holding a party/barbeque with our family and were conducting a promise ceremony that had no legal bearing in the Country of Antigua. Shannon told him that it had been arranged this with the Cocobay resort over a year ago- and had anyone advised us that there would be a legal issue we would not have decided to stay in Antigua. We told him that there were several other places we could have gone, but we chose Antigua because it seemed perfect.
Henry walked out again and we asked the new man who he was, he told us he was the Assistant Superintendent and he told us not to worry. This questioning went on for about 4 hours. Eventually Henry told us that same sex marriage and commitment ceremonies were illegal in Antigua and had the police not stopped the ceremony before we had completed our vows, then we would all be in serious trouble and going to jail. He then told O’Neal that as a hotelier, he should know all of this already and abide by the laws of Antigua. He then said we were being released and were free to go. Molly asked for our binder containing our readings and Henry told us that they were evidence of attempting to conduct an illegal act and we could not have them back. Molly then asked for the binder that held the documents and the card that was inside. Henry told her that he would not give us anything and we could get a lawyer and see if we could get it on a later date. We were escorted back down the outside staircase and told that we had to go out into the street -as once you are released you have to exit the premises. We saw that there were many people on the dark street and asked if we could just wait there for a few minutes because we felt very vulnerable in our dresses. They again said no. O’Neal showed up with a taxi and ushered us into it. We were reunited with our waiting family just before we got into the van and all drove home together.
Molly’s father and friend Larry had come to the police station and had repeatedly asked to see us. They were shouted at by the police in the station and were told that it was not their country and to just sit down and be quiet. Larry had contacted the American Consulate and the man he spoke with was not very helpful and said that one of us was probably going to be held overnight and that there was nothing much he could do. After we were released Larry contacted him again and he was not aware that we had been released and seemed surprised to learn that there were no charges against any of us.
We returned to the resort and all felt very afraid. Our experience at the police station gave us the impression that we could have been hurt or sexually assaulted while at the station and could still that evening. Our hotel room was a private cottage on the beach and we were all scared that someone would break in during the night. We barricaded our doors with furniture. After speaking with the staff from the resort the next morning and discussing the recent shooting of a British couple on their honeymoon at the neighboring resort (they had been in a similar secluded cottage and had been attacked in the night as they slept), they advised us that locals could be roused up and we could be at great risk. Fearing for our lives, we left the country on the next plane.
We asked the resort about the man on the beach in the straw hat. He had been yelling into his phone demanding to speak with the Antiguan Ministry of Justice and seemed to be directing the police. No-one seems to know who this man was.
On Monday morning the following story appeared on the front page of the local newspaper:
Police prevent same-sex marriage
Monday November 10 2008
By; Aarati Jagdeo
A same-sex marriage ceremony was prevented by police last Saturday afternoon, after they received a call that such a union was set to take place at Cocos Hotel and Restaurant.
According to Inspector Cornelius Charles, the female couple is from California and had invited friends and family down to take part in the ceremony.
When police arrived at Cocos, they met everything set up and in place for a wedding ceremony, which had not yet begun.
The police then rounded up all the individuals involved, including the couple and the conductors of the ceremony.
After some consultation with the heads of the police force and collaboration with the director of public prosecutions (DPP), it was decided that the couple would not be charged because the actual act of marriage did not occur.
According to Charles, had the marriage occurred, only then would there have been an offence whereby the couple could have been charged.
The couple was instead warned and released.
We feel that this would have further endangered us if we had not left when we did. We were very frightened. Some of these events may be a little out of sequence, but this was as we remember them to be.

Punishing masculinity in gay asylum claims?

Men who act like “men” according to Jamaican society’s dictates and who find themselves in seeking asylum in countries other than that of their birth seem to be coming under threat just because of their masculinity.
We have been hearing of this trend in recent times and it would indicate the the powers that be are associating the idea of effeminate behaviour and gaydom to be one in the same or at least intrinsically linked.
I guess it would be safe to conclude that “tops” would be naturally masculine in stereotypical terms and the passive “bottoms” would be the flaming queens or girly types. Sad how we limit ourselves to our behaviours in our roles as gay men and that the mainstream stick to these rigid unwritten rules of behaviour.
In a telephone conversation recently with an asylum seeker overseas he said that appeal was turned down because the authorities presiding over his case thought he wasn’t campy enough so they didn’t believe he would be a victim of abuse if he were to be returned to Jamaica. He has since appealed again but have found that at the holding area where he was housed that there were other men who went out of their way to physically present as effeminate in order to enhance their case as they were aware of the “problem”.
Wow, what a system.
To think that society on a whole in a Jamaican perspective dislike effeminate behaviour from men so many gay men retreat into themselves and adopt artificial attitudes to conform it seems strange that the opposite would obtain elsewhere to obtain a safe refuge. The irony.
Such is life I guess.
Howie seh so…………….Peace

Ridiculous Stereotypes – Men in Tight Jeans are gay

Gay is not defined by clothing

Originally appearing from this forum on MSN from one named Tafari, really how stupid can people get? read the comment below. Does this even deserve an answer, are we so backward a people?

September 27, 2008
A WHA REALLY A GWAAN?!
It seems that I have been away from the social scene for far too long because somewhere in the last year or so men’s fashion and look underwent a serious transition that I seem to have missed. Men are no longer adorned in loose/comfortable jeans and shirts that fit. Instead it’s gaudy stretch jeans and shirts from Baby Gap. A respectable hair cut and neatly shaved beard has given way to jerry curls and bleached-out face. A WHA REALLY A GWAAN?!

Jamaica is quite possibly the most homophobic society in the world. So why don’t these women-jeans-wearing men feel threatened? Even though they walk around with their heads down – bleach face and sun no gree – they do so proudly. It must be that the society has accepted them or they are just too concerned with the possibility of a yeast infection to look worried.

No. Jamaica could not have accepted these colorful – bleach face and all – men in tights. Could it? Everything about the new look screams gay – and I’m not happy about that. What is even worse is that most of these reynolds-wrap-wearing men are from the inner city – just the place to be if you are a fag with a death wish. So I asked again. A wha really a gwaan?!

I found out recently that I am not the only one who has been traumatized by this trend. Women seem to be more distraught about the whole thing. A friend of mine complained that she cannot find a good pair of jeans to buy because the men are gobbling them up and if she does find one she would happen to see the same jeans on a man twice her size. I have heard from other women who are even more upset as they complained that the last thing they want are men who spend more time at the hair dresser and more money on bleaching cream than they do.

It is also to be understood that these body-paint wearers believe that the Michelle Jackson look makes them appear more attractive to women. Are women that complicated in the eyes of men that a man has to become one to get one? I don’t think so. These Michelle Jacksons are just a sick indication of how rife homosexuality is in Jamaica. It is so bad that it is allowed to prosper in the inner city communities which should not be when you take into consideration the number of anti-gay and anti-tight-pants lyrics that flood our air waves. So, to the Michelle Jacksons out there, you need a better explanation.

Lets get finished with the rambling. All I have left to say is that I don’t think that I should be second guessing if it’s a man or woman when I see a tight pair of jeans. Dat no right. Yutes, you have lost your way. You are slowly but surely becoming pussies and not men. Man fi look like and act like man Rasta. Fiya pan a pasta jeans!!!

other comments here

UN battles over sex and rights

Much has been made of the Declaration on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation, which was tabled on December 18, 2008 at the United Nations. This declaration, which was sponsored by France, had the support of approximately 65 countries, including western and eastern European states, Latin America, the Central African Republic and Cuba.
Essentially, the declaration, a non-binding document, sought to expand the existing human rights concept to include ‘sexual orientation’. What is less known is that a counter-declaration sponsored by Egypt and Uganda and supported by approximately 60 countries was presented to the United Nations at the same time. Support came from the Islamic countries, many African countries and St Lucia.

Serious concern
This declaration expressed serious concern at the “attempt to introduce to the United Nations, notions that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument”.
Reference was made in the counter-declaration to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right of member states to enact laws that meet “the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.
Concern was also expressed over “the attempts to create ‘new rights’ or ‘new standards’ by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership”.
Along with these 60 or so countries, Russia, Belarus and the Holy See also made statements critical to the French-led declaration.

PREMATURE CELEBRATIONS
To the best of the writer’s knowledge, neither Jamaica, Singapore nor China signed either declaration, but one would expect in the event of a vote that they, too, would oppose the French declaration. What is clear is that there is currently no consensus within the United Nations on the matter of including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as ‘human rights’. Celebrations are therefore somewhat premature.
The matter is a very contentious one which, if pursued, may very well harm the discourse and the implementation of those aspects of the human rights agenda which are universally accepted.
Sly manner
What is also of note is the very sly manner in which the French-led declaration uses the terms ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ interchangeably. In commenting on this interchange of terms, Dr Susan Yoshihara, of Catholic
Family and Human Rights Institute (New York) in her unpublished briefing paper, ‘Nine problems with the EU’s UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation’, commented as follows:
” … the deliberate confusion in the declaration of the terms ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender’ would have implications for UN funding and reform, since plans are now well-advanced for a new “gender architecture.”

Plans for gender office
According to Dr Yoshihara, plans are afoot to create a powerful gender office at the UN. This would be achieved by merging existing mechanisms to “form building blocks for the establishment of a Centre for Women Empowerment and Gender Equality”. Dr Nafis Sadik, special advisor to the UN Secretary-General, has said that this office will act as ‘a system watchdog’ with the authority to set standards, enforce accountability, and intervene at all levels of decision-making from country to international.

Obviously, the power brokers at the United Nations are hell-bent on imposing a new version of human rights on the rest of the unwilling world. It is an attempt to assert the moral equivalence of all forms of sexual preferences and to harm moral and sound discernment, all in the name of ‘human rights’. It is similar to baptising ‘pork’ as ‘Arnold’.
As we commence 2009 with the intense struggle for survival that it promises to be, we must be vigilant and conscious of this aggressive threat to those good, tested and true values which we still cherish.
Shirley Richards is an attorney-at-law.
She uses every opportunity she gets to oppose anything that resembles LGBT rights and sexual orientation issues