Chapter Five: The History, Goals & Strategy of the Homosexual Movement




At the heart of our cultural war over morality is the conflict between two irreconcilable views of sexuality. On one side stands the natural law perspective, embodied for most people in America by what we would call the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic: monogamous heterosexual marriage and the natural family. This is not to disregard those natural law adherents who are  neither  Jewish nor Christian, because the natural law perspective is common to every right-thinking person. For the purposes of our discussion these, too, share the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

On the other stands the “gay” ethic of sexual license. Sexual license in the simplest sense is merely the social acceptance of sex outside of marriage, but in its fullest sense it includes all forms of sexual deviance.

These opposing views are entirely incompatible and contradictory. It is easy to see that the institution of marriage cannot thrive in a society where sexual indulgence has become a fundamental value. Men in such a society will have small incentive to assume the burdens associated with lifelong, faithful marriage and fatherhood, since they are surrounded by sexually promiscuous and available women. Nor will they do the hard work to make their marriage and family relationships successful and deeply fulfilling to themselves, since they are distracted by a pervasive cultural message that fulfillment lies in sexual gratification alone.

Thus there is a relatively simple explanation for how we have arrived at this point of moral crisis in American society and why a disproportionate share of the blame must be ascribed to the “gay” movement. Though many Americans now espouse, to a greater or lesser extent, the principle of sexual license, they are still easily able to co-exist with the Judeo-Christian  marriage-and-family norm. It is primarily the activists of the “gay” movement who require the elimination of Biblical morality  and of the primacy of the natural family to achieve social legitimacy for themselves. Therefore they have been the most aggressive and highly motivated instigators of change to the norm.

For example, it was Alfred Kinsey, the in-the-closet “gay” activist, who launched the sexual revolution in 1948 with his statistically fraudulent Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and its promotion of “outlet” or recreational sex. As former Kinsey co-worker, Gershon Legman, acknowledged,



Redeeming the Rainbow 57


“Kinsey’s not-very-secret intention was to ‘respectablize’ homosexuality and certain sexual perver- sions” (Marrota, Toby, The Politics of Homosexuality,  Houghton Mifflin C., 1981, p. 340.  But it was also to de-normalize the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, which Kinsey audaciously accused of having a detrimental effect on society. (For an excellent treatise on Kinsey and the destructive consequences of his work see Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, The Institute for Media Education, 2000, by Dr. Judith Reisman).

However, Kinsey was not the founder or even the instigator of the “gay” movement.



A Brief History of the “Gay” Movement



This section is drawn in large part from The Pink Swastika (op. cit.) which extensively chroni- cles both the early years of the German “gay” movement and the rise of the American “gay” movement through the early 1990s.  The assertions made here are extensively documented in that publication, which may be accessed online at


The German Roots


The modern homosexual movement began in Germany in the 1860’s when German lawyer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs  (the “Grandfather of Gay Rights“) began to organize homosexuals into a political network to work for the repeal of Paragraph 175 of the German legal code, which criminal- ized sodomy.  Ulrichs, having been molested at the age of fourteen by his riding instructor, adopted a homosexual identity as an adult, and worked tirelessly to legitimize his lifestyle through every available means. He invented the “third sex” theory of homosexuality, rooted in occultism, which held that male homosexuals  (Urnings)  were women trapped in men’s bodies, and that lesbians (Dailings) were men trapped in women’s bodies.  He labeled the community of all homosexuals (both Urnings and Dailings) Uranians, a term he borrowed from Plato’s  Symposium, in which homosexual activity was said to fall under the protection of Urania, the ninth muse in the Greek Pantheon.

Ulrichs also created the first homosexual political organization, the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee (SHC). The term “homosexual” was coined by Ulrich’s associate, Karl Maria Kertbenny in 1869. The SHC became an extremely powerful organization over the following decades, especially after Ulrich’s successor Magnus Hirschfeld launched the Berlin Institute of Sexology.  The Institute became the national authority on sexual deviance (despite being run by deviants), and many persons convicted of sexual crimes (including a large number of Nazi Party members and leaders) were sent there for treatment. Hirschfeld himself coined the term “transvestite.”

As noted in the prior chapter, the German “gay” movement, dominated almost entirely by men, was divided between the effeminate homosexuals, led by Hirschfeld, and masculine homosex- uals led at first by Adolf Brand of the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (“Community of the Elite”) and later by early leaders of the Nazi Party.

Both factions of the movement, while violently opposed to each other, campaigned aggres- sively for the rejection of Judeo-Christian morality, and by the 1920’s German society, especially in the larger cities, experienced a wave of widespread  sexual perversion.   Ironically, Adolf Hitler



Redeeming the Rainbow 58


benefited from a cultural backlash to this phenomenon by posing as a moralist strongly opposed to homosexuality. He did in fact opportunistically condemn “homosexuality,” a term which at that time was almost exclusively associated with the effeminate type of same-sex relationships. The masculine faction (to which Hitler and many of the Nazi leaders and foot soldiers belonged) referred to its form of same-sex relations as “the love of friends.”  This is not to suggest that Hitler was ever open about his lifestyle; he took great pains to hide it from the people, including the elimination of nearly every living person who had  knowledge of his proclivities, which he accomplished through the bloody purge known as The Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

During the years in which the Nazi Party was rising to power, Germany’s largest “gay” rights organization was the Society for Human Rights, which boasted Nazi SA Chief (and Hitler’s close friend) Ernst Roehm as one of its most prominent members.  Roehm was killed during the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler pretended to eliminate all homosexuality from his party.  The actual purpose of the purge was not to eliminate homosexuality but to eliminate evidence of its existence in the  party and to appease a powerful anti-Roehm political faction; in reality, the purge was conducted largely by homosexuals.  Nevertheless, this incident was a major setback for the public “gay rights” movement, which then went mostly, but not entirely, underground in Germany until after the war.


The American Branch


The first openly homosexual organization in the United States was a chapter of the Society for Human Rights.  It was launched in Chicago in 1924 by a German-American soldier named Henry Gerber who had served in Germany after World War I. The organization was disbanded after Gerber and two other leaders were arrested on charges of sexually molesting boys.  Gerber escaped jail by bribing the judge, and went underground but remained active both as a pederast and a political activist.  He passed his dream of an American homosexual movement to one of his young conquests, Champ Simmons, who in turn, as  an  adult homosexual, passed it on to one of his own sexual “partners,” a boy named Harry Hay.

Hay is today known as the “father” of the American homosexual movement.  On August 10,

1948, at the tail end of an eighteen-year stint as a Communist Party leader, Hay began to organize a group that would be called the Mattachine Society (ibid:132). Not until the spring of 1951 did it receive its name, but from the beginning it was seen as a vehicle to destroy social restraints against homosexuality in American culture (J. Katz:412f). The name Mattachine was taken from “medieval Renaissance French...secret fraternities of unmarried townsmen” (ibid. 4120). The organization’s stated agenda was to preserve the “right to privacy.” Like most of the early leaders of the American “gay” movement, Hay was an advocate of homosexual pedophilia and pederasty (adult/teen sex).

It is likely that Hay secretly collaborated with Alfred Kinsey, but we have no proof of this connection.                      However, the  advisory board of Hay’s Mattachine Society at one time included influential Kinsey co-worker, Wardell Pomeroy (infamous for his book Boys and Sex, which in part legitimizes sex with animals, and which I myself unfortunately read at the age of 12).

Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society spawned large-scale political and social activism among homosexuals. Highly motivated activists began to operate in groups patterned after communist cells, each a “secret fraternity” whose members were bound by their common vice. As Hay stated in a later


Redeeming the Rainbow 59


interview, “[we wanted to] keep them underground and separated so that no one group could ever know who all the other members were” (J. Katz, Gay American History, 410). Slowly at first, from innumerable obscure sources, came theories, public statements and actions in support of the social acceptance of homosexuality.

Unfortunately, the nature of secret societies makes research on their activities difficult. However, we know two things for certain: first that the goal of the “gay” movement was to legitimize homosexuality in society, and second, that a growing network of political cell groups was working to achieve that goal.  The following events thus assume greater significance when taken together in chronological order than when viewed alone.

On the heels of Kinsey and Hay came Hugh Hefner, who in 1953 launched Playboy magazine, and with it the modern  pornography industry.                                Hefner‘s initial target audience was the very generation of young men to whom Kinsey had been speaking on his college lecture circuit. “Hefner himself has been quoted as saying that if Kinsey were the researcher of the sexual revolution, he (Hefner) was Kinsey’s pamphleteer” wrote Dr. Judith Reisman (private letter to the author, May 1,

2009). She adds,


I think it’s important to...make it clear that Hefner was himself a typically sexually restrained, virginal, 1950s American college male until he READ Kinsey. Kinsey revolutionarized Hefner who then wrote his college paper on Kinsey, calling for a gutting of our sex laws, bringing Joe College into the sexual change agent role for

the first time in history...That Hefner set himself the mission of being Kinsey’s pam- phleteer is vital since this launched the sexual revolution, with the funding and cred- ibility of the Rockefeller Foundation behind Kinsey. Remember, Hefner promoted sex with well as male impotence and homosexuality (via lesbian imag- es) from the very beginning. EVERYTHING Kinsey/Rockefeller aimed for has been advocated, funded, supported by Hefner’s Playboy and all of those that followed.

All is based on rendering male society impotent (without power) in its own civilized masculinity. Just as Hitler pushed the super, macho man in order to control him, so too did Hefner, Kinsey. All males are made impotent when they cannot function in families with wives, women and children to defend and protect. (For more on Kin- sey, visit Dr. Reisman’s website at


One wouldn’t automatically recognize Playboy as a tool of “gay” social engineering, but it was and is precisely that.  Indeed, Dr. Reisman argues that all pornography is essentially homosexual because it is in fact created by men for the sexual gratification of other men. On a more practical level, the existence of a thriving pornography industry serves the “gay” cause by morally corrupting the men who use it, making them less likely to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and more likely to  support public policies which legitimize sexual hedonism. Exposure to pornography, especially at a young age, can also be a gateway into the “gay” lifestyle itself.

In the same manner, the cause of sexual license is advanced by a successful abortion industry. The choice to kill their unborn children morally compromises both men and women (making them unwilling to criticize choices to engage in other forms of immoral behavior), and ensures that the outcome of an unwanted child will not be a lasting deterrent to those who  have chosen sexual


Redeeming the Rainbow 60


“freedom” over family. This explains why homosexuals, who by definition cannot conceive children together, are among the most militant advocates of abortion on demand.

We can see, then, that at least in a conceptual sense, what seem like separate and independent battlefronts of the culture war are really a single one. The “gay” ethic is a Hydra whose many heads are “gay” rights, serial marriages, abortion, pornography and other sex-related social iniquities. Our task, as people who seek to restore the primacy of the family, is to slay this ideological serpent of sexual libertinism, even as we continue to battle each of its lethal heads.

Why have we identified sexual license as the “gay” ethic, when its most destructive aspects seem to be associated with heterosexual behavior? It is because the culpability of “gays” relative to the spreading effects of sexual license in society is akin to that which we assign to drug pushers, even though it is the addicts themselves who destroy their own communities through criminal behavior.


The Downward Spiral


The introduction of sexual indulgence as a social norm inevitably initiates a downward moral spiral in a culture. In our own society, the selling of the idea of guiltless recreational sex to young college-age men in the 1950s created a “market” for  immodest and sexually adventurous young women, which in turn helped to legitimize the idea of female promiscuity. In the  1960s, once immodesty and promiscuity had become acceptable for some women, the pressure increased for all women to adopt these behaviors in competing for the attentions of men. This was especially true of the youngest of marriage-age women of that generation, whose personal morals and values had been influenced by a decade of sex-saturated pop culture.

The wholesale entrance of women into the world of sexual “freedom” created a number of societal demands: the  “liberation” of women from social expectations about marriage and child- rearing through a feminist political movement (National Organization for Women, formed 1966); contraception on demand (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1966); abortion on demand (Roe. V. Wade, 1973); and finally “no fault” divorce (state-by-state liberalization of divorce laws, beginning in the early


The result of these policies has been the achievement of the “gay” goal as embodied by Kinsey’s teachings: the progressive denormalization of marriage and the unabated normalization of sexual license.  Census data published in 1998 showed a fourfold increase in divorce from 1970 to

1996, while the population of cohabiting couples who had never married had more than doubled.

Among the side-effects of these dramatic changes in the life of a people, side-effects which have increased steadily since the 1960s, are the escalation of crime (especially violent crime), the proliferation of sexually-transmitted and other  diseases, and the escalation of mental illness and chronic substance abuse. These are all results which one would expect to find in a generation of citizens raised in unstable homes.

Today we are faced with even more advanced social degeneration as we watch the morally- confused grandchildren  of the 60s sexual revolutionaries arguing that marriage can legitimately include homosexual unions, and broadening their vision of acceptable sexual conduct to include sex between children and perhaps between adults and children.

There are other consequences to a free people when internal moral restraint is devalued and self-gratification is  exalted. In oher similar ages of license, the state has grown proportionately


Redeeming the Rainbow 61


stronger and more intrusive to compensate for the decreased will (and ability) of the people to control themselves. Such  downward spirals, involving the moral, political and spiritual life of a nation, have usually ended in some form of violent social catastrophe unless their progress is checked by the emergence of moral leadership and popular reform within the nation.


Modern “Gay” Organizations


The “gay” movement operates with an impressive degree of coordination today.   Unlike activist Christians, who have many national and state multi-issue groups, often in competition with one another, the “gays” have developed a tight coalition of major, national groups, all focused on the same general goal, but each with a different job. This list includes, but is not limited to the following organizations:


Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  Washington D.C. based Political Action Committee, focused on lobbying and public relations.


Lambda Legal (LL). Litigation and legal advocacy.


Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).  Works to turn friends and family members of homosexuals into political activists under the guise of offering “support groups.”


Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).      Network of homosexual teachers, school officials and education bureaucrats who work to homosexualize public schools.


Gay Straight Alliance (GSA).  National network of “gay and lesbian” student clubs on public school campuses.


Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD).  Association of homosexual activists in the media that works to  manipulate public opinion in favor of its agenda and to suppress pro-family advocacy.


International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).  Works to advance the “gay”

agenda internationally.


Additionally, several very prominent organizations which originally were created to serve other purposes have now been co-opted by the “gays,” including Amnesty International, the Ameri- can Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Pro-family advocates are encour- aged to investigate each of the above-listed organizations for themselves.



“Gay” Goals, Strategies & Tactics



A strategy is a long-term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal or goals. Tactics



Redeeming the Rainbow 62


are specific details or parts of a strategy which can be used to implement it.  We have addressed the “gay” strategy as it relates to churches in Chapter 3.  Here we will look at how the homosexual movement works to change society as a whole.


The “Gay” Goal


The homosexual goal has evolved over time as the movement has gained power: from tolerance, to acceptance, to favored status, to supremacy.

In the beginning the goal was tolerance.  From the recipients’ perspective, tolerance is “the right to be left alone.”  This was the implicit original goal of Karl Heinrichs Ulrichs when he set out to decriminalize homosexual sodomy in Germany.   This was also explicitly the goal of the early Mattachine Society under Harry Hay.                                                                  Tolerance is relational.     From the  giver’s  perspective, tolerance means putting up with something we don’t like in the interest of preserving a climate of civility.   The degree of tolerance varies depending on what we’re being asked to tolerate.   For example, we extend high tolerance for freedom of thought and low tolerance for harmful public behavior.  (See Triangle of Tolerance graphic in Chapter 8.  In my view, a Christian society could tolerate a discrete homosexual subculture of people who, though they reject therapy, keep their lifestyle private and make no attempt to recruit others, as in the “don‘t ask, don’t tell” policy of the U.S. military).  This is what the “gays” said they wanted at first; however, it is no longer their goal.

After it gained tolerance, the “gay” movement began to demand social acceptance.  Accep- tance is something more than tolerance.  It is an integration into society, not necessarily on an equal basis in every respect, but without overt disapproval.   The demand for acceptance began after the “gays“ successfully orchestrated the removal of homosexuality from the official list of mental disor- ders in the American Psychiatric Association (see Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s article in Section 4 on how this was  done). Prior to this political coup, society had a failsafe justification for denying social approval to homosexuality because we officially acknowledged its harmfulness.  Homosexuality was no less harmful to society after the coup, but once the behavior had been deemed “normal” by the APA, homosexuals were able to use existing civil rights law to prohibit “discrimination” against them.

For “gays,” acceptance means the right to demand equal treatment in every sphere of public life. Openly homosexual activists have entered into all of the influential professions such as teaching, politics and media and now work to conform them to their own anti-family ideology.  Equality, in this context, means eliminating all real or perceived preferences for  “heterosexuals.”   Thus, for example, “heterosexist” words and phrases such as “Mom and Dad,” “husband and wife” are replaced by “Parent (or Partner) A” and “Parent (or Partner) B,” and homosexual partners are allowed to adopt children. Of course, public acceptance of homosexuality varies widely from place to place , and the “gay” movement continues to face varying levels of  resistance to different items in its agenda. However, in virtually every place that the homosexual movement has deployed its activists, the social trend is pro-“gay.”

Where “gays” have, through their own political power, achieved the greatest amount of acceptance, their goal has  shifted to a demand for favored status.   This stage involves the active government promotion of homosexuality as a social good, equal or superior to heterosexuality, and public funding of projects and groups organized to advance the “gay” agenda.   Massachusetts and California, for example, are two states where the state public school systems now legitimize


Redeeming the Rainbow 63


homosexuality to schoolchildren through official taxpayer-funded programs.  Mere acceptance of homosexuals gives way  to celebration of the homosexual lifestyle, represented by such things as government sponsorship of “Gay Pride” parades and  (voluntary) participation in the parades by openly identified government officials, and by official proclamations honoring  “Gay  and Lesbian History Month.” Increasing amounts of money flow to “gay” organizations from governments, private  corporations and non-profit entities (which are increasingly under the control of “gay” activists and their allies).



Homo-Fascism: When the Homosexual Movement Achieves Power



In a few countries and cities in the world, the goal of the “gay” movement has advanced beyond favored status to supremacy.  Of course, homosexual activists in these places don’t use the terms  “favored  status”  or  “supremacy,”  but  continue  to  pretend  their  goal  is  “tolerance”  or “acceptance.” Supremacy is the stage in which “gay” activists and their allies take effective control of most or all of the centers of power of a government or other organization. Wherever they have achieved this level of control they use their power to suppress and/or punish those who openly disapprove of the “gay” lifestyle or agenda. Pro-family activists have coined the term “homo-fascism” to describe this.  One of the first to use the term is Pastor Ralph Ovadal of Wisconsin, who defines the term as follows:


Fascism is a political system whereby all opposition to and dissent from the govern- ment is disallowed and crushed. Fascism is a philosophy which tolerates no deviation from an established norm, that being the dictates of a powerful elite. Fascism is op- posed to the eternal, unchanging, objective law of God and is based on the subjec- tive desires and goals of those who have the power to crush their opposition. In many Western nations, a form of fascism has taken root and presents a clear, pres- ent, and growing danger to Christian liberty and the Church of Jesus Christ. This force for evil may justly be referred to as “homo-fascism” due to the fact that those espousing and driving it have as their goal to demonize, marginalize, and silence any criticism of or opposition to homosexual acts and the sodomite agenda. Already Christians in many countries are being arrested for preaching what the Bible teaches concerning homosexual acts. The machinery of tyranny is being put into place (“The Looming Specter of Homo-Fascism,” message given at Wisconsin Christians Unit- ed's International Conference on Homo-Fascism, 10/10/2003,


In Canada, where homosexual activists have achieved enormous power, there are now so-called Human Rights Commissions which have the mission and power to de-Christianize society. In a recent case in Ontario “the Ontario Human Rights Commission ordered Christian Horizons, a large Christian-evangelical service organization for the disabled (1,400 persons in 180 homes with 2,500 employees) to abandon its religious mission by dropping its Christian moral code and accepting new training for all its employees ‘to bring its employment practices into line with the human rights code’ (i.e., accept state indoctrination that  the homosexual lifestyle is normal and to be honoured)”


Redeeming the Rainbow 64


(“Fascism Has Come to Canada,” The Catholic Insight, June 2008).

Those who fail to comply are punished.  Under the law, any person who is “offended” by someone’s public comment critical of homosexuality may file a complaint against the “offender” with the Commission.  The Commission will then investigate to determine if the charges are true, and if so, a monetary fine is assessed against the person who made the comment.  The money is then given to the person who filed the complaint.  One incident from 2007 involved a Catholic member of the City  Council of Kamloops, British Columbia (“Canadian City Councilor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality ‘not Normal or Natural’,” Life Site News, January 18, 2007).

Many Canadian citizens have been hauled before these Human Rights Commissions for “homophobia” and, to  our  knowledge, not a single one of them has ever been found not guilty. Freedom of speech, as it relates to sexual morality, no longer exists in Canada.               The following summary of cases written by Interim editor Paul Tuns was published under the title “Human rights tribunals      –         curb          ’em    or            close      ’em”     on                     March              7,                     2008        at Importantly, this is not a complete summary of all such cases, but is only representative of the larger problem.


Canada is indeed already well down the road to totalitarianism with human rights commissions and their tribunals and boards of inquiry, running roughshod over Christians and conservatives who have not toed the line on complete accep- tance of the gay agenda.

In 1997, London, Ont. mayor Dianne Haskett refused to proclaim a Gay Pride Day or to fly the rainbow flag on city property. A complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which later ruled she had to proclaim such a day. Adjudicator Mary Anne McKellar dismissed the legal argument of Haskett and the city that requiring they proclaim a Gay Pride Day violated their prerogative to make political decisions and infringed on their freedom of political speech. Haskett said proclaiming such a day would be  seen as an official endorsement of the organizer’s agenda. The city was fined $10,000 and ordered to proclaim Gay Pride Day. (Notably, Haskett was re-elected mere weeks after the decision was ren- dered.)

That same year, the city of Kelowna, B.C., issued a proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Day, while omitting the word “pride.” A complaint was lodged against mayor Walter Gray and three years later, the British Columbia Human Rights Tri- bunal found Gray violated the province’s human rights code, because the exclusion of the word pride was “tantamount to a public insult, one which is mean-spirited, short-sighted, and damaging to positive, respectful relations between all people.” Gray responded by refusing to declare city proclamations, period. He was later re- elected with over 95 per cent of the vote.

In Ontario, Mississauga printer Scott Brockie was hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1998 for refusing to print promotional material for the Gay and Lesbian Archives. He had done business with homosexual clients be- fore, but never for jobs that promoted their political causes, which would violate his Christian belief that homosexual actions are morally wrong. By politely declining


Redeeming the Rainbow 65


the GLA’s job, he set into motion a series of events that cost him time and treasure

more than $100,000 and a half-decade defending himself first before the tribunal and then in the courts. In the end, he lost, had to pay a $5,000 fine and pledge to never refuse work from the GLA or another gay activist group again. Brockie re- fused to abide by the decision and challenged it in court – where he lost.

In 1997, the Hugh Owens saga began when he purchased an advertisement in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper that depicted two men holding hands in a circle with a diagonal bar through them, along with references to several biblical passages condemning homosexuality (but not the actual texts). Three complainants claimed the ad exposed or could have exposed homosexuals to hatred, ridicule or belittlement.

Owens said he had the right to express his religious convictions, while the paper argued that, considering that homosexual rights are a public issue, “We have a responsibility to provide a forum to the public for public discussion.” The Saskatche- wan Human Rights Tribunal sided with the complainants, so Owens and the paper were both required to pay each complainant $2,000. The StarPhoenix capitulated on the principle of freedom of the press, agreed to pay the fine and promised not to run “anti-gay” advertisements, while Owens appealed the decision to the courts.

In 2002, Bill Whatcott of the Christian Truth Activists organization was found guilty by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal of offending homosexuals after he distributed pamphlets that stated facts about topics such as the prevalence of AIDS among homosexuals and whether homosexuals are born gay. He presented supporting evidence of his claims, but as Rory Leishman noted in his book Against Judicial Activism, most human rights codes do “not make any provision for truth as a defence against a charge of expressing an idea” deemed politically incorrect and like- ly to offend protected classes of people. Whatcott was fined $17,500 and ordered not to distribute flyers critical of homosexuals. He refused to pay the fine and sever- al weeks after the decision was rendered, he was handing out leaflets entitled, “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.”

In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled against the Knights of Columbus council in Port Coquitlam, after it had refused in 2003 to rent its hall to a lesbian couple who were getting “married.” The tribunal said that, as a religious group, the Knights had the right to refuse the lesbian couple, but were nonetheless fined for the “undue hardship” of canceling the event. The couple found a hall the day after the cancellation, but the tribunal nonetheless said the Knights should have worked with the couple to locate another space for their reception and reimburse them for any costs incurred.

In 2005, Alberta gay activists filed complaints against Calgary Bishop Fred Henry in the province’s HRC. He had denounced the federal government’s bill on same-sex “marriage” in a pastoral letter and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Lesbi- an Carol Johnson claimed the words of the Catholic bishop were “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt.” The case was eventually dropped by the com- plainants, but the Alberta Human Rights Commission should have – and could have


Redeeming the Rainbow 66


summarily dismissed it as being without merit, because Bishop Henry has a right to express his religious views on marriage.

Last year, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal found a youth pastor, Stephen Boissoin, guilty of writing a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that the tri- bunal deemed was likely to expose gays to hatred and contempt. The case stemmed from a 2002 letter in which Boissoin had said homosexuality was immoral, physical- ly dangerous and should not be promoted in schools.

Several weeks later, a homosexual was physically beaten by a thug. Lori An- dreachuk, who led the tribunal’s inquisition against Boissoin, said: “I find that there

is a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager in Red Deer less than two weeks following the publication of Mr. Boissoin’s letter.” The problem is, the tribunal never heard evi- dence connecting Boissoin’s letter to the actions of the violent criminal. But in a hu- man rights tribunal, proof is in the eye of the offendee and circumstantial evidence is enough to convict..


In recent years the United Kingdom has also trended into homo-fascism, formally adopting aggressive anti-Christian  laws titled Sexual Orientation Regulations (SRO) in 2006, which were expanded in 2007.  Pro-family Catholic news source Life Site News ( has closely followed developments there. A short list of their articles on the subject tells the story:


November 28, 2006. “Christian Magistrate Forced To Resign For Refusing to Place Children In Gay



January 29, 2007. “British PM ~ No Religious Exemption to Law Forcing Provision of

Goods and Services to Gays.”


March 6, 2007.    “UK Tribunal: Christian Judges Must Award Homosexual Couples Adoptive

Children or Resign.”

March 16, 2007. “UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about Homosexuality.” March 22, 2007. “UK Regulations Barring Religious Schools from Teaching Against Homosexuality



April 4, 2007. “UK Secularists and Gays Demand Marginalization of Christians.”


May 5, 2007.  “UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were

Objectively True.’”


May 31, 2007. “British Catholic Schools Targeted For Refusing to Implement School ‘anti-homopho- bic’ Bullying Policies.”




Redeeming the Rainbow 67


October 26, 2007.  “UK Christian Couple who Refuse to Promote Homosexuality Forced out of

Child Foster Care.”

January 30, 2008. “UK Government Education Guidelines: Don't use terms ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’.” April 23, 2008.  “More British Catholic Adoption Agencies to Close Doors instead of Bowing to

Sexual Orientation Regulations.”


May 22, 2008. “British Foreign Office to Promote Gay Agenda in Other Countries.”


May 26, 2008.    Mandated Homosexual Adoptions Forces Catholic Church to Quit Adoption

Agencies in England.”


In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail on June 29, 2004, for showing “disrespect” for homosexuals in a sermon he delivered to his own congregation in his own church in Borgholm.  The title of his sermon was “Are people born with homosexual orientation or is it the result of influence by evil powers?” Pastor Green was eventually exonerated by the Swedish Supreme Court, but only over the vigorous objection of the “gay” activists in that nation who demanded a substantially harsher sentence than what he had received.  As explained on a website supportive of Pastor Green:



“The whole thing actually started in 2002 when the Swedish Parliament en- acted a new novel  law that criminalized expressions of disrespect (Swedish: “missakting”) against homosexuals. The sentence for violation is up to 2 years in prison for such expressions. If the expression is especially offensive  (Swedish: “särskillt kränkande”) the sentencing is up to four years in prison. The same law ac- tually also covers groups based on race, color, nationality and ethnic origin and faith. However, expressions of disrespect and offense against such groups are never an issue for people of faith. The Bible does not condemn anyone based on race, col- or etc. But the Bible does condemn people engaging in homosexuality and other perversions. So when homosexuals were included in the definition of “people groups” the stage was set for confrontation with people who believe the Bible. This was made very clear by the Swedish Prime Minister himself. Just before the law was enacted, he stated publicly, as an example, that under the new law it would be criminal to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as something “unnatural”.

The new criminal law (BRB 16:6 para.8) reads as follows (key words under- lined for emphasis):  "8 para: Anyone who, through expression or other form of communica- tion that is spread, threatens or expresses disrespectfor a group of people or other such groups

of persons with reference to race, color, national or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual orientation, is sentenced for instigation against a group of people to prison up to two years or, if the crime is minor, to fines.

If the crime is major is sentenced to at least six months and up to four years in jail. In the de- termination of whether the crime is major, consideration shall be given to whether the message


Redeeming the Rainbow 68


has had an especially threatening  or  offensive contents and whether the message has been spread to a great number of people in a way that is meant to generate considerable attention."



In “gay”controlled jurisdictions, dissenters may also be forced to participate in “gay” events. This occurred in Scotland in 2006.  A group of nine firemen were punished for refusing to man a booth at a “gay pride“ parade. A senior officer was demoted and eight of his colleagues were handed official warnings. The men were told to attend the June 24 event in uniform and hand out leaflets on fire safety (“Nine firemen rapped for refusal to give out leaflets at gay march,”, September 1, 2006).  A similar incident involving fire fighters occurred in San Diego, California. Four of them sued the city of San Diego “for being forced by their superiors to attend the annual ‘Gay Pride’ parade where they endured a barrage of sexual taunts and lewd gestures” (Tough-guy firefight- ers forced into ‘Gay Pride’ parade,” World Net Daily, August 7, 2007.  However, after this incident generated national outrage through coverage in the conservative media, the city backed down and changed its policy.



“Gay” Strategy: The Curse of Baalam



While the homosexual movement’s goal has evolved over time, its strategy has remained constant: to replace the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of Western civilization (which protects the natural family by normatively restricting sex to marriage), with an alternative morality that places no restrictions on sexual conduct.

Homosexuals can have no acceptance in a society that restricts sex to authentic marriage, and so they must replace the marriage-based society with something else. The more sincere among them imagine that open homosexuals and normal heterosexual families can coexist peacefully in a society that is “sexually free” but otherwise unchanged.  But this is an impossible fantasy. When a society embraces sexual “freedom” it severely weakens its natural-family infrastructure because many men and women who are easily tempted by nature are unable to remain faithful to their spouse and children in the absence of strong social pressure to get and stay married. The resulting disintegration of social and emotional stability increases with each generation (as we have proven by experience here in America).

The most important problem isn’t that “gays” want homosexuality to be accepted, but that they seek acceptance by promoting a culture of sexual freedom for all. Frankly, if only homosexual- ity and no other form of sexual deviance were added to the list of “acceptable” social choices, there wouldn’t be much of an impact on society because (absent active recruitment) relatively few people find same-sex relationships appealing.  But all of the arguments used by “gays” to demand their own sexual  freedom apply equally (and logically) to every other type of sexual deviance.   Thus, the consequence of “gay” victory is not a sexually free but otherwise orderly society, it is sexual anarchy and social chaos.

However, it is not the sincere, but the cynical who run the “gay” movement.   Michael Signorelli’s “Gay Manifesto” (see Section 4), a self-styled satire on “how the oppressed dream of becoming the oppressors,” is not really a satire at all, but a glimpse into the true “gay” mind. You will “[t]remble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks” he predicts. These leaders



Redeeming the Rainbow 69


don’t want co-existence, they want control, and to achieve it they have set out to deliberately and systematically destroy the family foundations of civilization.

In short, the “gay” strategy is to corrupt the morality of the heterosexual majority through the promotion of “sexual freedom,” while fostering hostility toward the advocates of the natural family and marriage (the church) as “sexual oppressors.”

This is the lesson of Balaam.  Balak, a Prince of Moab, hired Balaam the soothsayer to curse his enemies, the Israelite refugees from Eqypt, who lived in the land near his kingdom (Numbers

22:5-12). God supernaturally prevented Balaam from cursing the Israelites. Instead, Balaam advised Balak that he could achieve the same result by promoting sexual immorality among the Israelites, which would cause God to remove His favor  from them, and bring His wrath on them instead (Numbers 31:16, Revelation 2:14). The strategy was successful.

The “gay” sponsorship of “sexual freedom” is the modern equivalent to “the curse of Balaam”

on America, and we face the same national consequences if we continue to embrace it.




When the subject of “gay” political tactics is raised in pro-family circles, the conversation often turns to the book After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, which has been the “gay” movement’s marketing blueprint since it was first published in 1989.  The book is based on a 1987 magazine article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” which was intended for “gay” activist eyes only,  and is a remarkably frank summary of the book’s thesis.  Relevant portions of the article are included among our resources in Section 4. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the “gay” agenda.

This segment, however, will address lesser known yet common tactics and policies of the movement.


Recruiting Their Activists


Homosexuals cast themselves as a united coalition of sexual minorities (GLBT “gay,” lesbian, bisexual,  transgendered) who must band together against a common oppressor or be killed or harmed.  The “oppressor” is the “homophobic” majority, which they separate in two groups: (1) hate-filled religious fanatics and other bigots, and (2) those  who go along with “homophobic” attitudes out of ignorance (a group which includes children, which justifies their manipulation of public and private educational systems).

The reason for accusing opponents of hating them is first, to put the opponents on the defensive, second to  create  sympathy and gain allies among non-homosexuals (especially young people), and third to preserve their own political unity by perpetrating a climate of fear among their members.

Homosexual activist organizations seek to recruit all young people to be their allies by styling themselves as victims  needing protection.   They take advantage of the humanitarian idealism of teenagers and young adults who are too immature to recognize that they are being manipulated.  So central is this tactic to their strategy that the homosexual program for promoting “gay” activism in public schools is known as the “Gay”/Straight Alliance.


Redeeming the Rainbow 70


However, this tactic also serves to recruit young people into the “gay” lifestyle.  It is fairly common for young people to experience same-sex attraction during their teenage years (studies show as many as 25% experience this).  For most, such feelings go away naturally with maturity.  But if a young person with these feelings happens to fall in with a GLBT activist group, he or she can easily begin to identify with the “gay” lifestyle and enter into a homosexual relationship.  Unpopular or troubled young people are particularly susceptible to this, since they find in the “gay” community a place where they finally feel welcome and loved. These are the very young people who most need a good church fellowship to give them loving support and healthy guidance, but instead they find a “place to belong” in a community built on self-delusion and perversion.

Once there, however, the third purpose of “gay” fear-mongering (member retention) works to keep them there.  Getting out of the “gay” lifestyle is not so easy when you believe the whole world is divided into “us” vs. “them” and shun everyone who could help to guide you back to health and wholeness, believing them to be hate-filled bigots.


Organizing Their Activists


Homosexuals have created their own alternate “community,” which serves as a network of potential available sexual partners for everyone with “gay“, lesbian, bisexual or transgender inclina- tions or addictions. It offers alternative versions of all the amenities of the outside world (bars, social clubs, bowling leagues, cruises….even AA meetings!) so that members of the community can limit their interaction with outsiders.

It is also different from normal society in that it operates like one large political party. Virtually all “gay” social events are first about sex and second about politics. To be active in the “gay community” is to be a political operative at some level.

Members of the “gay” community (especially men) want more than anything else to expand their universe of potential sexual partners, so naturally they are easily recruited into the grand scheme to “make the whole world gay” through social and political change.

The huge “Gay Pride” parades seen in major cities around the world are a good example. Every “Pride” parade accomplishes two things. First, it provides an opportunity for sexual promiscu- ity with a large new pool of potential partners.  Homosexual activists from around the world use the “Pride” events as vacation opportunities. Second, “Gay Pride” parades  achieve a major political objective by using economic leverage (tourism dollars) to break down resistance to pro-homosexual policy in business and government circles, and by generating considerable publicity for an event that showcases the “gays’” power and the public’s acceptance of it.






Deploying Their Activists


The homosexual aim is to take effective control of the seats of power and influence in the society. The key spheres of influence include mass media (news and entertainment), government, schools and colleges, businesses, churches and community organizations.



Redeeming the Rainbow 71


Having a relatively small number of activists, and a large number of targets, the “gays” seek to maximize their influence by taking and holding key positions in each sphere.

For example, in media, schools and business, the most important position to control is the one that decides who is hired.  Since homosexuals can easily hide their “gay” identity, it is relatively easy, once the hiring position is in the hands of a “gay” activist, to hire mostly fellow “gays” as new positions become available.  They will all stay “in the closet” until they have enough people to form a “gay” and lesbian employee association or similar pressure group, and then use their collective power to force policy changes within the organization.

The takeover process usually involves a combination of pressure and propaganda, often involving forced  “sensitivity training” to compel members of the organization to adopt the “gay” perspective on “sexual orientation,” “diversity,” and “tolerance.” Sensitivity training employs sophis- ticated psychological manipulation tactics to establish a common belief and behavioral system in a subject group.   Those who resist indoctrination during such training are easily spotted and are eventually forced out of the organization if they do not change.

In government, the key positions are not necessarily the elected political leaders, but the powerful assistants of decision-makers, for example, legislators’ aides or law clerks in the higher courts.

In churches and community organizations, the goal is usually to gain a majority among the voting members.   This  has been easily accomplished in many small non-profit organizations and church congregations of the declining denominations of the US.

Exploitation of  community  organizations  often  involves  a  public  relations  ploy  I  call “bundling.”  Bundling is the “gay” activists’ tactic of wrapping themselves in the cloak of civil rights by sponsoring coalitions of minorities and including themselves as a member minority.  Having far greater financial resources than most of the legitimate minorities, they ensure their inclusion because they are the underwriters and organizers.

Their purpose, however, is to advance the idea that “sexual orientation” is a genuine basis for minority status by bundling it together with race, ethnicity, gender, etc.  Importantly, the “gays” almost always place racial minorities as the figureheads of these coalitions to create the impression that their primary interest is the advancement of the legitimate minorities.  This is not a difficult proposition, since there are many homosexuals who are also racial minorities. The optimum scenario for the “gays” is a coalition headed by an in-the-closet “gay” of a minority race who can pretend neutrality when promoting a homosexual goal.

Most important to homosexual strategy in all of these tactics is to hold the key positions and then to directly or indirectly use the power of those positions to change the society, by marketing the homosexual message to the public while also attacking and marginalizing the pro-family leaders and organizations.






For the first time in American history, people who believe strongly in our Judeo-Christian values are in the minority. We wish that this were not true, but we must not pretend or deny that it is. Indeed, if we embrace this reality we can turn it to our political and social advantage.

It is a simple fact of history that most orchestrated social change (as opposed to change



Redeeming the Rainbow 72


influenced by such things as advancements in technology) is driven by small groups of highly motivated people. Such people are usually very much aware that they represent a numerical minority in the society and therefore they rely very heavily on strategic planning and careful implementation.

Our problem as pro-family activists is not one of energy or motivation: it is a lack of strategic planning, a failure that I believe results from clinging to the notion that we activists are just the more vocal members of a “silent majority.”  If we were to recognize that in practical terms the majority is no longer with us, we would realize that our strategy and tactics must be focused more narrowly on influencing (or becoming) the decision-makers and less on influencing the general public.

Instead, our focus has been very broad, based upon the unrealistic assumption that if we were to fully inform the  public  about family-related issues, the public itself would rise up and fix the problems. This is an unrealistic assumption because even if there were a “silent majority” on our side, we know that most public information systems are dominated by our adversaries and we have no effective means of overcoming their propagandistic framing of the issue. Day by day, the information media, the public schools and universities and the entertainment industry are steadily shifting public opinion to the pro-homosexual stance.

Consider the strategy of the “gay” activists, however. They never had any illusions about leading a “silent majority” in support of their agenda. They have never (until recently) relied upon public opinion to advance their agenda. In fact, public opinion has been against them in nearly every political victory they have won.

Very frequently, “gay” advances have been quickly reversed through referenda and other populist repeal mechanisms. Nevertheless, the “gay” agenda is now nearly fully implemented in many parts of the nation. “Gay” organizations are now presenting themselves as normal components of mainstream America. Simultaneously, groups which advocate our viewpoint have been increasingly marginalized.

How did the homosexual movement achieve this remarkable feat?

It did so by gaining control of strategic decision-making positions in the policy-shaping institutions of our society.  “Gay” leaders focused their relatively small army of activists on first one and then another strategic goal in a slow incremental process of taking power.

While our side has been complacent in our presumed majority position, “gay” activists have focused their attention on taking control of school boards, city councils, state and federal agencies, professional and community organizations, unions, religious denominations and public corporations. They know that elections for key offices in democratically-run organizations  are almost always decided by a small minority of active participants and they have educated and organized their people accordingly. I believe the average American would be literally stunned if every in-the-closet homo- sexual in an elected position were to suddenly reveal himself or herself to the public. Of course, there are many non-homosexuals who support the  homosexual agenda as well, often for the purely pragmatic reason that the “gays” have proven that they can deliver money, workers and votes to their allies.

In the less-democratic worlds of corporations and administrative agencies, “gay” activists (as we have noted above) have used the invisibility of their “in-the-closet” members to the maximum advantage.

My purpose in describing these strategies and tactics is to show that there is no magic behind homosexual political gains. Rather, it is just simple, but highly organized grassroots activism. As


Redeeming the Rainbow 73


pro-family advocates begin to think and work as a numerical minority, we can gain for the pro-family movement some of the same benefits which have been achieved by “gays.” Our tactics needn’t mirror those of the “gay” activists, but our strategy should be very similar.

Our objective, then, must be to take control away from our adversaries and to place it back in the hands of pro-family people. We must plan and implement change, not as outsiders trying to influence policy by rallying public opinion,  but as decision-making insiders leading the way to a family-friendly future.
























































Redeeming the Rainbow 74