counter statistics

Saturday, May 03, 2003

Profiles in Cowardice
Originally published in Lavender Magazine, April 18, 2003

The infamous Lindner/Jungbauer bills (HF 341/SF 545) are dead this session. Despite frequent and regular public repudiation of Lindner by Speaker Sviggum and Governor Pawlenty, the DFL continues to claim that the Republican legislative caucuses support the bigoted Lindner rhetoric. At press time, there was a hearing on the ethics complaint against Lindner by several DFL legislators. To his credit, DFL Party Chair Erlandson calls on Speaker Sviggum to remove Lindner from his committee chair rather than trying to stifle Lindner's freedom of speech. As long as Lindner remains a chair of a committee, he continues to reflect badly on the whole house republican caucus. Lindner reflects more poorly on the Republican state party - which has endorsed him on numerous occasions, while denying endorsement to respected moderates such as Sheila Kiscaden, Martha Robertson, Dennis Osment and Gary Laidig.

Bachmann upstages Lindner

Senator Michele Bachmann temporarily upstaged the notorious Representative Arlon Lindner when the bill to ratify the contracts was debated. During debate in the Senate -- which passed the bill 39 to 26 -- about an amendment that would have included the partner benefits, Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, raised concerns that the costs of those benefits would be prohibitive because "the homosexual lifestyle makes them more likely to be disproportionate consumers of health-care services." Quoting a report from the anti-gay Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C., Bachmann listed what she said was scientific evidence that gay men are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and have shorter lifespans, and that gays and lesbians are at greater risk of psychiatric disorders. If you go to the Culture and Family Institute website, you will discover that like the Minnesota Family Council, they are rather obscessed with anal sex and "gay bowel syndrom."

After OutFront Minnesota wrote a letter, signed by Ann DeGroot, Executive Director and Gregg White Development Director, asking the legislators to vote for the contracts with the domestic partner benefits stripped out, the contract legislation (HF 330, SF 293) passed both chambers with overwhelming margins. Dibble and Clark both voted against the final contract language since it undermined the negotiated domestic partner benefits. The OutFront letter was a surprise to me, since I had been assured by OFM board member Eileen Scallen and OutFront lobbyist, C Scott Cooper that OutFront was not going to support a contract bill with negotiated domestic partner benefits stripped out.

"In light of both the fact that the Speaker of the House and the Governor have said that they will not consider a contract which includes domestic partner benefits, and the amount at stake if the contracts were not to pass, OutFront Minnesota has asked our allies in the Minnesota Senate to pass the contracts, even if attempts to reinstate the benefits failed," states OutFront Minnesota in a April 5, 2003 email memo to members.

The facts: After meeting with Sviggum for 30 minutes, I convinced him to put sick and bereavement benefits for Domestic Partners back into the bill. The Democrats and the Republicans offered identical bills on the contracts.

It is a bit disingenuous after all for AFSCME to say they want to be able to negotiate issues like pay freezes and health insurance, but then walk away from their negotiated health insurance and kowtow to the bigots regarding domestic partner benefits.

Other bills affecting us:

There are competing "abstinence only - condoms don't work" and comprehensive sexuality education bills being debated at the legislature. There are also bills to strip all funding from the Minnesota AIDS Project because MAP "encourages a lifestyle." We should also expect an attempt to pass some sort of legislation that would ban any positive depiction of homosexuality in public schools. The Minnesota AIDS Project is a good source of news about bills in the area of sex education and HIV/STD health policy. During Outfront's Lobby Day, I talked with a number of Republican legislators about the "abstinence only - condoms don't work" sex education bill and asked them to oppose it. Most of the Republicans I talked with agreed this bill was a bad idea. These representatives included: Hackbarth, Powell, Paulsen, Osterman, Erhardt and Abrams.

Another interesting bill is HF 7/ SF 189, which allows for a public safety officer death benefit be paid to the officer's estate if there is no eligible spouse or dependent. This would allow for domestic partners of police officers or fire fighters to benefit. I have not heard about the Leviticus Crowd jumping on this one.

Lindner isn't the only moron from Texas.......

I had posted a critique of OutFront Minnesota supporting the bill to ratify the contracts with domestic partner benefits removed to LGBT Politics. In response, I received the following from a fellow in Texas:

From: Geoff Staples
Subject: Outfront Minnesota Supports Contracts without Domestic Partner Benefits


You are in serious need of psychiatric help. Once you learn to like yourself and accept your homosexuality, you will realize that it is not to your benefit to support people who want to make you a criminal, think you should not have a family, and that you shouldn't be allowed to be a foster parent or adopt children because you're a child molesting pervert.

I'll pray for you and your Log Cabin buddies. Maybe someday you'll receive God's grace, learn to love yourself, and tell the homo-hating Republicans to pound sand.

As a gay man, I love my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I love you because you were made in God's image. I sincerely hope you wake up soon.

What is rather funny about this, is I've gotten the same type of mail from the Leviticus Crowd, who say that if I only changed from being gay to being straight, God would love me. Whatever.

Eva Young is President of Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota and has a weblog covering GLBT Nooz and Political Commentary especially in Minnesota. Please feel free to contact her with political gossip and comments
at: 612-588-2044 or, or visit her blog.

Mr. Homosareperverse (Kirk Zimpfer of Muncie Indiana), takes credit:

I'm taking full credit for this one, Eva. I sent out several emails to conservative groups and to Alyson Smith noting your involvement
with US Queers. Let's just hope that the LCR has enough common sense to remove a radical like yourself.

World Net Daily Picks up Hit Piece

All I can say is that the Leviticus Crowd is really losing it if they are doing hit pieces on a Log Cabin Republican state leader. This whole thing is nonsense - saying that because someone else on the US Queers website says something, that I have to answer for it. What is interesting is they compare this to the Santorum issue - and that's not a case of Santorum answering for something someone else says, it is Santorum answering for himself.

None of it matters - it is like saying "when did you last beat your wife?"


Free Republic discusses the Culture and Family Hit Piece

Here's a sampling of the posts:

It's good to be reminded that the Log Samplin' Republicans are the enemies of that which is good and decent. We don't want them! Not their votes, not their money, not their diseases.

39 posted on 05/02/2003 6:55 PM PDT by FormerLib

To: Polycarp

Better get this to O'Reilly.

Better yet, send it to Ashcroft and Tom Ridge.

35 posted on 05/02/2003 9:49 AM PDT by mabelkitty

Talk about shock and awe - I think the homo Nazis must be scared, there have been so many of them on FR lately - probably got their marching orders to come and disrupt, chainging names so it looks as though there are many of them. I noticed their home pages on FR (or whatever it's called) are similar (when they put any "info" there) - kind of fake and smarmy.
It looks to me as though the fag Nazis are taking their masks off. Helping to separate the sheep from the goats, I guess. This should help people (sheeple?) who are sitting on the fence, to decide which side they want to be one - the side of light and truth, or the side of darkness and evil.
I'm in awe, and my thanks are to the brave souls on FR who speak the truth.

28 posted on 05/01/2003 10:39 PM PDT by pram

Friday, May 02, 2003

Hit Piece Promotes US Queers and Sodomlist......

Mr. Homosareperverse, Kirk Zimpfer of Muncie Indiana takes full credit for the Hit piece.

What is interesting about this, is that it shows a connection between the Culture and Family Institute and the Bob Enyart Cult Following.

Now I wonder if Allison Smith, Peter LaBarbera and Robert Knight from the Culture and Family Institute agree with Mr. Zimpfer that sodomy ought to be punished by the death penalty?


Culture and Family Institute does Hit Piece on Yours Truly

Anyway, Log Cabin Republicans at the national level has never asked me what other elists I am on, and I've never felt the need to disclose that information.

Some of the things I said were taken out of context - especially the point about "disciplining" Gary Morella. I said that before LaBarbara told me that the CWFA chose to put Morella's Penn State credential to try to add some validity to his rantings.

I find it interesting that Allyson Smith failed to also include that while I am a President of Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota, and believe strongly in LCR, I disagree with them on their position on hate crimes legislation. I had told LaBarbara this during our interview. I personally oppose such legislation because I believe it is going after thought crimes. The Cato Institute arguments on that issue speak for me.

At the end of this article they have a prayer alert:

Take action
Pray for Eva Young, Bruce Allan Ross, Rusty Morris, Patrick Guerrierro, and everyone associated with and Log Cabin Republicans to be delivered from homosexuality. Do what you can to inform Republican Party officials about Log Cabin Republicans’ radical "gay" activist affiliations.

EY: I pray that Peter LaBarbera, Allison Smith, Robert Knight and everyone associated with the Culture and Family get a clue.

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Founding Feminist Event

Dayton went for the most at over $300. McCollum and Rybak went for $100 each.

The whos who and the up and coming women were there at this great event for the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus. Check out the MN WPC for some exciting plans for the organization's future.


Monday, April 28, 2003

Who will go for the most in the Founding Feminist Event

There are donated Lunch with RT Rybak and Lunch with Betty McCollum at the Founding Feminist Festival for the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus. Who will go for more?


Sunday, April 27, 2003

Steven Miller discusses the Silver Lining with the White House Response to Santorum

This includes some quotes of the latest bleating from the Family Research Council.......


Something that has confused me about the Santorum situation

Part of the discussion of the words of Rick Santorum are that these are his deeply held beliefs as a Catholic. There have been some cases of Bishops excommunicating Catholic office holders who disagree with the church's official position on Birth Control and abortion. Well I'm rather confused. Why aren't bishops also excommunicating politicians who disagree with the church on the Death Penalty (Does Santorum support of oppose the Death Penalty?) or the War in Iraq? After all, the Pope did come out opposed to the War in Iraq, and isn't that also based on deeply held religious belief.

Both the left and the right like to use the Catholic Church (or other churches) when the church officially believes in what they want to do, and use this to say they are on higher moral ground. Ofcourse this doesn't apply when the church officially disagrees with their view.

I have not seen other bloggers comment on this aspect of the Santorum case.


Sodomy, Santorum and Ham - Oh My!

Charlie Mehler, author of the lyrics of the aclaimed "I am the Very Model of Modern Gay Republican" said in response to the typical Santorum spin.....

Which is all well and good. HOWEVER!!!!!! . . .

My orthodox Jewish grandfather told me I would not be in God's good graces if I ate a ham sandwich (which I have done many times since, btw). My orthodox Jewish grandfather would never have suggested making hog farming
illegal. This is what Santorum and company seem to be doing with respect to private
consensual sex acts, and that's what makes it bigotry.

-- Charlie Mehler, Kansas/Chicago

Throw Adulterers In the Slammer! quoted in Chuck Muth's News and Views

"The senator from Pennsylvania (Republican Sen. Rick Santorum) made some valid points about Constitutional law, but many grotesque smears in his recent AP interview. One of those points was that if we allow people to have any kind of adult, consensual sex in their own bedrooms, any number of horrors could ensue, including incest, bigamy, you name it.

"So let me turn the slippery slope argument around. Mr. Santorum argues that gays should be jailed for having private consensual sex in their own homes. Why does he believe this? Because, somehow, private gay sex prevents others from forming 'strong, healthy families.'

"I have no idea how that linkage works - but leave that for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more direct effect on 'strong, healthy families' than homosexuality. It's far, far more common than gay sex - hurts children, destroys families, wounds women, and on and on.

"To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery shouldn't be, makes no sense at all. So here's Mr. Santorum's campaign slogan: Throw adulterers in the slammer! Do you think his fellow senators might feel a little queasy
about that?"

- Andrew Sullivan, "The Weekly Dish," 4/25/03

EY: Where is Gays and Lesbians Against Immoral Lifestyles when you need them?

Nothing to Sneeze at (from Chuck Muth's News and Views)

Welcome to allergy season 2003. For those of you who regularly suffer this annual feast of misery, I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that thanks to the wonderful pharmaceutical companies which liberals and trial lawyers are beating up on all the time, relief options for allergy symptoms are now many and varied. The bad news is, for many folks the cost for one avenue of such relief just got a bit more expensive.

As the Associated Press reported this week, this is the first season that Claritin will be available as a non-prescription drug for allergy sufferers. At about $1 per pill, it ain't cheap...but for a great many people it's worth every penny.

Up until Claritin was switched over from prescription status to non-prescription status, folks with prescription benefits could get a full month's supply of the drug for only about ten bucks. On the other hand, now that Claritin's patent has expired, a generic version is now available for almost half the cost of the real thing. The market economy at work.

I know, I know. What's this have to do with government, politics and News & Views, right? Well, I'll tell you.

Moving a drug from prescription to non-prescription status is a normal procedure. After a drug has been on the market for a sufficient time to allow for safety monitoring and evaluation by doctors, the manufacturer will usually make a request of the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) to switch the drug to over-the-counter status so you don't have to go to your doctor to get a prescription for it any longer. This is part of a normal, time-tested procedure.

Enter the HMO's.

See, once a drug is switched to non-prescription status, the HMO no longer has to pay for your doctor visit to get the prescription or to pay for the drug itself. You do. That saves the HMO money.

When a drug such as Claritin is moved to over-the-counter status after the normal time and procedures, that's just life. But now the HMO's are getting a bit greedy and are petitioning the FDA to move other allergy medicines to non-prescription status BEFORE they've had time to be tested for safety and use in the marketplace under the supervision of doctors and the drugs' manufacturers.

As reported in USA Today on Wednesday, "The Food and Drug Administration is moving to make popular antihistamines Allegra and Zyrtec available without a prescription. It would represent the first time the FDA has forced drugs over-the-counter against makers' wishes. . . . . The FDA is targeting Allegra and Zyrtec because of a 'citizens' petition' filed in 1998 by WellPoint Health Networks, a managed-care company seeking to make all non-sedating antihistamines non-prescription."

This "forced" switching of drugs before their time certainly provides for a healthier bottom line for HMO's such as WellPoint, but isn't necessarily in the best interest of the bottom line or health of the patient. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

I wrote a letter to the FDA commissioner on this very subject a few weeks ago opposing forced switching. You can read it at:

If this is something you, too, are concerned about, you might want to send a friendly note to Commissioner McClellan, as well, and urge him to oppose requests by HMO's to forcibly switch prescription drugs before they've been on the market under physician supervision for a sufficient amount of time.

You can email Commissioner McClellan at:

Chuck Muth on Santorum

Slamming Santorum (from Chuck Muth's News and Views)

The Supreme Court is currently weighing Lawrence vs. Texas, which would, in effect, overturn sodomy laws that make criminals out of consenting adult homosexuals.

In an interview with an AP reporter - who, by the way, has ties to Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said of the case, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to (homosexual) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

Naturally, the left is having a cow and demanding Santorum's head on a platter. You know, the same old whine that Republicans are intolerant, homophobic, blah, blah, blah.

The hypocrisy here is thick enough to cut with a knife. Why does the left think it's OK for un-elected Hollywood celebrities, for example, to spout off against the war in Iraq without getting hit with voluntary consumer boycotts and other sanctions for their positions, but it's not OK for an elected U.S. Senator to voice his opinion on a matter of public policy without the left demanding he be forced to resign from his leadership position in the Senate?

One can disagree with Sen. Santorum's comments - and many do - without that meaning he should lose a position he was elected to. Unlike Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Mike Moore & Company, Santorum will face the voters in his state and they'll decide whether or not his comments should be penalized in the next election.

Now, as to Santorum's position on the case itself, a lot of people agree with him. On the other hand, it appears many more disagree. At least as far as criminalizing homosexuality.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly posed the following question on his website last night: "Does the US Government have the right to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults?" As of this morning, almost two-thirds (65%) said no, while just 35 percent said yes.

You can weigh in on this survey by going to:

Clearly, among the 12,500+ folks who answered O'Reilly's poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't think the government should be sticking its nose in other people's bedrooms.

Frankly, I'm with the majority on this one. Nevertheless, the voice of dissent by Sen. Santorum shouldn't be silenced by anyone other than the voters of Pennsylvania, if THEY deem it appropriate in the next election. In any event, the Supreme Court, not the U.S. Senate, will ultimately be making the call on this one. So the left should just put a sock in it and call off its Lott-like witch-hunt against Santorum.

For those of you who agree with Sen. Santorum and wish to voice your
support, our friend Phil Sheldon has set up an online petition which you may
sign at:

This Week on "Always Right"

Don't miss this week's edition of "Always Right with Chuck Muth." My special guest will be the always entertaining and extremely courageous champion of TRUE civil rights: Ward Connerly.

EY: Ward Connerly publically opposed the bigoted proposition 22 in California. This was a referendum to restrict marriage benefits to legally married couples only. Unfortunately those running the "No on 22" campaign utilized only a liberal message, and didn't use the voices of conservatives like Ward Connerly very effectively.

The promo continues:
To find out more about Mr. Connerly's battles against race-based affirmative
action, visit: And if you have any questions you'd like for
me to ask Ward, just email them to me at

Monday's at 8:00 p.m. EST. The link to listen in live is:

Bill O'Reilly's poll has it right (from Chuck Muth's News and Views, April 25, 2003)

I think Bill O'Reilly's poll has it right: (from Chuck Muth's News and Views, April 25, 2003)

Santorum Firestorm

In response to the Bill O'Reilly's online survey asking if the government should have the right to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults, News & Views reader Alan Huber writes:

"As of right now, Chuck, it is 72%-28% for 'no.' I am in agreement with the vast majority of citizens. As much as I might not like the activity, I cannot justify the government's involvement in going after it as criminal. Senator Santorum doesn't need to apologize; he's just on the wrong side of this one."

EY: Amen!

Conversations with a Penn State Conservative Continued:
From: Eva Young []
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 1:37 AM
To: Patrick Gibbons
Subject: Re: I speak for PSU conservatives


Re your article:

I just read your article about homophobia. Personally I hate that word and never use it. I think the term "anti-gay" or "bigot" better expresses it.

However you mentioned you were grossed out by gay sex in your article. Well don't engage in it. Are you familiar with Bob Enyart.
Do you agree with the sentiments expressed in this article by Bob Enyart?

Do you consider sodomy laws "conservative"?

Eva Young
Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota

From: "Patrick Gibbons"
To: "'Eva Young'"
Subject: RE: I speak for PSU conservatives
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 02:32:41 -0400

Eva Young,

In the article I did not mention my personal views, I defended views that other people have expressed. Perhaps my views might be in here, but the tone of the column is defense of those who disagree and not showing my personal views or attacking homosexuality have some have irrationally made it out to be.

Like you said I don't like the word homophobe or heterosexist (a term no doubt made up, and I just learned it after publishing that column).

Disagreeing with an act or being grossed out by it does not make you a Bigot or anti gay. Say "Anti-gay act people". That would better fit it...and it's more PC too! But it won't fit your agenda because gay people won't be being attacked and thus won't be the underdog that gets them so emotionally fired up to protest and take action and create fascist hate crime and hate speech codes.

Sodomy laws are not conservative nor are they liberal. To say this is liberal propaganda and "pro-gay" (although there can be pro-gay people who have rationalized the issue and see the bigger picture) rhetoric to motivate people into fighting. Everyone knows that sodomy laws, like all sex laws are next to impossible to enforce. The most important of these laws are laws against rape and pedophilia acts which are actively sought for prosecution and punishment.

The rhetoric that people are using to attack Santorum is poorly based because EVERYONE knows that cops are not out on witch hunts to arrest consenting homosexual adults. Virginia has laws that forbid sex until marriage but police are not arresting anyone, likewise the sodomy laws gay men are not getting arrested for it simply because it is almost
impossible to enforce.

The sodomy laws really are only brought to charges in prosecutions involving rape and pedophilia, when someone comes forward and claims rape etc. As we both know these are charges given to both homosexual and heterosexual sexual offenders. In rare instances this law may also be applied to those gay men or straight men caught in sexual acts in public. But like I said, cops are not hunting down people who enjoy anal sex. It is absurd to think that, but you have to push that point
of few to further liberal agenda.

Furthermore, Santorum pointed out, polygamy, bigamy and incest is illegal, even when practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own home. What Sen. Santorum was trying to say is that - if a state has absolutely no right to regulate sodomy on privacy grounds, then on what legal basis would the state challenge polygamy, a woman having sex with her 13 year old student, or a father sleeping with his daughter?

Homosexuality is not yet socially accepted but it continues, on these grounds social acceptance will not stop those interested in young boys/girls or incest. If it came to the authorities that such acts were taking place they would be able to investigate and prosecute. But they will not be going after consenting gay male adults, despite being illegal these acts will continue because they will know the impossibility of enforcement in a private home between consenting adults. (hopefully repeating this enough will sink in the main points)

Please mail this to all your groups as well (your Cc list). I would like to see how well they rationalize the issue now. There are those
liberals so Machiavellian enough to abuse the emotions of their followers and trick them into emotional response to reject ration and
logic. That is, you have evil liberals and naive liberals.


Patrick R. Gibbons
Daily Collegian Columnist
The Pennsylvania State University

Spokesman for PSU's Conservatives

From: "Patrick Gibbons"
Subject: I speak for PSU conservatives
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 01:28:00 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal

Please read my publications, please read with logic and reason not emotion.

These are published and I am 22 and revolting from the evil liberal fascism that tries to corrupt destroy and force people. I am not evil, I am not a bigot, I am not full of hate and intolerance. I am probably more tolerant than most liberals, and I defend the opinions of those who disagree with PSU policy, democrats, and liberals like yourself.

Patrick R. Gibbons
Collegian Columnist

X-Originating-IP: []
X-Originating-Email: []
From: "Gary Morella"
To: "Eva Young"
Subject: My background is now being questioned by Lavender Magazine columnist
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 22:03:31 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2003 01:59:55.0108 (UTC) FILETIME=[884ADA40:01C30B97]

Ms. Young,

See my response in red. I guess basically, I'm wondering just who do you think you are with your impertinent arrogant questions, which I do not have to answer.

Gary L. Morella
Mr. Morella,

Thank you for your response. I also heard from Mr. Mahon, stating equivically that Penn State does not employ a person in your position to speak for the University.

You write:

Why then should those faculty like myself work under the constraint that we cannot identify who we are in speaking out against homosexual lifestyles?

Mail ID: glm7
Address: 0165 ARL BUILDING
Telephone Number: +1 814 863 4070
Administrative Area: RESEARCH -ARL
Department: RESEARCH -ARL

Now maybe Penn State is different than the University of Minnesota, but here at the University of Minnesota's Research Assistants are NOT considered "faculty".

This is not the University of Minnesota. It is Penn State. And I have a contract as a member of the Research Faculty, much to your chagrin, no doubt.

The issue is not one of free speech.

Sorry, this issue is precisely that of free speech in the ability to identify who I am. To say that it isn't is nonsense, which I will have none of from you.

You have every right to say what you want. The question is whether it is appropriate to speak - and also use your Penn State Affiliation to give you more credibility - especially when you are using your work credentials to talk about a subject that doesn't
relate to your day to day work.

I have already answered that question to my satisfaction and that of the University. If you can't accept that, that's your problem, not mine or Penn State's, which you evidently discovered by your last e-mail regarding University property. I saved you a lot of trouble with my original response to you.

Anyway, now that we have established you don't speak for Penn State, I have
a couple follow up questions:

Does the research that you do at Penn State relate to the issues you
discusses on the Culture and Family Institute Website? (Sodomy,
Psychiatric or Psychological studies about the issue of homosexuality.)

What I do at Penn State is none of your business.

Do you have any publications in peer reviewed journals? Can you give me some citations.

I don't have to give you anything other than God's blessings and to say that this is the last e-mail correspondence between you and me.

It seems like Gary Morella probably is doing ok by Penn State Policy

Well I checked PSU's policies on this, and it seems this would apply:


The University assumes no responsibility for the endorsement of a political candidate or cause by members of its faculty or staff. Except for the limited purpose of identifying the University as the employer of the faculty or staff member making a political endorsement, the name of the University is not to be connected with such an endorsement in any way. No endorsement shall be made on the official stationery of the University, nor on stationery having the University address or a University telephone number.

From policy on intolerance:


The expression of diverse views and opinions is encouraged in the University community. Further, the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution assures the right of free expression. In a community which recognizes the rights of its members to hold divergent views and to express those views, sometimes ideas are expressed which are contrary to University values and objectives. Nevertheless, the University cannot impose disciplinary sanctions upon such expression when it is otherwise in compliance with University regulations.

But then Gary Morella responds, and sounds almost like he is speaking for his employer, Penn State University.....

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:22:43 -0400
From: Gary Morella
Subject: Re: Does Gary Morella speak for Penn State University here?
To: Eva Young ,,,

Dear Ms. Young:

This may come as a shock to you but not everyone affiliated with Penn State University, faculty, staff, students, alumni, trustees, or contributing friends to the University agrees with the promotion of sodomy as a civil right in an affirmative action sense. And I can tell you unequivocally that there are many in the Pennsylvania General Assembly who share similar views in opposition to the promotion of homosexuality, reflecting the opinions of a large number of their Pennsylvania constituents.

Penn State prides itself on the allowance of free speech as many faculty here have no problems identifying their position with the University when speaking out for homosexual lifestyles. They do this in various publications, public forums to include school board meetings, and in the electronic media. Penn State has no problem with that. Why then should those faculty like myself work under the constraint that we cannot identify who we are in speaking out against homosexual lifestyles? Maybe you could explain how that restriction comes under the heading of "free speech", which is prided at Penn State University under President Graham Spanier.

Free speech is a "two-edged" sword, Ms. Young. You should have realized that before contacting me. Unfortunately today, the PC crowd considers "free speech" as only that which agrees with their position, demonizing those who have differing opinions.

I am a Vietnam Era Navy Veteran, and I have uncles who were on Iwo Jima in WWII, one of whom bears the scars of that war today with one lung and shrapnel in his ankles, being in and out of veteran's hospitals all of his life. Did our sacrifice and those who fell in all of the wars fought for our country redefine free speech to be only that which agrees with you?

I consider this e-mail response to you an answer to your question in full. And I wish you a very pleasant day.

God bless you,

Gary L. Morella

Response from Penn State

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:03:18 -0400
To: Eva Young
From: Bill Mahon
Subject: Re: Does Gary Morella speak for Penn State University here?

Dear Eva Young
If you read the first sentence of this article, it says that Mr. Morella opposes the University's view on most things. It has never been Penn State's practice to have research mathematicians state the official university stance on anything.
Best regards.

Who Speaks for Penn State University?
Dear Bill Mahon (PSU Spokesperson) and Gary Morella:

I am a columnist for Lavender Magazine.

The following is published on the Culture and Family Institute Website:\

This article is prefaced by the following:

Gary Morella is a research mathematician at Penn State University and a Catholic pro-family advocate who has written extensively on sexual morality and life issues, frequently challenging liberal ethos at the university. We offer excerpts of the following article about the homosexual lobby’s attack on Sen. Rick Santorum— interspersed with Morella’s commentary, which appears in red:

I'm confused. Is Gary Morella speaking for Penn State here? Did Gary give the Culture and Family Insitute the permission to use both his name, and his institutional affiliation?

In any case, I would be interested whether these statements by Gary Morella reflect the official position of Penn State University regarding Santorum's recent controversial comments.

Eva Young
Lavender Magazine


David Howe at Six Foot Pole comments:

If the whole point of equality is inclusion, why is there a separate, segregated graduation? Put me on record as being against fabricated, institutional "safe spaces". Are we so fragile that we need special handling and accomodations?

EY: I agree with David Howe's point.