Some bad news and some good news. The “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592, passed the House of Representatives yesterday 237-180, but the White House issued a strong statement against it indicating a likely presidential veto of the bill. Your calls to the White House made a difference! (AFTAH and then CWA led the way in publicly calling on President Bush to clarify his stance on Hate Crimes.)

Now we need to keep calling the White House to urge a similar promise to veto the “ENDA Our Freedom” bill (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) — which would force religious business owners with 15 or more employees to violate their conscience to accommodate homosexual and “transgender” agendas in the workplace. For talking points against ENDA, click HERE.

TAKE ACTION: Call the White House and thank the President for his clear statement (below, or on PDF on the White House website HERE) on “Hate Crimes,” and urge him to do the same against the freedom-crushing ENDA. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111, or write president@whitehouse.gov (the online comment page is HERE).

Also, call your U.S. Senators on the “Thought Crimes bill,” H.R. 1592, at 202-224-3121 or by going to http://www.congress.org/. Re: ENDA, you will need to call BOTH your Senators and your U.S. Representative, since ENDA hasn’t been voted on in either chamber.

Click HERE for a roll call of the House vote on H.R. 1592 (212 Democrats and 25 Republicans voted for it). The following is the White House statement on H.R. 1592 [emphasis in bold added]:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 3, 2007 (House)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

 

H.R. 1592 – Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
(Rep. Conyers (D) Michigan and 171 cosponsors)

 

The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

 

State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State’s own hate crimes law.

 

H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

 

Moreover, the bill’s proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.

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.

We echo CWA’s call below for President Bush to use his bully pulpit to veto the “Thought Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) —  and also ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, recently introduced in the House by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). We’re counting on Mr. Bush to veto these pro-homosexual-activist bills, but the word we’re hearing from leaders in Washington is that the White House has still given no indication of where the President stands on either bill. Bush has only exercised a single veto, against Embryonic Stem Cell research, but he did promise that veto before the bill was passed.

How tragic it would be if the same president who committed American soldiers to fight and die to expand freedom in Iraq were to sign a bill that laid the foundation for restricting the “freedom to be moral” at home. That’s what these bills are all about. Otherwise, as my friend Matt Barber says, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee would have adopted the proposed amendment to protect moral religious expression. There is no rash of anti-gay murders, nor are homosexuals having a problem getting jobs (although Barber got fired from Allstate for OPPOSING homosexuality on his own time!), so this is really about getting the heavy hand of the federal government involved in promoting homosexuality and gender confusion (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”) as a “civil right.” And for the record, we at American For Truth oppose ALL “hate crimes” laws, not just those incorporating “sexual orientation.”– Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION:  TAKE ACTION:  A House vote on “Hate Crimes” could come as early as Thursday.  Call the White House today at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111 and urge President Bush to veto the “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592, and ENDA (the pro-homosexual, pro-transgender Employment Nondiscrimination Act)  if they pass.  Ask the president to use his bully pulpit — like he did  in promising to veto the Embryonic Stem Cell bill — against both the “Hate Crimes” and ENDA bills. You can e-mail President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov or by using the White House Contact Page.  

Also, contact your U.S. Congressman and Senators through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or through Congress.org. 

_____________________________ 

CWA Asks President for Veto Pledge on ‘Hate Crimes’ Legislation 

Washington, D.C. ––  In a recent letter to President Bush, Concerned Women for America (CWA) asked the President to veto H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, should it gain congressional approval. 

Congress appears poised to pass H.R. 1592 as early as Thursday.  This bill would grant individuals who engage in homosexual behavior (“sexual orientation”) or those who cross-dress (“gender identity”) preferential treatment over other citizens by elevating them to a specially protected class of victim. 

The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, regardless of their chosen sexual behaviors.  There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not receive equal protection under the law.     

CWA President Wendy Wright pointed out, “Justice should be blind.  Matthew Shepherd’s assailants received the same sentence as Mary Stachowicz’s, a grandmother who was brutally murdered by a homosexual man.  Victims are — and should be — treated equally in the justice system, regardless of their ‘sexual orientation.’  This ‘hate crimes’ bill would overturn this balance, creating second-class victims and a federal justice system that discriminates against grandmothers, children, women and men simply because they are heterosexual.  We cannot imagine that President Bush would sign a bill that would create a two-tiered justice system that discriminates against grandmothers.”

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, noted, “Attempts by Republicans to make this legislation more inclusive by adding additional classes of citizens such as children, members of the military, the elderly or the homeless were refused by congressional liberals in committee last week.  That refusal underscores the exclusionary and discriminatory nature of this bill.  H.R. 1592 unequivocally treats one class of citizens preferentially over others.  

“Perhaps most frightening is the fact that liberal legislators have refused any amendment which would substantively protect religious expression in association with this legislation.  Similar laws have been used around the world — and right here at home — to silence opposition to the homosexual lifestyle.  That refusal speaks volumes about the true agenda behind this legislation, which is to grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors,” concluded Barber.     

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

By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

“A Terribly Sad Day for Christians in America”: Traditional Values Coalition

The following is Traditional Values Coalition’s firsthand report from last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592 (the bill’s is benignly called the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”). Please note the portions in bold below:  

TVC REPORT FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE “HATE CRIMES” BILL, H.R. 1592

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill.  They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated.  The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill.  There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans [in the Judiciary Committee].  HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed.  Following is TVC’s account of the “Markup.”

TVC materials were used by numerous Congressmen in their presentations.  It was clear that they were quoting from documents TVC had produced.  Numerous Congressmen came over to us and thanked us for staying there all day and all night. 

The TVC staff worked diligently researching, creating reports, meeting with Members and their staff, contacting you the grassroots for help and MUCH MORE.

The first Republican amendment was proposed by Congressman Jim Jordon from Ohio adding those unborn babies and those partially-born babies to the list of protected classes.  However, Chairman Conyers ruled the amendment was non-germane, which means the members were not allowed to vote on it. 

Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican from California offered a clarifying amendment concerning unborn babies which failed.

Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition.   The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.  The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation.

The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill.  They wanted no definitions.

Friends, it was obvious.  There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation.  Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that.  They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc.

Republican Congressman Randy Forbes from Virginia stated that since it has been proven and established that our military are targets of hate and physical attack, many facilities are recommending that soldiers not wear their uniforms in large adjoining cities.  He mentioned several groups by name that are vehemently spitting on them and abusing them, only because they are US military personnel.

So Forbes offered an amendment to also include military personnel as a protected class and thus to attack them would also be a hate crime.  It was defeated.

The Republicans offered many good amendments to add categories that would be covered by the bill.  They did a very good job trying to clarify the bill and hold the democrats accountable.

Senior Citizens should be a protected class as old people are being beaten up and robbed. Rosa Parks got mugged in Detroit.  Another suggested protected class was Pregnant Women who are battered by boy friends, live-in boyfriends or husbands because they are pregnant. Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Florida offered an amendment to add the “homeless.”   All were defeated.

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill.  It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.

Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion.  “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”

A number of Republicans spoke in support of it.  But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment.  Lundgren continuously shot down their answer.  He said, “What is your answer?  Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct.  It is evident what HR 1592 is about.  It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth. 

It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.

It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.

The Judiciary Committee could easily have accepted the amendment, “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.” 

Rev. Lou Sheldon stated, “By refusing to accept this amendment the Democrats on this committee have proven their purpose, to remove freedom of religion from the U.S. Constitution.”

This is an up-to-the minute report late tonight.   

Tomorrow we will send you more news and an Action item so you can write your elected officials.  THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER YET.  HR 1592 WILL GO TO THE HOUSE FLOOR, VERY LIKELY EARLY NEXT WEEK.

Your financial help is urgently needed as we work to defeat HR 1592 on the House floor and continue to uphold and protect Biblical principles here at the Congress.  TVC can be reached at http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ or by calling 202-547-8570.

Scottish Christian Party to make Holyrood election a referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulation

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930’s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

Media Release, Concerned Women for America (202-488-7000):

“Hate crimes” bill H.R. 1592, which is on the fast track to passage in Congress, will officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe.  Under H.R. 1592, the victims at Virginia Tech would officially be considered less valuable to society than homosexuals and cross dressers who are the targets of insults, intimidation, simple assault or other “violent acts.”

The 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law” for all citizens — regardless of their sexual preference.  “Hate crimes” legislation flies in the face of the 14^th Amendment.  Such legislation would require the government to invest more resources in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against homosexuals than it would the victims at Virginia Tech.  It is an irrefutable fact that H.R. 1592 would treat certain citizens unequally from others.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) asks Congress to grant equal government resources, concern and respect to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families as they do to the demands of liberal homosexual activists by reaffirming the precepts of the 14^th Amendment and voting NO on this dangerous and discriminatory piece of legislation.

“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?” asked Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with CWA. “All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.’ By H.R. 1592’s definition, Cho’s actions would have constituted a ‘hate crime’ except for the fact that he targeted his victims with the wrong kind of bias.  In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’  However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.

“The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day.  But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals.  The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head,” concluded Barber.

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

By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, Prison Fellowship 

The Gay Agenda and Schoolkids

Once upon a time there was a handsome young prince. When he grew up, he began searching for a wife, but could not find a princess he wanted to marry. One day, he met another prince—and fell in love. The two men married and lived happily ever after.

They must have been the only ones who did. When the fairy tale—which ended with the newly married “couple” kissing—was read to Massachusetts first graders, Christian parents were outraged.

Two sets of parents sued the Lexington school district, claiming that district officials violated both state law and their civil rights by allowing a teacher to read to their 6-year-olds a book that normalizes homosexual love and marriage.

Not surprisingly—this is Massachusetts, after all—federal judge Mark Wolf dismissed the lawsuit. Public schools, he wrote, are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

I guess it is not possible to become a productive citizen without embracing the teachings of radical gays.

Incredibly, the judge said parents did not even have a right to pull their kids from classes that discuss and depict homosexual behavior. Allowing kids to leave, the judge said, “could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students.”

This decision is so ghastly it is hard to know where to begin. Since when did parents not have the right to control what their children are exposed to when it comes to matters of sexuality? And what about the damaging effect on kids who are taught ideas that conflict with their parents’ teachings?

If the school district is really committed to teaching about all kinds of families, then why not give children a story about a prince who longs for another prince, realizes his longings are disordered, undergoes reparative therapy, and lives happily ever after—with a princess?

The real goal, of course, is normalizing homosexuality. The judge tipped his hand on this when he said that children should be taught to “respect” differences in sexual orientation.

The two families are appealing Judge Wolf’s decision, and we ought to be praying for their ultimate success. But we must also realize what is really going on here.

When it comes to sin, humans have been playing the denial game ever since the Fall. In Romans, Paul says that even pagans know God’s moral law because it is “written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

That’s why it is not enough for homosexuals to be tolerated; in order to live with their own consciences, homosexuals demand unanimous assent that homosexuality is a moral good. And that means silencing those who believe that homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexual behavior is a moral sin.

You and I must fight back when homosexuals attempt to promote gay “marriage” in public schools. But we must also reach out with compassion to those ensnared by disordered sexual desires.

The Bible teaches that sin—and a guilty conscience—can be erased only by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

More links to resources on this story can be found on Breakpoint’s website.