Statement from Joe Glover To Charlottesville School Board Members

August 3, 2000

Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns with you tonight. My name is Joe Glover, and I am the President of Family Policy Network. We are the statewide affiliate organization for American Family Association. I want to speak in opposition to tonight’s proposal to add the phrase “sexual orientation” to the anti-harassment section of the Code of Student Conduct.

Let me begin by saying that no credible person here tonight would favor harassment toward anyone. For this reason, I believe that the school system’s current blanket policy against harassment is an appropriate policy. It is the desire of some, though, to draw a line around certain types of sexual behavior, which happen to be illegal in Virginia, and say that no one should be able to speak out against such behavior.

Advocates of homosexual sex acts throughout North America claim that any statement that claims such activity to be sinful, dangerous or destructive to one’s life is, in itself, “hateful.” This could not be farther from the truth. You see, when advocates of traditional family values warn others that sodomy is deadly, they are sounding a warning of concern; NOT of “hate.”

For example, recent scientific studies suggest that the average lifespan of a person who engages in homosexual sex acts is just over half that of the average American male. Last month, the International Journal of Epidemiology released a study which shows that if a person is engaging in sodomy by age 20, he has only a 50% chance of reaching age 65. This is tragic.

Now, first of all, why would someone want to communicate such information? The reason is obvious: because they care about people who would lose their lives to bacterial diseases and viruses that can be avoided by refraining from homosexual sex acts.

Second of all, why would anyone want to forbid expressing real concerns that people’s lives are threatened by certain types of behavior. Yet, there are people here tonight who favor banning any criticism of deadly sex acts, which shorten people’s lives. They will say that our position is “bigoted” and “hateful”. In reality, it stems from a real concern that they be able to live long, happy lives. Real conservatives don’t oppose homosexuals; they oppose homosexual behavior out of concern for those who would have their lives cut short from its consequences.

As we sit tonight in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, it is important that we consider this proposal’s impact on the concept of free speech. If Thomas Jefferson were here tonight, he would argue that the right to free speech should serve the diversity of all students, teachers and parents in the Charlottesville Schools. He might say that the people who claim the “right” to engage in sexual activities which are destructive are entitled to share their views in public. But he would definitely say that anyone who cares about the plight of their neighbor has a fundamental right to warn them that they are putting their futures at risk.

I often receive mail from homosexual activists, quoting the words of Jesus when He said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” They mean by that that no one should judge the actions of others. But Jesus was speaking to people who themselves were guilty of adultery. When the people had dropped the stones and left, Jesus turned to the woman and instructed her by saying, “Go, and sin no more.”

Students, teachers and parents have a right; yea even a duty to tell their friends and peers that they are engaged in dangerous activities.

Homosexual activists have used First Amendment rights to promote destructive behavior. Now that they’ve gotten the attention of the masses, they’re demanding that the world only hear what they have to say. That’s not “tolerance,” it’s an attempt at tyranny.

Spelling out the deadly consequences of homosexual sex acts doesn’t cause people to hate; it causes them to become concerned, as they should be.

Harassing people is wrong. But explaining to a person that the behavior he or she is engaged in will send them to an early grave is an act of love and concern and no one should be denied the right to do it.

Your existing policy forbidding harassment is appropriate. I hope you will consider keeping it just as it is.

Thank you.