Press Release, Concerned Women For America (www.cwfa.org), May 11, 2006  

Washington, DC –– With much fanfare, liberals in Congress — led by openly homosexual congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) — recently introduced H.R. 2015, the ironically-titled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007” (ENDA).  According to proponents, this bill merely seeks to insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors (“sexual orientation”) or who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination.  But regrettably this legislation would effectively codify and encourage the very thing it purports to prevent — workplace discrimination. 

ENDA would apply to any business with 15 or more employees.  The bill’s language states that, “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”      

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), warned, “This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality.  ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door.  It’s absurd!  For instance, female employees would have to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick.     

“Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push for special rights.  This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys,” concluded Barber.   

Shari Rendall, CWA’s Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said of ENDA, “This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual’s changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender.   Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith.  Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, ‘Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.’”  

CWA asks Congress to protect the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, religion and association for all Americans by voting NO on ENDA. 

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

By Peter LaBarbera 

TAKE ACTION:  Call the Congress (202-224-3121) or use e-mail to urge your Representative and Senators to reject ENDA (H.R. 2015) and the insanity of forcing business across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender confusion in the name of “civil rights.” Also, call President Bush (202-456-1414) or e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov and urge him to veto the “trans”-affirming ENDA, along with the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) that his aides have indicated will likely be vetoed.  

At bottom is the religious exemption language for H.R. 2015, ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would use federal government powers to ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” (Emphasis is added below.) ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees.

We at Americans For Truth generally oppose the concept of religious exemptions to pro-homosexual laws because religious people alone should not be able to exercise their freedoms to oppose aberrant sexual behavior. What about secular-minded citizens who also believe that homosexual acts are immoral and unhealthy and shouldn’t be promoted as OK to kids?

Regardless, note the careful circumscription of the religious “exemptions” under ENDA. According to paragraph “b” below, the law would not apply to employees in a religiously-oriented business whose job is linked to “doctrine.” So, then, can we assume that in “partially exempt” religious organizations, the law WOULD apply to employees (e.g., a secretary) whose jobs are NOT directly linked to teaching religion or doctrine?

In my state of Illinois, the ACLU used similar language to argue along these lines: a Bible-believing church would have full freedom to hire and fire its pastors but it COULD fall under the state’s “sexual orientation/gender identity” law (our state’s version of ENDA) if it fired a janitor who announced he was homosexual — because the janitor’s job does not deal with church “doctrine.”

Can you see the immense capacity for “gay” troublemaking and harassing lawsuits under this proposed legislation? Even the threat of federal lawsuits, especially in states like Illinois that have their own “sexual orientation” laws, could inhibit morality-based groups from acting on their belief that homosexuality is wrong.

 

I suppose that is precisely the goal of the homosexual and “transgender” lobbies with regard to ENDA.

And remember: the discussion above is only for explicitly religious organizations. Under ENDA, an orthodox Jew who owns his own secular-oriented business (with 15 or more employees) would be out of luck if he endeavored to not hire homosexuals or transsexuals based on his own personal religious beliefs. Once again, “gay” (and “trans”) rights would supersede religious freedoms.

The following is ENDA’s (H.R. 2015) language pertaining to religious exemptions:

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In general.—This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

 

(b) Certain employees.—For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.

 

(c) Conformity to religious tenets.—Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant. Under this Act, such a declaration by a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society stating which of its religious tenets are significant shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review. Any such declaration made for purposes of this Act shall be admissible only for proceedings under this Act.

The “gay” lobby has pried open a legal Pandora’s Box, that’s for sure. Once you “mainstream” one particular deviance, it’s very hard to keep the rest from asserting their “rights.” For years, homosexuality advocates mocked “slippery slope” arguments — hey, whatever it takes to achieve the Sexual Revolution, right? Now it turns out the pro-family conservatives were right. When even Time magazine concedes we’re in trouble, you know it’s bad.–Peter LaBarbera

LAWFUL INCEST MAY BE ON THE WAY
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 2, 2007

(Link to article on Boston Globe website)

When the BBC invited me onto one of its talk shows recently to discuss the day’s hot topic — legalizing adult incest — I thought of Rick Santorum.

Back in 2003, as the Supreme Court was preparing to rule in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy, then-Senator Santorum caught holy hell for warning that if the law were struck down, there would be no avoiding the slippery slope.

“If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home,” he told a reporter, “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.”

It was a commonsensical observation, though you wouldn’t have known it from the nail-spitting it triggered in some quarters. When the justices, voting 6-3, did in fact declare it unconstitutional for any state to punish consensual gay sex, the dissenters echoed Santorum’s point. “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today’s decision,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the minority. That opinion too was scorned by the politically correct. But now Time magazine acknowledges: “It turns out the critics were right.”

Time’s attention, like the BBC’s, has been caught by the legal battles underway to decriminalize incest between consenting adults. An article last month by Time reporter Michael Lindenberger titled “Should Incest Be Legal?” highlights the case of Paul Lowe, an Ohio man convicted of incest for having sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter. Lowe has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, making Lawrence the basis of his argument. In Lawrence , the court had ruled that people “are entitled to respect for their private lives” and that under the 14th Amendment, “the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” If that was true for the adult homosexual behavior in Lawrence , why not for the adult incestuous behavior in the Ohio case?

The BBC program focused on the case of Patrick and Susan Stubing, a German brother and sister who live as a couple and have had four children together. Incest is a criminal offense in Germany , and Patrick has already spent more than two years in prison for having sex with his sister. The two of them are asking Germany ‘s highest court to abolish the law that makes incest illegal.

“Many people see it as a crime, but we’ve done nothing wrong,” Patrick told the BBC. “We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family.” They dismiss the conventional argument that incest should be banned because the children of close relatives have a higher risk of genetic defects. After all, they point out, other couples with known genetic risks aren’t punished for having sex. In any event, Patrick has had himself sterilized so that he cannot father any more children.

Some years back, I’d written about a similar case in Wisconsin — that of Allen and Patricia Muth, a brother and sister who fell in love as adults, had several children together, and were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned as a result. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence , they appealed their conviction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where they lost. Lowe will probably lose too.

But the next Lowe or Muth to come along, or the one after that, may not lose. In Lawrence , it is worth remembering, the Supreme Court didn’t just invalidate all state laws making homosexual sodomy a crime. It also overruled its own decision just 17 years earlier (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) upholding such laws. If the court meant what it said in Lawrence — that states are barred from “making . . . private sexual conduct a crime” — it will not take that long for laws criminalizing incest to go by the board as well. Impossible? Outlandish? That’s what they used to say about normalizing homosexuality and legalizing same-sex [“marriage.”]

Parts of Europe are already heading down this road. In Germany , the Green Party is openly supporting the Stubings in their bid to decriminalize incest. “We must abolish a law that originated last century and today is useless,” party spokesman Jerzy Montag says. Incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium , Holland , and France . According to the BBC, Sweden even permits half-siblings to marry.

Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be “Ugh, gross.” But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. “Should Incest Be Legal?” Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.

Regulating ‘Hurtful Speech’ with All the Efficiency of the Post Office

How do you feel about the creation of a federal “anti-hate” bureaucracy “regulating group defamation” and operating with all the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office? This bureaucracy would regulate which speech is acceptable and which is criminal because it might stimulate “harassment” and “intimidation” against specified groups, including homosexuals? Passage of a federal “hate crimes” law (HR 1592) would take America one giant step closer to that leftist goal.

Folks, the time to act is NOW to stop “Thought Crimes” (“Hate Crimes”) legislation in Congress. Please take this threat to our liberties very seriously: with homosexual activists and lawyers already putting their aberrant-sex-based “rights” above our freedoms of religion, conscience and association, why would anyone believe them when they say they don’t want to censor  “hurtful speech”? (And don’t forget: most define mere opposition to their agenda as “hate.”)

TAKE ACTION: Call your member of the House and Senate immediately to oppose H.R. 1592 and all “hate (thought) crimes” legislation! Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121. There is much more information at http://www.truthtellers.org/ and these other pro-family websites: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/; http://www.frc.org/, http://www.cwfa.org/, and http://www.stopthoughtcrimeslaws.com/   (Check out Janet Folger’s “Hate Crimes Discount Coupon” HERE.)
 
ALSO:  Did you know that according to pro-family leaders in Washington, President Bush has NOT yet committed publicly to vetoing “Thought Crimes” and ENDA (the pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bills in Congress — even as Bush has promised to veto Embryonic Stem Cell research? Call the White House today and urge President Bush to use his Bully Pulpit NOW against “Hate Crimes” laws and ENDA: Call 202-456-1414 and ask for the comment line.  To e-mail the White House, click HERE. 

Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network has done yeoman’s work warning religious people about the implications of “thought crimes” legislation pushed by, among other leftist groups, the Anti-Defamation League, a pro-homosexuality group whose agenda has strayed far beyond the noble calling of fighting anti-Semitism.–Peter LaBarbera 

Here’s Pike’s latest Alert:
 
EMERGENCY ALERT!!!
HATE BILL FAST FORWARDING TO VOTE IN HOUSE

By Rev. Ted Pike

The House version of the federal “anti-hate” bill, H.R. 1592, is scheduled for a last hearing in the Subcommittee on Crime on Tuesday, April 24. The next day the entire House Judiciary Committee will consider the marked-up version, making its own changes. If approved, the bill will be sent forward to the House to be voted on, perhaps immediately.

Those who love free speech must respond NOW with unprecedented calling, not only to the member of the House from your district but to as many members of the House of Representatives as possible.  All House members are listed at http://www.truthtellers.org/. The toll-free number is 1-877-541-6437, or call toll 1-202-224-3121.

Tell them: “Please don’t vote for any hate crimes legislation. Hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and many European Countries.”

Hate Bill: Worse Than We Imagined

Most persons who are concerned about imminent passage of the federal “anti-hate” bill don’t realize that S. 1105 in the Senate and H.R. 1592 in the House are actually amendments to a federal hate law passed in 1968. During the height of the civil rights movement, “Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 245” stipulated that no one could verbally “…attempt to…intimidate” another person (chiefly black) away from enjoyment of their federally protected right to equal employment, public services, housing, voting rights, jury privileges, etc. If the government finds such verbal “intimidation” in a state and state officials are not enforcing these guarantees, the federal government can invade states’ rights in local law enforcement, upholding Title 18.

Title 18 is considered a “hate crimes” law because it criminalizes bias-motivated, verbal attempts to “intimidate” blacks by persuading them that they are intellectually, hygienically, or morally inferior — unfit to eat at the same lunch counter, attend the same church, work in the same business, get the same education, live in the same apartment complex, or serve on the same jury with whites.

How can students in the United States of America be allowed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., the national Day of Silence) but not criticize it? Remember: many people of faith (and others) do not agree with the modern, trendy notion of “gayness” as personhood — i.e., that it is a part of a person’s intrinsic identity. Instead, they view homosexuality as changeable, unnatural and/or sinful behavior, as evidenced by the many men and women who once considered themselves “gay” but have since left their homosexual lifestyle behind.

Judge Hart’s decision creates classic viewpoint discrimination in a public, taxpayer-funded forum (schools) and we hope ultimately that it will be struck down in appeal. I trust that even some of our “gay” critics will see how this ruling is incompatible with the First Amendment.– Peter LaBarbera

Associate Press reports: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C266716%2C00.html

Judge Upholds Illinois School’s Ban on ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ Shirt

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
CHICAGO — Two Neuqua Valley High School [in Naperville, Illinois] students won’t be able to wear T-shirts saying “Be Happy, Not Gay,” to school on Thursday following a judge’s ruling.

U.S. District Judge William T. Hart ruled in favor of the high school Tuesday in a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the students to wear the shirts the day after Wednesday’s National Day of Silence.

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is representing Heidi Zamecnik of Naperville and Alexander Nuxoll of Bolingbrook in a lawsuit that claims Zamecnik’s rights were violated last year when she wasn’t allowed to wear the shirt in school.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian litigation group, will appeal the judge’s decision on the preliminary injunction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Jonathan Scruggs said. The lawsuit is still pending.

Scruggs said the school is violating the students’ rights to free speech by banning the shirt.

“The school cannot silence speech merely because some people find it offensive,” Scruggs said. “We believe that’s the core of what the First Amendment protects.”

Jack Canna, an attorney for Indian Prairie Unit School District 204, said banning the shirt is part of a policy “to preserve the notion that kids shouldn’t make negative or derogatory comments about other students.”

Messages left by The Associated Press with the Indian Prairie Unit School District 204 and Neuqua Valley High School were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.

I am shocked — shocked — at the claims of Brian Camenker and our friends at Mass Resistance: are they saying that self-styled “queer” activists would actually use lies and deception, and manipulate the legal system, to bring down a conservative foe? Of course that’s what they’re saying — and Camenker knows the “gay” lobby like few others, since he — as the leading defender of pro-family values on the homosexual issue in Massachusetts — has been a target of its wrath. Remember, it’s all about ends justifying the means for so many homosexual activists, and it appears Cirignano is their latest victim.– Peter LaBarbera

MassResistance reports: 

Catholic activist Larry Cirignano arraigned in court on assault & battery, civil rights violation — completely phony charges against him by homosexual activists. Hearing on May 1. The justice system turned upside down.  ===

On Tuesday, April 11, Catholic activist Larry Cirignano was arraigned in a Worcester [Mass.] courthouse on charges of assault and battery, and civil rights violations. He will have his pre-trial hearing on May 1. Not only could Larry be convicted of these, but they are also exploring whether to also charge him with a hate crime.  This is being driven — with great energy — by local homosexual activists and the ACLU.

Words cannot express what an incredible, unbelievable fraud and injustice this is.  On Saturday morning, Dec. 16, 2006, Larry was helping run a pro-traditional marriage rally for VoteOnMarriage on the steps of Worcester City Hall. They had speakers, signs, and several dozen people who came to hear and see it. They had a permit to be there and made sure that police officers were present.

Homosexual activists also brought a sizeable group of people there. They gathered right in the same area. Their purpose was to scream and mingle and to disrupt the event in any way they could (see the video link HERE). At one point, one of them came right up and stood, with a sign, in front of the podium and started chanting, in order to disrupt it further. The police (who had already told them to back off) did nothing. So Larry walked up and walked her back into the crowd, away from the podium. When Larry was coming back, he heard screams. The woman (who it turns out is an ACLU Board Member) had dived to the ground and was claiming that Larry had pushed her!  But six eyewitnesses we talked to said that it was an act, an happened well after Larry had started walking the other way. Nevertheless, homosexual activists insisted that Larry had assaulted her and pushed her to the ground!

In the days following that incident, we talked to the Worcester police official responsible for deciding what to do. It became clear to us that the police were, shall we say, unbelievably sympathetic to the homosexual activists (“she had a right to free speech there”) and contempt for the pro-family community.

Now Larry’s being charged with a crime, a civil rights violation, and possible an additional hate crime!  The Orwellian absurdity of this is mind-numbing. The homosexual “community” has been celebrating and are determined to punish Larry as much as they can.

Here’s this week’s Worcester Telegram article on Wednesday’s arraignment. It’s completely slanted. It doesn’t mention that there are a MINIMUM of six close eye-witnesses (whom we’ve talked to) that say the alleged “attack” simply did not happen.
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS/704120752/1008/NEWS02

Video of disgusting behavior by homosexual activists at the December 16 event
Here’s our current web page on this incident.   It includes a disgusting video of what the homosexual activists were doing during that event to disrupt it — besides the outrageous and phony stunt they pulled on Larry Cirignano. Unfortunately, this video does not have the actual incident, but it shows you what else was going on. We’ll be updating this page over the next week.
COMING UP SOON:  We have a copy of the only video taken during the actual incident. We will be posting that on the MassResistance website for you to see for yourself.

WE WILL KEEP YOU UP TO DATE ON THIS!

From Marine Gen. Pace Praised for Calling Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, published Mar 14, 2007, by One News Now:

A pro-family leader is applauding America’s leading general for declaring that homosexuality is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune, U.S. Marine Corps General Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he also condemned.

Hear This Report

Homosexual activist groups are now calling on the general to apologize for the remarks he made to the Chicago Tribune, which quoted him as saying, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” But Peter LaBarbera, director of the pro-family group Americans for Truth, says it took a lot of courage for General Pace to say what he did, because the homosexual lobby will now be going after his job.

“Their idea of civil rights is that we can’t voice our moral beliefs about homosexuality,” LaBarbera notes. “And this is whole problem with treating homosexuality as a so-called civil right,” he says. “You know, the fact is, he has a right to state his beliefs.”

And those beliefs are shared by a majority of the people in America, the pro-family advocate contends.

“I think, at least half the country — according to a recent Culture and Media Institute poll — agrees with [Pace] that homosexual acts are wrong,” he says.

Homosexual activist groups are condemning General Pace and, predictably, attempting to intimidate him for stating the obvious, LaBarbera contends.

“If you say that homosexuality is wrong, they come after you,” he says; “and, ultimately, we have to believe that they are going to want to ban [speaking out against] it, just like is happening in Canada, and England, and other countries.”

The homosexual lobby in the United States “has been very silent about this censorship that’s going on abroad, where we see people not even being allowed to say that homosexuality is wrong,’ the Americans for Truth spokesman observes. “And so,” he asserts, “you’ve got to believe that, under a ‘hate-crimes’ agenda, in the long term the gay lobby is going to want to silence people.”

Reportedly General Pace said he bases his opposition to homosexuality on his upbringing. He also told the Chicago Tribune that he supports the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, which implements legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

The law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton states that the U.S. Armed Services’ prohibition against homosexual conduct “is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” The legislation also affirms that such conduct is grounds for discharge from the military.

From AFA calls on President Bush to support General Pace, published Mar 14, 2007, by American Family Association:

American Family Association (AFA) says its supporters have sent nearly 150,000 e-mails to President Bush asking him to stand behind Marine General Peter Pace. The e-mails came from the AFA’s website, afa.net.

AFA said several homosexual groups are trying to force Gen. Pace out of the military because of comments he made calling homosexual acts immoral.

Gen. Pace said homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and should not be condoned. “The homosexuals are angry because General Pace told the truth, something homosexual activists cannot stand,” said AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon. “They want to force the military to approve their perverted behavior.”

“These radical activists called Gen. Pace’s comments ‘insulting and offensive to the men and women who are serving in the military honorably.’ What is insulting and offensive is that, to these radicals, upholding military law isn’t important. An overwhelming number of military members find such acts insulting and offensive,” Wildmon said.

He said AFA is urging supporters to engage others to send e-mails to the president in support of Gen. Pace. “As Commander In Chief, the president should applaud Gen. Pace for upholding military law,” Wildmon said.