Dear Mr. Moses,
In that Press Release, two lines stand out: “… According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input….”
To what end?
It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.
I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:
“.... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.
The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:
(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault ....”
None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution.
“.... Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on....”
“.... We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children ....”
2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …
5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )
6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )
7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc )
THIS PARTICULAR LAW REVIEW IS IMPORTANT, SINCE IN ITS "HIDING DIRTY LAUNDRY" SECTION, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE RATES OF VIOLENCE WITHIN THE LGBT COMMUNITY IS VASTLY HIGHER THAN ANY IT EXPERIENCES FROM GROUPS WITHOUT. QUITE SIMPLY, IT REFLECTS A PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER MANIFESTING ITSELF
Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you with duly referenced alternative sites.
My specific requests are:
1. That you communicate my concern as a citizen of a member state of the OAS, and a copy of this e-mail, to the representative of every country present at the fourth session as a matter of urgency.
2. That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that I, as a citizen of a member state, or organizations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session BFORE the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.
4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.
5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.
August 1, 2008
Cc: The Guyana Council of Churches
The Georgetown Ministers’ Fellowship
The Guyana Evangelical Fellowship
Minister/Ministry of Human Services and Social Security in Guyana
The Trade Union Movement in Guyana
The Head, Guyana Teachers’ Union
The Caribbean Conference of Churches
The Evangelical Association of the Caribbean
The World Evangelical Alliance
The Pentecostal Assemblies of the West Indies
The Secretary General, CARICOM
All political parties in Guyana
The Caribbean media
The country-representatives of all member states of the OAS