Oneself Is a Declaration of War
The former assistant to Jesuit-run Cheverus High School for boys in Portland, and former Portland city councilor and mayor, Peter O'Donnell "puts his gay identity on the line" as the heading described the latest punch in Maine's own "gay rights" referendum battle.
Last year this paper ran a feature article about a colleague, Charlie Harlow, a Cheverus High teacher, using his classroom at Cheverus as a propaganda tool to indoctrinate his young charges in the gay agenda. The principal at the time responded to parents' concerns that Harlow was not a problem for the school, as was neither having an assistant to the principal who was publicly identified with "gay rights." When the Portland Gay Rights Ordinance passed, it was later established that the homosexual network bussed in outside voters to take advantage of Maine's lax election laws. By the time Mainer's realized what had happened it was too late to challenge specific ballots. But interestingly, the voter registration count swelled by almost the same number of voters that disappeared when a follow-up check was done. And even more interesting, the win for the "gays" was roughly equivalent to those disappearing new voters. O'Donnell and company claimed a resounding victory for perversity. But they did not reckon with a very special woman named Carolyn Cosby and her band of Christian activists, Concerned Maine Families. The sodomites are gearing up for that fight scheduled in the fall of 1995 when Maine's statewide referendum on "special rights for gays" is slated to be on the ballot.
O'Donnell opens his official "outing" in the MAINE SUNDAY TELEGRAM with the statement that "he felt ashamed of himself until he was 31." He says that started to change in 1992, when as a city councilor he helped the council to pass a gay rights ordinance, which was approved by the voters. He called the victory "a political triumph---a personal turning point," adding that "The vote to outlaw discrimination against gay people helped [O'Donnell] cope with his own sexuality. I spent a long time telling myself that there was something wrong with me, something bad about me. I no longer feel that way."
For O'Donnell, Cosby's referendum drive [which would abrogate the Portland ordinance], means that the battle will have to be re-fought along with the five months that lead up to the 1992 ordinance, months that he described as "the most defining in his life."
If voters approve the referendum, O'Donnell contends that "they will be saying it is all right to fire gay people, evict them, deny them loans and toss them out of restaurants because of their sexual orientation."
But Portland's gay rights ordinance does more than protect gay people from discrimination, O'Donnell thinks. He says it tells them their community accepts them.
The gay rights ordinance is credited with bringing Portland's gay residents out 'of their collective closet.' Without that legal protection, the gay community might again shutter itself from public view. O'Donnell opined that he feels as vulnerable today as he did before the ordinance and "that the entire gay community of Maine faces the same threat." He is making plans to combat the 1995 statewide referendum as he did to preserve the Portland ordinance in 1992, although he indicated that he was not certain of how active he would be.
O'Donnell left political office this year after 6 years on the City Council. He also quit his position as "development director" for Cheverus High School. He is now working to get another "Catholic," Democrat, Dennis Dutremble [pro-abort, pro-homosexual], the state Senate president elected to Congress. That seat is now held by Congressman [1st District] Tom Andrews, pro-abort, pro-"gay rights," who is opposed by pro-abort, anti-"gay rights" [for now] Olympia Snowe, currently "representing Maine" in the US Congress [2nd District]. Dutremble is challenged by James Longley, Jr. of Lewiston, a Republican, whose views on abortion are not as pro-life as we would like to see, but he opposes federal funding and abortion on demand.
According to the SUNDAY TELEGRAM article, O'Donnell indicated that this was the first time he had "publicly admitted to being "gay." When asked about them, he refused to state for the record the reaction of his family to his 'coming out,' saying he knows that there could be unpleasant ramifications for speaking openly about his homosexuality, indicating that he started to do so after Cosby began her referendum drive to repeal ordinances like the Portland "gay rights" ordinance. He said that her effort to prohibit "gay rights" laws have disgusted him.
The SUNDAY TELEGRAM piece offered this comment from Karen Geraghty, described as "a leader of the gay rights coalition and president of the Maine Lesbian/Gay Political Alliance, who used the terms "admirable" and "courageous" to compliment O'Donnell. "Peter, to me, exemplifies the kind of person who takes the time to study an issue, to look at all sides. He totally puts his heart and soul into what he believes ... and making sure that happens." She thinks that O'Donnell as a community leader and "typical" middle-class citizen could demonstrate to Maine voters precisely why "gays" and lesbians deserve legal protection.
Both Geraghty and O'Donnell maintain that they do not want special rights, asserting that they need legal protection to prevent harassment and discrimination that can come from being "gay", and that when a society tolerates that behavior, it tells people that being "gay" is wrong.
O'Donnell grew up Catholic in a Catholic home, attending Catholic schools. He believes that he was aware of his 'orientation' in the sixth grade, but kept it well-hidden, concealing his homosexuality from family and friends for the next two decades:
"I felt so much shame. I tried to push it away ... because of all the little signals from this world that what you feel is not all right."
It was not until the 1992 referendum that he started telling people, one of whom was a clergyman, a Protestant minister, Rev. Eric Kelly, pastor of Williston West Church, and a supporter of "gay rights". "He helped me to accept myself."
After twenty years of a series of progressive decisions, some in the political arena, he was finally able to utter the words, "I'm gay." He said that while he has lost some friends, that there have been benefits: "Inside I'm so much more confident ... I feels less restrained. I feel more freedom in life ... I realized that all these thoughts were a part of me ... something that I need to own." He said that he no longer has to dread, what if someone finds out?
He credits that freedom to the residents of Portland. And he hopes that Maine voters will uphold the Portland ordinance statewide. "For the people of Portland to say, 'It's OK to be gay, we're not going to judge you on that---whew, that's just major, I said that night, that this is a historic night for Portland."
First, O'Donnell claims that his homosexuality is a cause of discrimination against him. Yet, he also states that he is 'coming out' publicly for the first time. Thus, if until a couple of weeks ago he was a 'closeted gay,' then how could he have been discriminated against to the point of needing a "gay rights" ordinance in Portland to protect him from said discrimination? Who, if they so desired to "discriminate," would have known to target him? He makes a big splash with a "deb" party right on the pages of Maine's main newspaper, the Portland Press, yet acknowledges that being known as a "gay" can lead to discrimination. If said discrimination is so important to avoid, then why not avoid it by shutting up? The whole point is to push his lifestyle and acceptance for that lifestyle onto society which is being cowed into thinking that all discrimination is wrong under all circumstances. Avoiding discrimination re himself and others of his perversion, is not his goal, but forcing [discrimination] his own brand of bigotry against normalcy is. He actually admits to this in two statements. Recall, that he earlier boasted that the Portland "gay rights" ordinance brought the homosexuals 'out of the closet,' even though the ordinance only applied to the city of Portland itself and none of the suburban communities, where some of them work, etc. If the ordinance was so crucial to work and housing opportunities, then surely "coming out" in the other locales would not be prudent if escaping "bigotry" was the aim. Clearly displaying one's sexual deviation is the actual agenda, and thus 'coming out' is opportune, an actual advantage and a declaration of war on normalcy. Then he claims that since he has announced his perverse preference, he is more "confident." He credits his new-found "freedom" to the residents of Portland, whom he says were discriminating against him prior to passage of the ordinance, but since the majority of them voted for perversion, he and his minions are "free." If the city was so discriminating [oh how I wish it had been, in the sense of discriminating taste and insight] just prior to the vote, so badly so that the ordinance was necessary, then how could all those big bad bigots vote for sodomy's "rights?" After all he stated, "for the people of Portland to say 'It's OK to be gay, we're not going to judge you on that . . . "
Second, he maintains that the ordinance was needed to safeguard job security, etc. Yet, both he and his colleague, Geraghty, refer to him as "middle-class" and "normal" or typical. Well, now, if so much discrimination was going on to his detriment, despite his being a 'closeted gay,' then how did he, ever achieve that status, and in a Catholic school, in the first place? He was affluent enough to run for office repeatedly. He neglected to explain why it is that the majority of homosexuals have an above average education level and income. He neglected to state why it is that with so much bigotry going on that the sodomite view predominates in our cultural institutions, including the Portland Press and the local version of the ADVOCATE [a Washington homo-promo paper that advertises unmentionable lust-couplings and 'requirements'], the University of Maine system, the Maine legislature, and on and on. He cannot have it both ways.
Third, he uses his "Catholicism" to stab at the Church. He implies that She gave him a guilt complex, that he is apparently rid of. So, why did he choose to 'come out' to a known homophile, the Protestant minister, and not a Catholic priest, if he is so "free" of guilt? Here is a man, until recently, employed by a Catholic Jesuit institution, while he now is reported to attend Protestant services at the Williston church, and he wants the Church to endorse his choice of "lifestyle" and give the stamp of approval to it in the way the ordinance supposedly did. In fact, he is triumphant in tone when he flaunts the acceptance of homosexuality endorsed by the Portland ordinance. I suspect that he goes to that church or at least is friendly with its minister because the minister confirms him in sin. God gave man a sense of shame and guilt as a response to sin so that he might repent, not simply ignore it by forcing others to pretend to do so in order not to have to be confronted with painful hints, from a disapproving society, rightly so. He admits that in the sixth grade, while attending a Catholic school, he knew enough to hide his perverse leanings. What we have here is a man who is confirmed in hardened sin, or in the advocating of such, and does not want to be reminded of that by the Church of his childhood and his family members, perhaps someone such as his sister, whom he refuses to comment on regarding her reaction. Here is a man who wants us all to be sensitive to the needs of the homosexuals, yet displays a childish, selfish, even cruel streak by embarrassing members of his family. If his sister's reaction was "acceptance" we would have known about it ad infinitum since such pandering is useful propaganda. Whenever someone refuses to comment in this situation, the reader can read between the lines and conclude that, in this case, his sister, was not so "accepting."
Then, too, there is the matter of his former position as "Development Director" for Cheverus High. How can a man who rejects the most fundamental of the moral teachings of the Church inspire anyone to contribute to the growth of one of the Church's institutions, unless the direction in "growth" or development is secular, not religious? What kind of Catholic can evangelize for the Faith when he no longer believes? But, then, those of us who have read THE JESUITS by Fr. Malachi Martin, know too well the perversity, in the other meaning of that word, run riot in the Jesuit order, with a few notable exceptions. Any Jesuit institution in charge of young men that does not have a problem with homophilic and homosexual [they must have guessed, even with O'Donnell's "secret"] personnel who endorse the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," has ceased to be Catholic in the real meaning of that word, all protestations to the contrary aside. One does not cease to be Catholic by sinning as we are all sinners, but by evangelizing for Satan by campaigning for approval of the sin. I received a short and unacceptable reply from the Jesuit provincial in Boston, Fr. Barry, who supported the then principal. Meanwhile the parents were left to cope on their own. Wherever the love of sodomy prevails, abortion is queen also. It must certainly be asked that, is it simply coincidental that half the student body is pro-abortion, according to a school poll?
Fourth, O'Donnell, without offering a specific incident, intimates that homosexuals have been tossed out of restaurants for their orientation alone. Now how could that possibly be? Are you asked by the host or hostess upon entering an eating establishment what your sexual preference is? Of course, not. There are recorded instances, a few, of some homosexuals being asked to leave, but for unbecoming behavior or known to be troublemakers, not orientation alone. That is a far different matter and context is important. Of course the context would shoot holes in O'Donnell's assertion of martyrdom by the so-called "gay community."All in all the piece in the Portland paper of August 28 was just another celebratory puff piece promoting evil masked as a right. Those who advocate the sodomy line count on Americans' woeful ignorance of the definition of a right in the first place, so that a people whose collective ethos is centered on "rights" will not adequately ask enough questions and thus not recognize that some "rights" are just plain wrong.
Republished 1994 GUARDIAN Editorials, by Editor Pauly