From Traditional Values Coalition’s website. TVC has led the charge against ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, on Capitol Hill: 

October 26, 2007 – Shortly after the White House issued a veto threat on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced she was delaying a vote on ENDA.

Pelosi is delaying the vote because Democrat leaders can’t find enough votes for passage of ENDA with “gender identity” added back into it. However, this supposed delay may only be a strategic move to undermine organized opposition to ENDA.

Click HERE to read the whole article

 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.

Americans For Truth has adopted the following Political Campaign Policy:

1. In accordance with its Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.
2. The Corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a corporation exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law) or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law).
3. The Corporation shall not endorse or oppose either directly or indirectly any candidate for public office.
4. The Corporation shall not donate corporate funds to a candidate’s campaign or participate in or engage in political fund raising events or otherwise soliciting contributions on behalf of a candidate for public office.
5. The Corporation shall not distribute statements for or against a particular candidate for public office.
6. The Corporation shall not engage in any activity that favors or opposes a candidate for public office.

Board of Directors, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
October 15, 2007

Breaking News: White House helped craft religious language for pro-homosexual ENDA bill; AFTAH urges Bush to pledge to veto bill in any form

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in 2007. Four years later, passage of the ENDA bill — now HR 1397 — is a high priority of the Obama administration. Go HERE for a GovTrack report on the 2011 version of this dangerous bill. — Peter LaBarbera, May 16, 2011. 

AFTAH has learned that White House staffers helped negotiate the new religious exemption language for the radical homosexual employment bill ENDA, H.R. 3685. Will that make it harder for President Bush to veto ENDA should it pass Congress? Call or contact the President (202-456-1111; www.whitehouse.gov/contact) and urge him to veto ENDA in any form should it pass Congress.

By Peter LaBarbera 

BREAKING NEWS/URGENT UPDATE: Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private Administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill, H.R. 3685 (discussed below). Call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 (www.whitehouse.gov/contact) to urge him to publicly pledge to veto the dangerous ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bill, H.R. 3685 in ANY form should it pass.

At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the President would veto H.R. 3685, saying that they will wait to see the bill’s final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a “no-brainer” by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it. Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the President (202-456-111) and urge him to “please publicly pledge to veto ENDA, H.R. 3685, in any form if it passes Congress.”

Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA’s exemptions; we do not (see Points 8 and 13 below).  White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill. As you can read below, H.R. 3685’s current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply-held moral beliefs about homosexuality.

Also, CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN and SENATORS today and next week to oppose H.R. 3685, which is a watered-down version of a more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015 (see Point 10 below). Like H.R. 2015 — for which homosexual and transsexual activists are still crusading — H.R. 3685 has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal “rights” based on wrong and destructive lifestyles.
 
Yesterday, H.R. 3685 was voted out of the House Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 27-21 (some Democrats voted “no” because it wasn’t liberal enough; see Point 10 below). It is now headed for a House floor vote, possibly early next week. Call 202-224-3121 or go to http://www.congress.org/ to reach your Representative and U.S. Senators.

Here are 14 good reasons to oppose the revised ENDA, H.R. 3685:

1. ENDA and H.R. 3685 would create federally-protected “rights” based on immoral, unhealthy and changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior — masquerading as “orientation” — setting a dangerous legal, moral and spiritual precedent. Homosexuality is not a “civil right”; it is a human wrong — one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a Biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men’s hearts (including the lust for power, hence our system of checks and balances). The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality-affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic, “constitutional rights.” ENDA represents the complete rejection of the Judeo-Christian Western legal tradition by creating newfangled legal “rights” that actually reward errant lifestyles and sexual misbehavior.
2. ENDA/H.R. 3685  would be used to defend the placement of openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in our nation’s public schools in ALL localities (see # 7). For the more activist-minded homosexual teachers who are already in schools, H.R. 3685 could lead them to more boldly promote and discuss their lifestyle in the classroom, as schools could be sued for discrimination if they dared to discipline activist “gays.”
3. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would punish Christians and religious traditionalists by leading directly to the loss of freedom for tradition-minded business owners with 15 or more employees. Take the example of an Orthodox Jewish owner of a for-profit day-care business who would NEVER hire an avowed homosexual, lesbian or bisexual as a supervising adult care-giver, because he believes Scriptural teachings that homosexual practice is immoral and reflects poorly on one’s character. This religious man would qualify for the exemption to ENDA if he has 14 or less workers. But God forbid that his business grows to 15 or more employees, because then, under ENDA, he could no longer apply his religious and moral beliefs about same-sex sin in his hiring and firing decisions . It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their “moral” claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their “sexual orientation”) trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality.
4. ENDA is unnecessary: there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired; in fact, it is Christians defending their faith in the public square who are getting fired  and mistreated  — like Matt Barber, who was terminated by Allstate Insurance in 2005 after writing an online article on his own time critical of homosexual “marriage.”  Moreover, private companies are racing to create pro-homosexual policies on their own: Kodak now gives special preference to homosexually-owned subcontractors as one of several “minorities” receiving favored consideration. We strongly disagree with these “gay”-affirmative-action-type policies, but corporations have the right to pursue them. However, with the proliferation of such corporate programs, there is no need for the heavy hand of government to act as a corporate Big Brother, forcing all companies to affirm homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions. Let the free market decide this issue.
5. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would dramatically expand the power of the federal government and would put it behind ONE SIDE of the homosexuality debate: the politically correct and unbiblical claim that homosexuality is about “rights” and innocuous “orientations.” Therefore it would override traditional understandings of homosexuality as a changeable sin. Federal authority will be asserted to enforce homosexual “rights” over traditional Americans rights to operate their business according to their moral beliefs. At the very least, with half the nation still believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, the government should be neutral on this issue.
6. ENDA is a “gay” lawyer’s dream: it would be abused by litigious homosexual activists, who seem to have a special gift for lying about conservatives and exaggerating their own victim status. If history is a guide, ENDA will lead to “gay” harassment lawsuits against people like the theoretical day-care entrepreneur above. Homosexual activists have already used dirty tactics to harass and take down pro-family leaders like Larry Cirignano, Scott Lively, and Gary Glenn — all victims of trumped-up “gay” charges. Glenn was falsely accused by a homosexual activist group, the Triangle Foundation, of favoring the murder of homosexuals (this writer has also been falsely accused of this). Cirignano recently had “civil rights” charges against him dropped after a lesbian invaded his Catholic group’s rally and then claimed that he assaulted her. Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, was hit with a highly-publicized lawsuit in 1991 based on similar trumped-up charges. Oregon Republican writer Betty Freauf describes what happened: “At one of the O.C.A. meetings, a photo journalist and homosexual-rights activist by the name of Catherine Stauffer attended the [pro-family] meeting uninvited. When asked to leave, she refused. Scott Lively then O.C.A. [Oregon Citizen’s Alliance] executive director, escorted her out of the meeting. She then had her frivolous assault and battery lawsuit which had been the plan all along. Judgments were granted to the plaintiff Stauffer in the amount of $30,000 each against O.C.A. and Scott Lively.”    Certainly, some homosexual activists will not be able to resist using frivolous, ENDA-inspired lawsuits to intimidate conservative business owners into submission — especially those who speak out publicly against “gay marriage,” or oppose the homosexual lobby. Is it really hard to imagine homosexual activists sending “plants” into conservative-owned companies and then suing when the person is not hired, or is fired? Of course, the same might be attempted by apolitical yet greedy “gay” employees and lawyers seeking to manipulate the system through “discrimination” lawsuits.
7. ENDA would trample on the rights of the 30 states without homosexuality-based “sexual orientation” laws — including conservative “red” states like Oklahoma and Texas where there is little voter interest in passing such laws — by turning the whole nation, including all public schools (see #2), into a “special-protections-for-homosexual-workers” zone.
8. ENDA’s “religious exemption” is extremely limited and narrowly tailored: of course, it does NOTHING to protect the freedom of moral-minded small businessmen to hire and fire based on THEIR values system, not the government’s. But beyond that, ENDA’s “religious exemption” is also carefully circumscribed so as to box in non-church, religious-oriented groups, rather than liberate them (see points 12 and 13). Here is how H.R. 3685 defines “religious organization”:
    
   RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION – The term `religious organization’ means–
   (A) a religious corporation, association, or society; or 
   (B) a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning, if– 
   (i) the institution is in whole or substantial part controlled, managed, owned, or supported by a particular religion, religious corporation, association, or society; or
   (ii) the curriculum of the institution is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion
    
   Now think of all the businesses, associations and schools that would NOT be covered by that definition: private, non-church or non-religious schools, day-care centers not directly tied to a church; small secular businesses (15 or more employees, including part-timers) owned by Christians; etc.               Moreover, Matt Barber (see #4), Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America and AFTAH Board Member, makes this excellent point on the constitutionality of ENDA’s religious exemption: “For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, [it] would have to follow the individual business owner.  The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion which applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation.  It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his private business.”
9. Even though ENDA proscribes quotas, H.R. 3685 would create de facto preferential status for “gay” employees – or those who claim that status (which is another issue: how does a company “prove” that an employee is or is not “gay”?). Especially for corporations and businessmen who fear lawsuits, ENDA would create a new category of “affirmative action” – for a group of people who, far from demonstrating a history of being disadvantaged economically, rank among the more affluent and privileged groups in society (for example, “gays” travel internationally at rates far higher than other groups) . (See #4 on existing private “gay affirmative action.”)
10. H.R. 3685 is merely the camel’s nose under the tent: even though homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) “threw tranny off the train” as it were – by backing a watered-down ENDA that does not explicitly cover transsexuals (“gender identity”) – the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby is united in pushing for the even more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015, which fully covers “transgenders.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has agreed to bring that bill to the House floor for a vote if the bill’s sponsors can show they have enough votes to pass it.  Passage of H.R. 3685 would make passing H.R. 2015 — what we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Business” bill — easier.
11. H.R. 3685 would advance the “same-sex marriage” agenda. It would be cited by activist judges as evidence that America is moving towards pro-homosexual “equality” (read: state-sponsored “inequality” for people of faith). The homosexual agenda always advances incrementally, but federalizing “sexual orientation” law is a long-sought goal of “gay” activists and liberal social engineers seeking to break down our Judeo-Christian traditions by normalizing homosexuality through the law.
12. H.R. 3685’s exemption for “religious organizations” would divide society further by effectively creating a two-tiered system of rights.  Some Christians and religious people operating in exempted religious groups would get the “special right” to factor in their opposition to homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions — but morality-conscious secular groups and business owners would lose their freedom to similarly defend heterosexual norms. This is not fair. Many nonreligious people oppose homosexual behavior and creating “rights” based on immoral, aberrant sex: why should they have any less freedom to act on their beliefs than religious citizens?
13. ENDA/H.R. 3685 will lead to further compromise in the Church: its religious exemption would mollify pastors and make them LESS likely to stand on principle and fight the aggressive homosexual agenda, since they would be “protected” (for now) from ENDA’s oppressive mandates. Of course, homosexual activists would later seek to tighten or eliminate religious- and church-based exemptions (there’s that incrementalism again). If homosexual activists truly respected people’s freedom to oppose homosexual behavior, would they constantly be complaining about “religious-based discrimination”? Would they be relentlessly attacking the Boy Scouts and have tried to make it illegal for the Scouts not to hire homosexual (and atheist) scoutmasters? Many “gay” advocates view Christian opposition to hiring homosexuals as simply another form of invidious discrimination to be overcome through law, academia and cultural mobilization.
14. ENDA confuses the issue of civil rights in America and trivializes African Americans’ struggle against discrimination. H.R. 3685 insults African-Americans and confuses the civil rights equation considerably by taking the 1964 Civil Rights Act — designed with the noble goal of redressing institutional racism in America — and refitting it to put the U.S. Government officially behind the false concept of homosexuality as a “civil right.” Blacks cannot change their skin color. Homosexuals can leave that lifestyle behind, as many have. (Conversely, people can become “gay” by embracing that ideology and lifestyle. Nobody can “become African American”; that’s how you are born.) Being black is not a moral issue. Embracing sinful and destructive homosexual behavior is. It has long been the goal of “gay” activists to exploit the noble Black civil rights movement — even appropriating its language of “equality” and drawing bogus analogies between ending legal bans on interracial marriage (a good and just reform) and the campaign to legalize homosexual “marriage” (a revolutionary attack on a sacred institution). ENDA would put government muscle behind this exploitation, and make it much easier to teach schoolchildren that homosexuality is a civil rights issue, not a moral one.

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. For the full story, click HERE:

GOP Reps save ENDA in close committee vote
Kucinich, others vote ‘no’ citing lack of trans protection
By LOU CHIBBARO JR., Washington Blade | Oct 18, 8:14 PM

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) cleared a pivotal hurdle in committee today after four gay-supportive Republicans joined the Democratic majority to save the bill from defeat.

Four pro-gay Democrats, including [a presidential candidate and Congressman], voted against the bill, saying they did so because a provision protecting transgender persons had been removed.

The bill passed in the House Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 27 to 21, with 23 Democrats and four Republicans voting for the measure, which calls for banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation, a category that includes gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Seventeen Republicans and the four Democrats voted against the bill.

If the Republicans voting for the measure had voted the other way, it would have lost by a vote of 23 to 25.

“We have never been able to pass a gay rights bill with only Democrats,” said gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the lead sponsors of ENDA. “We’ve always known we need some Republicans.”

The bill is scheduled to go to the full House for a vote next week.

Click HERE for the full Blade article

By Peter LaBarbera 

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s signing of two radical pro-homosexuality school bills — SB 777 and AB 14 — is very bad news for the Republican Party, California, and the nation.

I suppose it’s good news for Democrats and pro-homosexuality-education-for-tots Republicans, all 7 of them, but we’ll let the faux conservatives over at Log Cabin Republicans make that case.

If the GOP joins the Democrats as a party embracing homosexuality, many Christians and pro-family voters will start looking to third parties, or check out of the political process entirely. They certainly won’t be motivated to go out and work for the Republican Party.

It’s a pretty simple equation: “Maria Shriver Republicanism” does not sit well with the party’s conservative and religious grassroots — who increasingly feel like the water they carry for the GOP every election is commensurate with the shaft they get from Republican politicians in the ensuing years. (Schwarzenegger did veto a pro-“same-sex marriage” bill but ironically, the bills he signed into law will create precisely the sort of classroom propaganda that conservatives have warned would result from legalized “gay marriage.”)

Under the guise of “equality,” SB 777 and AB 14 will be used to indoctrinate students in the Left’s false analogies between the noble civil rights movement and their pro-homosexuality and -transsexuality activism. (You know, the same Social Leftists that regularly equate people of faith who oppose homosexual behavior with fringe racists.)

The new laws will greatly expand one-sided, pro-homosexuality and pro-“transgender” curricula and programs such as “Gay and Lesbian History Month” that elevate Christian bashing “gay” icons like Frank Kameny — who can’t seem to recall if he spoke at a meeting for the despicable NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association — to U.S. historical heroes. (Kameny is old, but don’t you think a NAMBLA meeting, as reported by NAMBLA itself, would stick in your mind?)

In other words, more indoctrination for public school kids, who will be trained in dubious concepts like “homophobia” and the notion that the only people left who oppose rights based on “gayness” are bigots and irrational religious people out of step with the times.

Gee. California schools are doing such a fine job teaching reading, writing, math and science: isn’t it wonderful that they can now focus on grounding the state’s children in Gay Advocacy 101?

At AFTAH, we operate on the premise that God does not smile on Republican homosexual advocacy any more than He does on the Democratic brand. GOP leaders who fail to see the growing dissatisfaction with their party among the pro-family rank-and-file may be in for a big shock on Election Day. But even if they prevail in 2008, signs of long-term corrosion in the party’s social conservative base are everywhere.

One major political party committed to homosexuality- and transsexuality-based “rights” including “gay marriage” (aka civil unions) is one too many for America. Do the Republicans really want to compete for that title?

TAKE ACTION:  go to the website of the California group Campaign for Children and Families (www.savecalifornia.com), run by my friend Randy Thomasson, who works harder for true family values than anyone I know. CCF has tons of information on the anti-family school bills and ways to get involved.

 

If you are a Republican, communicate with your local and state GOP officials that the party must not embrace homosexuality, and that it is reckless to give children one-sided, pro-“gay” lessons that undermine marriage and historic Judeo-Christian morality. (If you are a Democrat, do the same for your local Democratic officials.) You can write or call Gov. Schwarzenegger through this website: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact.

___________________________ 

The following is CNSNews.com’s article on Schwarzenegger’s “gay” school capitulation:

California Group to Fight ‘Sexual Indoctrination’ Laws in Court 

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – The head of a pro-family organization in California said on Tuesday that his group is mounting a legal effort to overturn pro-homosexual measures signed into law last weekend by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before they can have a negative impact on the state’s educational system and religious community.

“Apparently, the governor now feels the freedom to favor the pro-homosexual message and to disregard conservative voters and traditional values,” Ron Prentice, chief executive officer of the California Family Council, told Cybercast News Service.

Prentice called Schwarzenegger’s decision to approve the measures “puzzling,” because he vetoed similar legislation last year. (The governor did not explain his decision, nor did his office return calls from Cybercast News Service seeking comment.)

As a result, “we have no security that any bill that comes to him next year promoting homosexuality” will be prevented from becoming law, said Prentice.

Therefore, the organization will challenge SB 777, the California Student Civil Rights Act, which was passed by the legislature to “update specific anti-discrimination provisions that are scattered throughout the state’s education code.”

To accomplish this, for instance, the legislation replaces “sex” as defined as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being” with “gender,” which is “a person’s gender identity and gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

The new law also adds the category of “sexual orientation,” which is explained as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.”

Finally, the measure states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic” identified in the law.

The homosexual advocacy group Equality California (ECQA) described the legislation as protecting students “from harassment and bullying in public schools by making sure teachers and school administrators fully understand their responsibilities to protect youth.”

But as Cybercast News Service previously reported, the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) responded that the measure is nothing more than “sexual indoctrination.”

“SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values,” said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for the conservative Capitol Resource Institute. “The terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.”

Click HERE for the full Cybercast News Service article

The raunchy, nudity-filled Folsom Street Fair occurs every year in San Francisco, which is in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) Eighth Congressional District.

The following news release was issued September 28 by Concerned Women for America. the statement by the Speaker’s press secretary was given to the Bay Area Reporter, a homosexual newspaper:

Pelosi Refuses to Denounce Hateful, Anti-Christian Ad

Washington, D.C. — Concerned Women for America (CWA) broke the story on Tuesday about an anti-Christian promotional advertisement put together by organizers of San Francisco’s partially taxpayer-funded and hedonistic Folsom Street Fair–sponsored by Miller Brewing, Co.– which will take place this Sunday. More than 400,000 people are expected to attend. The ad replaces Christ and his Disciples with homosexual sadomasochists in a twisted portrayal of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.

“As if the ad itself isn’t offensive enough,” said Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, “we have photographic evidence that the San Francisco government suspends indecency and child abuse laws for a day, allowing fair goers to parade the streets of San Francisco fully nude, engaging in illegal public sex while taxpayer-funded police stand by and do nothing. Children are allowed to – and do – attend this event and are exposed to this activity, which is illegal child abuse. We’re a nation of laws, and we’re calling on Mayor Gavin Newsom to enforce the law and for San Francisco police to arrest lawbreakers on Sunday.”

“Furthermore,” continued Barber [who is a Board Member of Americans For Truth], “on Tuesday we requested that California’s elected officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, publicly condemn this anti-Christian, anti-Catholic ad. Instead, Nancy Pelosi responded to our request with a condescending and dismissive quip.”

Media are reporting that Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary, responded to CWA’s request by saying, “As a Catholic, the speaker is confident that Christianity has not been harmed.”

Pelosi, who is a major supporter of the “gay” lifestyle, will be receiving an award from the radical homosexual group, Human Rights Campaign, on October 6th.

(Click Here to View “Gay” Last Supper Advertisement)

This column was originally published by Concerned Women for America:

By J. Matt Barber

Heard the one about the U.S. senator who walked into the toilet with an undercover cop on perversion patrol?

Of course you have. Everyone’s heard it, but unfortunately, it’s not just a bad bar room joke.

Still, liberals in Congress and their friends in the press are laughing themselves cross-eyed. There’s another Republican involved in a “gay” sex scandal, so predictably the “mainstream” media’s all aflutter. They want to keep the story alive as long as they can, hoping to recreate the Foley effect in 2008.

For all six of you who haven’t heard, Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct after he was accused of soliciting an undercover male police officer for “gay” sex in a public restroom.

Craig has denied the allegations saying he “overreacted” by pleading guilty in hopes that he could just “make it go away.”

It didn’t go away.

This story’s got that sexy, salacious stuff that makes the Pavlovian media pant: Another Republican fall from grace and a fresh, imagined batch of hot, gooey “hypocrisy” with which to broadly tar the entire GOP.

Of course, when liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Gerry Studds are caught, it’s just a “personal matter involving sex.” But when it’s a Republican – especially one with a conservative voting record like Craig – then, holy restroom romance Batman! It’s front page news for weeks.

But whether or not the allegations against Craig are true, the scandal serves to remind us that sexual deviancy is a bipartisan dilemma. There have now been several high profile cases of politicians – Democrats and Republicans – busted while “looking for love in all the wrong places.”