FEMALE BOY LOVER GETS PRISON

The daughter of former homophobic Republican Congress Member John G. Schmitz will do time for her terrible crime: loving a boy.

Mary Katherine LeTourneau was on probation after admitting she had sex with a 13-year-old former student whose child she bore. The 35-year-old former Seattle elementary school teacher was freed in January after serving six months in prison. The terms of her release, however, included she have NO contact with the boy, who remains nameless.

Fate is a funny thing. In early February, while Seattle police were looking for a car that had nearly run down a police officer, they came upon another car with its lights on and windows steamed up. Police recognized LeTourneau from photos. Her attorney told reporters his client and the boy were merely talking. She's now in jail once again. I guess there's no consideration in our legal society for a woman to talk with the father of her child.

I really don't understand why such a fuss is being made about this incident. News reports claim the boy was very mature for his age. While the law says a minor cannot "consent" to sexual acts, we all know that physically and emotionally, they can make a choice. Can or should that choice be made to have sex acts with an adult, why is the ADULT always the one to get the boot? In this case at hand, it really doesn't appear Mary held a gun to the boy's head and said, "Fxxx¹ me, fxxx¹ me!" If the boy was abuse, harassed, or coerced, then Mary should be punished. If this is something they both wanted to do, que cera cera!

The only thing about this incident that pisses me off is Mary left her teaching skills on the street when she had sex with the boy, as it is evident no rubber was used. That's the real crime here!

...

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Likewise, King's College in Edmonton — another Christian institution — fired a lab instructor because of his openly homosexual conduct. The individual filed suit against the province of Alberta, charging that it refused to extend human rights protection to homosexuality. In April, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that legal protection (preference) must be extended immediately to Alberta's homosexual community and that sexual orientation must be part of the province's Human Rights Code. One Supreme Court justice said, " . . . I believe that judicial intervention is warranted to correct a democratic process that has acted improperly."¹⁰ Get it? The people of Canada can't be trusted to make their own decisions.

Dr. Ted Morton, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, had this to say about the two cases mentioned above: "There will be strong pressures to define and isolate any private — especially religion-based — educational institutions that do not embrace 'gay positive' policies. The argument has already been made before the courts in Canada that 'equality rights' are more important than freedom of religion and freedom of association."¹¹

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.