The following is reprinted with permission from the Howard Center’s “Family in America” newsletter (“New Research,” December 2006; emphasis added). The Howard Center is a wonderful organization, based in Rockford, Illinois, that is home to esteemed family scholar Allan Carlson — who founded the World Congress of Families, an annual event designed to build worldwide, intellectual support for the “natural family.” This year’s Congress convenes Friday in Warsaw, Poland; check out its website to read about the battle between old-line, anti-family European Unions forces and Eastern European nations like Poland that are fighting to preserve marriage and a “culture of life” (which does NOT include teaching homosexuality as normal to children). 

We encourage you to sign up for Howard Center’s e-publication and request a sample printed copy of the “Family in America” newsletter, which is loaded with important, scholarly research on family issues. (You can call Howard Center at 815-964-5819 or e-mail info@profam.org.)

Common sense dictates that unnatural homosexual unions are more volatile than traditional marriages, and the research backs that up. Here are the Demography study’s two key findings on “gay” unions in Norway and Sweden:

1. Few homosexuals choose to “marry” or register their union with the government;
2. Homosexual unions end in divorce much more often than heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual Unions: Rare and Fragile 

Progressive activists in the United States have argued strenuously in recent years that giving homosexuals the legal right to marry will improve life for homosexual couples and will consequently benefit society as a whole.  A new study of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, however, casts serious doubt on such assertions.  For, as it turns out, relatively few homosexual couples avail themselves of this revolutionary right. And a surprisingly high percentage of those who do so end up in divorce court.

To analyze the demographics of homosexual [“marriages,”] a team of German and Norwegian scholars recently examined data collected in Norway and Sweden since these bellwether countries discarded centuries of legal tradition by authorizing homosexual unions (in 1993 in Norway and in 1995 in Sweden).  Both countries have thus now enacted laws granting homosexuals “the legal right to registered partnerships, a civil status that [the researchers believe], in practice does not deviate much from the concept of marriage.”  The legal equivalence of homosexual unions to heterosexual marriage indeed largely explains why the researchers use “the terms registered partnerships and same-sex marriage interchangeably.”   Similarly, the researchers “use the term divorce to refer to [homosexual] partnership dissolution because the divorce procedures of the marriage act [in both countries] apply to registered [homosexual] [“marriages”] as well.”

As the German and Norwegian scholars survey the available data for homosexual unions, they cannot avoid one obvious reality: “the incidence of same-sex [‘marriage’] in Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.”  Between 1993 and 2001, while Norway recorded 196,000 heterosexual marriages, the country witnessed the legal registration of only 1,293 homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, while Sweden recorded 280,000 heterosexual marriages between 1995-2002, the country saw the formation of only 1,526 registered homosexual partnerships.  The researchers accordingly calculate “a ratio of around 7 same-sex [‘marriages’] to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Norway and a comparable “ratio of 5 new partnerships to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Sweden.  The researchers remark that the numbers of same-sex [“marriages”] have run “considerably lower” than might have been expected by those relying on recent surveys of sexual behavior.  These surveys have indicated that “well over 1%” of women and between 1 and 3% of men have had a same-sex partner during the last year, with between 4 and 9% of men and approximately 4% of women reporting that they have had a same-sex partner at some time during their lives.  (The authors of the new study are too well informed to rehash the now discredited absurdity—promulgated by Alfred Kinsey—that fully ten percent of the adult male population is homosexual.) [Note: see Judith Reisman’s website for more good information on Kinsey and his fraudulent research.–Peter L.]

The data for same-sex unions in Norway and Sweden indicate, however, not only that such unions are relatively rare, but also that they are remarkably fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than do the heterosexual marriages of peers.  The statistics indeed reveal “that the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the corresponding risk for heterosexual marriages and that the divorce risk for partnerships of women is about double (2.67) that for men (1.50).”  

 Apparently crusading for abortion “rights” (or should we say infanticide) is not enough of a challenge for New York’s maverick Democrat governor, Eliot Spitzer. Now he wants to pave the way for the embrace of full “same-sex marriage,” claiming this will “strengthen New York’s families.” We predicted that once liberals capitulated on giving government benefits to “same-sex couples” (read: domesticated homosexuality) beginning with “domestic partners” legislation, it would be only a matter of time before they embraced full “gay marriage.”

We hope we’re wrong, but we fear that Spitzer is the future of Democratic politics. (Are Republicans far behind with pro-homosexual politicians like Gov. Schwarzenegger?) Socially liberal politicians know that they have to talk about religion to con the gullible masses, but when it comes to applying the compassion and restraint of Christianity to moral issues like abortion and homosexuality, they want no part of it. The Democratic Party has sold out to the homosexual and radical feminist lobbies. If Republicans join them, the formation of a third, morality-based “culture of life” party is inevitable.– Peter LaBarbera

The following is reprinted from Family Research Council’s “Washington Update,” May 9:

In New York, Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) has done more to trample family values in the last five months than most state leaders have done in five years. Sounding more and more like a mouthpiece for Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign, Spitzer has already rolled out bills that would end abortion regulations and legalize same-sex “marriage.” On April 27, he upheld a campaign promise and became the first governor to initiate a change in the definition of marriage. Just one week later, Spitzer is thumbing his nose at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by moving to protect late-term abortions in the state. His Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act also directs more taxpayer dollars to “reproductive health services” (i.e. abortion clinics), promotes contraception, and enshrines abortion on request. Incidentally, Spitzer was the only governor in the United States not to issue a proclamation supporting this year’s National Day of Prayer. Only after intense public pressure did Spitzer agree, joining the other 49 governors at the 11th hour. A staffer justified the delay by saying Spitzer “always intended to sign it” but cited the volume of office paperwork. Perhaps Spitzer should spend less time on producing “paperwork” that devalues human life and marriage.

 

In this link to an article in the New York Sun, Gov. Spitzer claims that homosexual “marriage” “will only strengthen New York’s families.”  

Ex-‘Gay’ Christian Singer Dennis Jernigan

In response to the recently proposed Hate Crimes Bill (H.R. 1592) currently before Congress, singer/songwriter/author and former homosexual, Dennis Jernigan, fears his right to openly talk about how he was able to overcome homosexuality would be compromised since H.R. 1592 seeks to prosecute criminals based on their thoughts.  “I was able to come to a level of freedom the homosexual community never told me was possible,” says Jernigan. “Yet, through faith in God, I successfully walked out of that way of thinking and have met thousands of other men and women who have done the same. What about our civil liberties? To pass such a bill as H.R. 1592 is to invoke fear that I could be prosecuted for my religious beliefs and speech.”
 
Jernigan goes on to say that he fears for his nine children and their families in the days ahead should such legislation pass. “To lose one of our most basic rights, that of free speech, is to strip away what it means to be an American. Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as all other Americans when it concerns the punishment of criminal acts against them. This legislation seeks to bestow special treatment upon a very small portion of our society. If this bill passes, Congress is telling me that I and countless others who have discovered they don’t have to be homosexual are of less value now than when we were living as homosexuals.  If we look down the road of this slippery slope, this legislation would actually pave the way to make it a criminal offense to think differently than someone else or to have religious convictions that are opposed to this politically correct ideology.  Do we really want such thoughts to be illegal?

“I strongly support President Bush’s expected veto of this bill, and I implore the Congress to take a stand for what’s right and protect my freedom to not be homosexual – as well as my freedom to be able to talk about it openly.”
 
Dennis Jernigan is a husband and father who has been out of the homosexual lifestyle for over 25 years. His new CD entitled I CRY HOLY will be released nationwide in mid-July.  In a music career that extends over two decades, Jernigan has amassed dozens of hit songs to his credit, recorded over 30 projects, and written five books.  His songs have been used in churches of every denomination across the globe, and consistently rank in the top 100 of CCLI’s Most Performed Songs List.  His song “Sit With Me A While” is a featured selection at the grave of President Ronald Reagan.  He travels around the world telling his story of freedom from homosexuality.  For more about who Dennis Jernigan visit Dennis Jernigan’s website. 

###

Source: Adams Group: Marketing to Christian Media. 

The world is turned upside-down. I challenge “Mike/Christine” to do a column describing, in detail, “sex-reassignment surgery” — whereby a penis is turned into a makeshift “vagina” — assuming he is one day going to go that route. (“Transitioning” people are required to live one year as the opposite sex before undergoing the horrifying operation.) Then we’ll see just how “natural” all of this is.

Transsexualism is perhaps one of the most extreme manifestations of the modern philosophy of “I feel, therefore I am.” Just because men (and women) caught up in gender confusion FEEL that society should “respect” their gender-twisting choices, doesn’t mean that it is healthy for society to do so. Nor should taxpayers and corporations be forced to subsidize the radical “sex-change” operations — another goal of many in the “trans” movement. Granting newfangled “civil rights” based on “transgender” identities has it completely backwards: a healthy society would discourage gender confusion as much as possible, rather than celebrate it. And we haven’t even started talking about supposed “transgender” children, the “T” in the “GLBTQ” (“Q” is for “Questioning”) acronym tossed around by pro-homosexual activists and educationists who work with youth. — Peter LaBarbera

FIRST PERSON
Old Mike, new Christine
By Mike Penner, Times Staff Writer
April 26, 2007
During my 23 years with The Times’ sports department, I have held a wide variety of roles and titles. Tennis writer. Angels beat reporter. Olympics writer. Essayist. Sports media critic. NFL columnist. Recent keeper of the Morning Briefing flame.

Today I leave for a few weeks’ vacation, and when I return, I will come back in yet another incarnation.

As Christine.

I am a transsexual sportswriter. It has taken more than 40 years, a million tears and hundreds of hours of soul-wrenching therapy for me to work up the courage to type those words. I realize many readers and colleagues and friends will be shocked to read them.

That’s OK. I understand that I am not the only one in transition as I move from Mike to Christine. Everyone who knows me and my work will be transitioning as well. That will take time. And that’s all right. To borrow a piece of well-worn sports parlance, we will take it one day at a time.

Transsexualism is a complicated and widely misunderstood medical condition. It is a natural occurrence — unusual, no question, but natural.

Recent studies have shown that such physiological factors as genetics and hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy can significantly affect how our brains are “wired” at birth.

As extensive therapy and testing have confirmed, my brain was wired female.

A transgender friend provided the best and simplest explanation I have heard: We are born with this, we fight it as long as we can, and in the end it wins.

To read the rest of the column in the L.A. Times, click HERE.

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 share Austin Ruse’s outrage at the arrogance of the European Parliament for re-defining Judeo-Christian morality in Poland as “homophobia.” Regarding pedophiles marching in the streets, the notorious NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) once marched in homosexual “pride” parades until “gay” organizers got smart and started banning the pederasty group. However, one “father of gay rights,” Harry Hay, avidly defended NAMBLA, and protested the man-boy-sex group’s exclusion from the 1986 Los Angeles “gay pride” parade, holding a sign that read, “NAMBLA walks with me.” In 2005, ex-gay Christian activist James Hartline made headlines when he revealed that two convicted pedophiles were were working as volunteers for San Diego’s homosexual “pride” festival. Please help Poland by signing C-FAM’s petition.– Peter LaBarbera  

Dear Colleague,

The power of the radical homosexual movement in Europe has just been shown. The European Parliament just voted to condemn Poland on what they term “homophobia.” What was Poland’s crime? The Polish Prime Minister said that Polish school children should not be subject to “homosexual propaganda.”

Polish authorities have also resisted demands from radical homosexuals that they be allowed to march in the streets. If you live in any major city you know these marches where leather boys and pedophiles march freely and disruptively through the streets.

The response of the European Parliament was to pass a resolution calling these sensible actions “hate speech” and asks competent legal authorities to take action against these officials and the government of Poland.

This is outrageous and all people of good will must stand with the Polish people against the radical homosexual movement in the European Union.

I ask you to go immediately to the petition “Homosexual Hands Off Poland” at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php.

The petitions will be delivered to the Polish authorities on Thursday, May 10. I will personally deliver them to Polish Members of the European Parliament and to members of the Polish government when I am in Warsaw for the World Congress of Families.

We only have a few days to get as many names as possible. I urge you to go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition, then send this message to everyone you know. We need to deliver thousands of names of supporters from all over the world. I especially urge those in the EU countries to get this message to everyone you know. We must tell the radicals in the European Union to keep homosexual hands off of Poland!

Go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition and send this email message to everyone in your address book.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM

PS Poland stands almost alone in the European Parliament against an enormous coalition of radicals. Poland needs our help right now. Please sign the petition at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and help Poland fight back.
 
 

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.