NOTE: Rep. Blunt penned a column on the majority’s ENDA legislation this week for Human Events, available HERE. His speech on the floor of the House can be viewed on YouTube by clicking HERE. Call 202-225-6536 or go to his website HERE to thank Congressman Blunt for standing up for religious freedom and educating the nation on how ENDA will undermine it. If we had more Congressmen like Blunt, our freedoms would not be in jeopardy.

Majority’s ENDA Bill Takes Dead Aim at Religious Freedom

Legislation creates conflict between one’s right to religious freedom, and another’s right to sue you for exercising it

WASHINGTON – House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today after Democrats failed to secure a veto-proof majority on the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would erode one’s right to religious freedom by strengthening another’s right to sue you for practicing it:

“The structure of the bill before us today is eerily similar to legislation we’ve seen from this majority all year: a favorable, purposefully misleading title applied to a bill that’s poorly assembled and oblivious to its own consequences. 

“In this case, the so-called ‘Employment Non-Discrimination Act’ creates a legal quagmire for employees who practice, or even acknowledge, their religious beliefs – depending on where they happen to work, and subject to judicial interpretation. In the process, it erodes a basic, fundamental right bestowed upon us by our Creator – and a right guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution.

“As a former president of a Baptist college in Missouri, supporters of this bill have been quick to assure me that its most onerous provisions would not apply to that school. But no such exemption is available for Christian bookstore owners, as an example, or any other small business in which people of faith and deep religious conviction are relied upon as an integral part of the workforce.

“Thankfully, Republicans secured the votes necessary this afternoon to uphold a presidential veto. It’s my hope now that this Congress can move forward on the real priorities affecting American families. Though a clear boon to trial lawyers, this bill does not meet that standard.”

NOTE: Rep. Blunt penned a column on the majority’s ENDA legislation this week for Human Events, available HERE. His speech on the floor of the House can be viewed on YouTube by clicking HERE.

Click HERE for a list of Republicans and Democrats who broke with their party’s majority on the ENDA bill. 

From Liberty Counsel, November 7, 2007

Contact President Bush and Ask Him to Veto ENDA – H.R. 3685 Passed by a vote of 235 to 184

We told you earlier this week about the dangers of ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), which elevates “sexual orientation” to a protected civil right. Unfortunately, the bill passed this evening.

Religious freedom for Christian employees and business owners is in jeopardy! Read more about the dangers of ENDA.

President Bush has said that he will veto the bill. A veto override would require 270 votes (2/3 of the House).

ENDA VOTE TALLY: Total was 235-184; bill passed and moves to U.S. Senate

By Party:
Democrats 200-25
Republicans 35-159

Republicans Voting in Favor

Biggert (R-13, IL)
Bono (R-45, CA)
Campbell (R-48, CA)
Castle (R-DE)
Davis, Tom (R-11, VA)
Dent (R-15, PA)
Diaz-Balart, L (R-21, CA)
Diaz-Balart, M (R-25, CA)
Dreier (R-26, CA)
English (R-3, PA)
Flake (R-6, AZ)
Fossella (R-13, NY)
Frelinghuysen (R-11, NJ)
Gerlach (R-6, PA)
Gilchrest (R-1, MD)
Hobson (R-7, OH)
Kirk (R-10, IL)
Knollenberg ((R-9, MI)
Kuhl (NY) (R-29, NY)
LoBiondo (R-2, NJ)
McCotter (R-11, MI)
McCrery (R-4, LA)
McHugh (R-23, NY)
Miller (R-10, MI)
Platts (R-19, PA)
Porter (R-3, NV)
Pryce (R-15, OH)
Ramstad (R-3, MN)
Reichert (R-8, WA)
Ros-Lehtinen (R-18, FL)
Ryan (R-1, WI)
Saxton (R-3, NJ)
Shays (R-4, CT)
Tiberi (R-12, OH)
Walden (R-2, OR)

Democrats Voting Against ENDA

Barrow (D-12, GA)
Berry (D-1, AR)
Clarke* (D-11, NY)
Cramer (D-5, AL)
Davis (D-7, AL)
Davis, Lincoln (D-4, TN)
Edwards (D-D-17, TX)
Gordon (D-6, TN)
Holt* (D-12, NJ)
Lampson (D-22, TX)
Lipinski (D-3, IL)
Marshall (D-8, GA)
McIntyre (D-7, NC)
Melancon ((D-3, LA)
Michaud* (D-2, ME)
Nadler* (D-8, NY)
Rahall (D-3, WV)
Ross ((D-4, AR)
Shuler (D-11, NC)
Skelton (D-4, MO)
Tanner (D-8, TN)
Taylor ((D-4, MS)
Towns* ((D-10, NY)
Velazquez* (D-12, NY)
Weiner* (D-9, NY)

* indicates that “no” vote was likely because “gender identity” (pro-transgender) language was not included

 Today’s corporate employees are more likely to be fired or punished for OPPOSING homosexuality than for “being gay.” In 2005, Matt Barber was fired by Allstate in 2005 after writing a column opposing homosexuality. A staffer at Human Rights Campaign, the powerful homosexual group now crusading for the federal ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ bill, “reported” Barber’s column to an Allstate staffer, leading to Barber’s firing. Call Congress today at 202-224-3121, or go to www.congress.org, to urge your Representative to oppose ENDA, HR 3685.

NOTE TO READERS: Proposed amendments to H.R. 3685, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) approved by the Rules Committee for a vote on the House floor — probably tomorrow — do little to address the bill’s core problem: it tramples on the rights of Christian and moral-minded businessmen by creating new federal employment rights based on aberrant sex (or at least the inclination toward homosexuality/bisexuality). AFTAH released the following media advisory today:

Americans For Truth
http://www.americansfortruth.org/

November 6, 2007

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

Americans For Truth Says ENDA, H.R. 3685, Would Lead to Religious Persecution

Christian Newswire. NAPERVILLE, Illinois — Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera today urged Christian, Muslim and other moral-minded Americans to “wake up to the tremendous threat that the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill, H.R. 3685 (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), poses to their religious and First Amendment freedoms.” H.R. 3685 could be debated on the House floor today. [It now appears the vote will be Wednesday, Nov. 7.]

See Americans For Truth’s paper, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose HR 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill.”  Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

“In an era when homosexuals are being hired – not fired – for “being gay” — and when Christians are already being punished or fired by corporations like Allstate for opposing homosexuality, ENDA would lead to further harassment of faith-motivated employees by creating federal ‘rights’ based on homosexuality and bisexuality,” LaBarbera said.

He offered this example as to how ENDA would codify discrimination: “Take an orthodox Jewish entrepreneur who owns a large day care center. He can now factor in his morality about homosexuality as a sin. (He rejects the idea of innate, innocuous “sexual orientation.”) Under ENDA, if his company were to grow to 15 or more employees, he would lose his right to consider his own religious and moral beliefs in hiring/firing decisions. A bisexual with good credentials who does not get hired might sue him for “discrimination.” (If he’s an outspoken pro-marriage advocate, he might be targeted for a “gay” lawsuit.) The government’s politically correct view of homosexuality could force this man, and hundreds of thousands like him, to violate their conscience. It’s Big Government with an amoral twist and, incidentally, a homosexual activist lawyer’s dream.”

To understand the inherent conflict between “gay rights” and religious freedom, LaBarbera pointed to lesbian Georgetown professor Chai Feldblum’s 2005 Beckett Fund presentation, “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion.” Unlike most homosexual activists, Feldblum at least recognizes that religious citizens have a valid moral claim in opposing homosexuality, yet she asserts that homosexuals also have a “moral” claim for their “civil rights” (including same-sex “marriage”). She calls the conflict between those two claims a “zero-sum” game.

“Feldblum says her ‘morality’ outweighs that of traditionalists. I would strongly disagree, seeing that this nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom. ENDA would take away Christians’ and others’ right to stand up for Biblical morality and live by the dictates of their own moral conscience,” LaBarbera said. 

Matt Barber lost his job at Allstate due to pro-homosexual activism. He says it’s a canard that Christians are “focusing too much” on this issue. Why do some Christians feel guilty about opposing a homosexual lobby that is so brazen it now openly promotes homosexual activity as normal to innocent, young children? (See page from “King and King” children’s book below.)

Folks, my good friend Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America and Americans For Truth Board Member, is right on in this excellent essay rebutting the increasingly common complaint that Christians are focusing too much on homosexuality. 

I find it curious at this juncture in American history when the homosexual lobby is at the zenith of its power — and on the verge of passing an oppressive, sweeping federal bill creating special workplace privileges based on people’s inclination toward aberrant sex — that Christians of all people would urge a de facto public policy and cultural retreat in opposing that movement.

Why are so many people of faith riddled with guilt in opposing a sin-based movement that threatens everybody’s religious and First Amendment freedoms? Perhaps it’s because many Christians, far from “hating gays,” as the trendy accusation goes, are intimidated by the liberal media and no longer agree with their Creator  that homosexual acts are an egregiously sexual sin.

Why Aren’t Teenage Boys Warned of These Health Risks? 

WARNING: Graphic Homosexual Descriptions

“[An] anus is the highest risk place for STDs [sexually transmitted diseases].”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, homosexual author and “gay” advocate, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men,” p. 16.

The following is adapted from the Fall 1999 issue of the Lambda Report, the printed publication monitoring the homosexual activist agenda that preceded the formation of Americans For Truth. (LR was launched in 1993.) We have been remiss in not putting any of the old printed Lambda Report issues online; they shed much light on the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) movement –– often using firsthand information, including homosexual writings like those from “GayHealth.com” founder Dr. Stephen Goldstone.

Our headline makes light of Halloween, but clearly what you will read below is no laughing matter. We do not delight in reporting these sobering facts. Rather, we seek to bring some balance to the ubiquitous pro-homosexuality messages that dominate today’s media, academia, and pop culture — celebrating a lifestyle centered around wrong and destructive behaviors. What opinion-making elites don’t like to talk about is that God has helped many men and women leave this lifestyle: click HERE for Stephen Bennett’s website; HERE for James Hartline’s site; HERE for ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran’s testimony at our recent banquet and HERE for her Venus Magazine site.

As we reported last year, radical homosexual groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force decry Christian Halloween “Hell Houses” that teach children by linking homosexuality and other sins to destruction ending in hell — an eternal destination from which they hope to scare the kids away. But the following shows that the churches and their old-fashioned morality are not the problem; it’s homosexuality advocates who should be made to answer for marketing this unhealthy lifestyle as hip and glamorous to young men.

For as you will see, there is nothing cool and glamorous about homosexual practices and what they do to the body. — Peter LaBarbera 

REPEAT WARNING: Graphic Homosexual Acts Described; Why Aren’t Teenage Boys Warned of These Health Risks?

Adapted from the Lambda Report on Homosexuality (Fall 1999):

Is Homosexual Sex ‘Safe’?

Note from Lambda Report publisher, Peter LaBarbera (1999): We apologize in advance for the uncomfortable subject matter described in the following excerpts from a book about “gay” male sex by homosexual doctor Stephen Goldstone (“The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men”; Dell: New York, 1999). Foes of homosexuality are often charged with hating “gay” people, but in reality most just are repulsed by the idea of men having sex with men, or women with women. And for good reason. No amount of pro-homosexual propaganda or condom use can eradicate the health risks of homosexual sex, especially between men.

The following is but a small sample of the many warnings found in Dr. Goldstone’s book. These excerpts focus on anal sodomy. Keep in mind that this is not a “religious right” source: Goldstone is a “sex positive” homosexuality advocate who dedicates his book to his “gay” lover, Bruce.

Editor’s note for today: as I re-read these quotes from a practicing homosexual and proud “gay” advocate, Dr. Goldstone, it is a sad reminder of the ongoing delusion of homosexuality activists, who complain bitterly when we expose the special health risks associated with male homosexual behavior. Clearly, these dangers are manifold, but due to political correctness they remain an “insider’s secret” that rarely is broached in public.

The truth that homosexual ideologues deny is as obvious as it is simple: the body was not made for homosexuality – and homosexuality-mimicking acts such as straights practicing anal sex. Now we are witnessing a resurgence of HIV, including among young men. (A New York City health department report found that the “group with the fastest-growing rate of H.I.V. infection comprised males between the ages of 13 and 19, for which H.I.V. diagnoses doubled from 2001 to 2006.”) 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in June in its Fact Sheet, “HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men” (emphasis added):

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.

Please read this excellent column by Janice Crouse, which tries to restore some sanity to the AIDS discussion: HIV/AIDS: Anybody Can Get It?. Allso, check out this AFTAH picture-story, Graphic Youth Flier Guides “Queer” “Boyz” on How to Engage in Homosexual Sodomies, which demonstrates the risks that “gay” activism poses to teenage boys.

The truth is, Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality.  

How tragic that boys are joining the “gay” movement in droves with no inkling of the dangers that will befall them when they actually start practicing homosexual sex. The quotes below make for very difficult reading, but please don’t run from the truth: read them carefully. Then ask yourself how misguided it is – and incredibly irresponsible from a public policy standpoint — that adults and school authorities are promoting homosexuality (“gayness”) as a natural “identity” to impressionable teenagers and even younger children. —Peter LaBarbera

Anal Sex: Sign of Gayness
“Many men view anal sex as the final step on their path to gayness. (Once you’ve done it you must be gay.) For some it’s a sign of their first true love….”
— Stephen Goldstone (“The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men”; Dell: New York, 1999), p. 2.; emphasis author’s.

Anal Fissures
“An anal fissure is a tear or cut in the anal lining and usually begins as an extremely painful event… Anal fissures most often result from a hard bowel movement tearing the sensitive lining of the anal canal … In gay men, other common causes of fissures are trauma from anal intercourse or fingers and [sex] toys as well as ulcers related to HIV … If a fissure occurs during anal sex, stop immediately. Avoid any attempt at further intercourse or manipulation of the anus until healing occurs. If pain is severe or if fever develops, it could mean that a penis (or toy) tore through your sphincter into the delicate tissue surrounding your anus. Seek medical attention immediately, because infection will usually result and antibiotics and/or surgery will be required….”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., pp. 35, 37; emphasis added.

STD Danger Zone
“[An] anus is the highest risk place for STDs [sexually transmitted diseases].”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., p 16, urging condom use.

Battering Ram
“Just as your internal sphincter muscle involuntarily relaxes when feces enter your rectum, it involuntarily contracts when a penis or other object attempts to enter from the outside … An anal tear can occur during the initial phase of anal sex precisely because your partner pushes his penis through a closed sphincter. Think of his penis as a battering ram, one for which your internal sphincter is no match.”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., p 4, (emphasis author’s).

Incontinence from ‘Injurious’ Anal Sex
“In one medical study of men who practiced anoreceptive intercourse [being the receiving “bottom” in anal sex], 25 percent reported at least isolated episodes of fecal incontinence. An age-similar group of heterosexual men had only a 3 percent incontinence rate. … What does this mean to men who enjoy anal sex? Although the threat of incontinence is small, it is present nonetheless. Incontinence in men who practice anal sex is thought to result from repeated injury to their internal sphincter muscle. … Again, although a penis is often the size of a large bowel movement, your sphincter involuntarily relaxes to allow the bowel movement to pass and your muscle is not injured. Insertion of a penis, however, causes your muscle to contract involuntarily. Repeated insertion through a contracted internal sphincter muscle may cause cumulative damage so that the muscle loses its ability to seal the anorectal canal tightly.
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., p 21-22; emphasis added.

‘Direct Injury’ and Sphincterotomies
“Gay men who practice anoreceptive intercourse may develop an acute fissure from direct injury …Most often men who have had anal intercourse have already stretched their sphincter (I’m sure you can figure out how) and spasm is rarely present. The fissure usually will heal if the surgeon removes the scar tissue and closes the tear with a few stitches. Keep this in mind if a surgeon tells you a sphincterotomy is necessary. In this instance, you might be placing yourself at a higher risk for incontinence because your sphincter is already loose. You can always go back for a sphincterotomy if your fissure doesn’t heal after a simple closure.”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., p 40; emphasis added.

‘Homophobia’ or Just Plain, Common Sense?
“I remember standing in horror as a physician I worked with berated a gay man he treated with a terse ‘Your [a—hole] is for [defecating], not [having sex]!’ Well, this is not the case. Anal sex can be both pleasurable and safe if practiced properly. Unfortunately, homophobia has clouded the issue….”
— Dr. Stephen Goldstone, ibid., p. 2.

 MSNBC’s Dan Abrams recently sought to make a fool of Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, in an interview about Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling’s “outing” of the beloved Dumbledore character. But Abrams’ overwrought attempt to mock Knight backfired, with Abrams himself looking like the fool. It’s painful, but click HERE to listen to the segment. You can also watch it by going to the homosexual website Queerty (WARNING: vulgar language: on many “queer” and lefty websites, commenters can’t seem to make a point without cussing or alluding to sex or male anatomy). 

We commend Knight (my former boss) for keeping his composure: how many of us could calmly withstand the over-the-top pummeling from the smug (and very unfunny) Abrams like Bob did on this broadcast? We don’t know about “homophobia,” but it seems more and more liberals are coming out as “homo-snobs”: those so committed to supporting all things “gay” that they won’t acknowledge that there are any rational arguments against homosexuality. (And of course there is no need to marshal arguments to defend homosexuality since that is self-evidently “true.”) To the committed homo-snob, any attempt to defend traditional sexual mores or protect children from moral corruption is just a big joke. — Peter LaBarbera

 After AFTAH’s report that White House officials gave advice on crafting the religious exemption language in homosexual Rep. Barney Frank’s radical ENDA bill, H.R. 3685, the Administration moved to publicly distance itself from the special-privileges-for-homosexual-employees legislation. Call Congress (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) to oppose H.R. 3685 and call the President to urge a veto (202-456-1111; www.whitehouse.gov/contact). See our paper, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill.”

By Peter LaBarbera 

In a manner similar to what it did regarding the “hate crimes” bill, the White House has issued a “Statement of Policy” raising constitutional and policy objections to H.R. 3685, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), sponsored by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). The Administration statement states, “The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

REMAIN VIGILANT: please keep those calls and letters coming to the White House (202-456-1111 or -1414; www.congress.org), urging President Bush to do so — regardless of the form the bill takes.

Also, even some key Republicans are supporting ENDA, so call Congress today (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge your U.S. Representative and both Senators to oppose ANY form of ENDA. A House vote on H.R. 3685 could come tomorrow. Homosexuality is not a “civil right” — period, and H.R. 3685’s “religious exemption” wording in ENDA is still very weak, as this memo from the Alliance Defense Fund asserts. See our paper, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill.”

Americans For Truth’s revelation that a White House official had boasted to pro-family leaders that the White House had helped craft ENDA’s religious exemption language raised concerns among pro-family groups counting on an Administration veto of ENDA. It also touched off a flurry of blog posts on the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) side, where there is a ferocious battle taking place over ENDA. Barney Frank’s decision to back a version of ENDA that does not include “transgenders” has infuriated the pro-transsexual groups. Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign, the country’s leading homosexual lobby group, is playing both sides of the fence — backing Frank’s compromise while publicly supporting Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s pro-transsexual amendment to H.R. 3685 to shore up its pro-“T” (transgender) credentials.

Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist Andrea Lafferty, who with father Lou Sheldon has done more than anyone in America over the years to keep the homosexual agenda in check on Capitol Hill, told Americans For Truth that at a recent pro-H.R. 3685 press conference called by Rep. Frank, the various homosexual/trans groups favoring a more radical (they say “inclusive”) ENDA were kept out in the hall, while HRC staffers were allowed in the room. Lafferty said that the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade played down the GLBT infighting.

Regardless, savvy homosexual activists (led by HRC) understand that passage of ENDA in any form is a huge advance for the homosexual cause — which is why we raised concern over talk of Christian leaders looking to craft “acceptable” exemption language in the bill, with White House input.

__________________________

Here is the White House’s statement on ENDA (emphasis added):

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

    October 23, 2007    (House Rules)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 3685 – The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

(Rep. Frank (D) MA and 9 cosponsors)

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish “a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”  The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.  H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard.  For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.

A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult.  For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on “perceived” sexual orientation, or “association” with individuals of a particular sexual orientation.  If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.

Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law.  These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.  The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.