Excerpted from Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?, by David Frum, published Mar 9, 2007, by National Review:

…The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow…

Update: Andrew Stuttaford raises an excellent point on the Corner.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start.

Continue reading at National Review…

By Peter LaBarbera

Ann Coulter has been roundly denounced for using the “F-word” (six letters) — see this article by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America and this article by Albert Mohler). I’m a Coulter fan, but she crossed the line on this one.

There are larger issues at stake here for American freedom: today it’s the F-word, which has been banished as the sexual equivalent of the N-word. Tomorrow it could be certain applications of the G-word: G-A-Y. Many students use “That’s so gay” to connote something that they think is stupid or weird: should they be forced to undergo sensitivity re-education — or perhaps attend a “Gay Pride” parade?

Where will the PC “hate speech” enforcement stop? AP recently reported:

“When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.”

       “Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal’s office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?”

The AP story points to the threat that official speech codes pose to Americans’ most fundamental freedoms. Homosexual activists routinely and outrageously blame Christian pro-family groups for violence against homosexuals, and there are many on the Left who will go to extraordinary lengths to turn any derogatory use of ‘gay” into an opportunity to spread their pro-homosexual ideology. 

Coulter was joking. These activists are dead serious. Students and parents, take note.

As a rule we do not, like Fred Phelps, use the term “fag.” Coulter’s stunt was childish and, despite her protestations, she was clearly calling family man John Edwards a “faggot” — even as she also poked fun at the Left’s quirky “hate” formula by which they vilify their foes, then jump up and down when their own PC speech taboos are violated. (Example: saying George Bush is like Hitler — NOT HATE; saying we should love people practicing homosexual behavior but hate their sexual sin — HATE.)  Coulter’s reference point was Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington, who, after publicity grew about his calling a homosexual co-star a “faggot,” apologized and checked himself into rehab for a “psychological assessment.”

People involved in homosexuality should not be the object of taunts or hatred, and Christians, especially, are called to apply the Biblical command to speak the truth in love. We are called even to love our enemies so name-calling simply is not an option. (I confess that I once called homosexual blogger Joe Brummer, who is obsessed with AFTAH, a “twit,” but you might too if you read the tripe that he puts out on an almost daily basis. (A recent Brummer blog entry accuses Sonja Dalton and me of being “extremely responsible [sic] for the climate of violence that plagues gays and lesbians.”)

“That’s So Gay” 

The reality we face is that many on the pro-homosexual side, even as they recklessly smear committed Christians as bigots and haters (and murderers for what we believe!), want to define any negative use of the word “gay” as evidence of “hate speech” requiring punitive and corrective action. The AP story continues:

Testifying last week about the 2002 incident, Rice, now 18, said that when she uttered those words, she was not referring to anyone’s sexual orientation. She said the phrase meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”

 

But school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before.

 

“The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment,” the district’s lawyers argued in a legal brief. “In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase ‘That’s so gay’ … was a reasonable regulation.”

Excerpted from Lawmaker to File Bill Reinstating Gay Foster Parent Ban, by Andrew DeMillo, published Mar 2, 2007, by Associated Press:

…Sen. Shawn Womack said he plans to file a bill banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents, a prohibition that justices struck down last year…

“Clearly, the public policy of this state has been that we prefer to have kids placed in traditional families,” he said.

From Broken Promise in the Promised Land, published Feb 1, 2007, by CWA:

Israel records homosexual “marriage” for first time

For the first time in history, Jerusalem has recorded the “marriage” of a homosexual couple. Two men who wish to be identified as “Binyamin and Avi Rose” were “married” in Canada over the summer of 2006 and moved back to Israel where their marital status is now being recorded through the Interior Ministry’s Population Registry. Israel’s highest Court ruled in November that same-sex “marriages” that have been legally performed in foreign countries will now be included in Israel’s records. Concerned Women for America (CWA) prays that the nation of Israel will embrace and defend the Biblical definition of one man, one woman marriage and not go down the slippery slope that seeks to destroy traditional marriage.

CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues Matt Barber said,

“Christians, Jews and all people of faith from around the world will no doubt be saddened and shocked by this alarming development in Israel – as should anybody who recognizes the tremendous benefits conferred upon humanity by the institutions of legitimate marriage and family. It defies logic that the state of Israel would grant any official recognition to counterfeit ‘same-sex marriage.’

“God ‘made them male and female.’ The Biblical model irrefutably defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It provides that all sexual relations are to occur within the bounds of marriage.

“But this is not just a spiritual issue. Even within secular society, marriage has, by definition, joined male to female since time immemorial. Unless the Israeli government reverses course here, it has now inexplicably capitulated to the radical and destructive redefinition of marriage.”

Excerpted from Judiciary Won’t Allow Christian Beliefs, published Mar 3, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court’s Family Panel, even though he’s been recognized as having “an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates” because he is a Christian.

“This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society,” said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. “It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular ‘new morality’ and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children’s welfare.”

The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England’s Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be “screened” from such cases.

He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.

“Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption,” Williams said. “The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society.”

McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield…

The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.

“If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially,” the Tribunal ordered…

A report in the Telegraph said the decision came as the government in England prepared to introduce a plan to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against in the “provision of goods and services.” And the report noted the Sexual Orientation Regulations now could require schools to give equal weight in sex education classes to homosexual and heterosexual practices.

From U.S. Supreme Court vacates widely criticized 9th Circuit decision in Poway “T-shirt” case, published Mar 5, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Nation’s highest court grants request of ADF attorneys to consider case, then vacates 9th Circuit’s approval of censorship of Christian students

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review of the appeal of a high school student represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. The court then ruled 8 to 1 to vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the student.

“Students simply do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Two 9th Circuit judges issued an extremely dangerous ruling last year, allowing a school to censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court summarily eliminates that ruling, giving us much firmer footing in pursuing this case.”

….ADF attorneys are representing Chase Harper, a student at Poway High School who was prohibited by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others. Harper’s younger sister Kelsie is also represented by ADF attorneys in the case…A copy of ADF’s writ of certiori petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Poway Unified School District can be read at Harper Petition.

A copy of today’s order vacating the 9th Circuit’s ruling can be read at Harper Supreme Court Order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit, which includes the state of California, more times than any of the other federal appellate circuits across the country.

Continue reading at Alliance Defense Fund… 

Excerpted from ADF Helps Protect Three Children from Demands of Unfaithful Military Father Who Left Wife for Boyfriend, published Mar 2, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Court denies father’s appeal for boyfriend to stay overnight while children visiting and for permission to show affection with boyfriend in children’s presence

An active duty military officer who left his wife to pursue sexual relationships with other men failed in his appeal to have certain visitation restrictions to his three children dropped Tuesday.

The mother, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Alexandria law firm Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., the lead attorneys in the case, opposed the father’s request to be allowed overnight stays with his three children while his boyfriend is present. She also objected to her former husband’s request that he be allowed to openly display affection with his boyfriend in front of the children.

“The interests of children far outweigh a man’s desire to be selfish,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “We are talking about a man who repeatedly cheated on his wife to engage in sexual acts with other men and then left her for one of those men. This father and his attorneys with Lambda Legal then decided to take it a step further and demand that very minimal and common visitation restrictions designed to protect the children be dropped. There’s no doubt the Court of Appeal did the right thing in refusing this demand.”

From Top Law Firms Undergo a Rainbow Revolution, by Vivia Chen, The American Lawyer, March 2, 2007, as re-published in Law.com:

In his famous dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s same-sex sodomy law, Antonin Scalia railed against the legal profession for embracing the “anti-antihomosexual culture.” Well, Scalia got that right.

Not only are the nation’s elite law firms not anti-gay, they are putting out the lavender welcome mat. Perks that seemed radical just 10 years ago are now standard fare at Am Law 200 firms: health care benefits for domestic partners, nondiscrimination pledges and sponsorship of gay organizations. Firms are also stampeding to recruit candidates at gay job fairs. And according to a survey by gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, the legal profession ranks high in gay-friendliness when compared to other industries.

Continue reading at Law.com