“The leaders of America’s anti-gay industry are directly responsible for the continuing surge in hate violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. … The right went into demonic, anti-gay hyperdrive following the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision in July of 2003. Since then, church pews have been awash in ugly, anti-gay rhetoric and fear-mongering. … The literal blood of thousands of gay people physically wounded by hatred during 2004 is on the hands of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and so many others who spew hate for partisan gain and personal enrichment.”
–Statement from Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, April 26, 2005, blaming “anti-gay crime” on “America’s anti-gay industry”

Dear Readers,

The preposterous and astonishingly bigoted rant above by Matt Foreman, head of the second largest homosexual organization in America, illustrates the dangerous potential of pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual “hate crimes” legislation, S. 1105, which reportedly could come up for a vote before the U.S. Senate TODAY.

TAKE ACTION : Call your U.S. Senators today at 202-224-3121, or write then via www.congress.org. Urge them to oppose the Kennedy-Smith-Reid Hate Crimes Bill, S. 1105. Pass this message on to your friends and contact list.

A strengthened federal “Hate crimes” law — which would include transsexuals (perceived “gender identity”) for the first time in federal law — would provide a powerful foundation for politically-motivated, pro-homosexual prosecutors to go after people of faith, based on their alleged “anti-gay” speech.

Foreman is lying about the link between Christians and violent, despicable crimes, just as the homosexual lobby is lying about the supposedly pressing need for this legislation (see below). The last thing America needs is to put the power of the federal government behind a system of law that creates a politically correct hierarchy of victims — in a country where homosexual victims already receive far more media attention than religious victims like Mary Stachowicz.

S 1105 would also spend YOUR tax dollars on biased “anti-hate” programs that invariably discriminate against faith-based opposition to homosexuality.

No need for this bill

A thorough report on S 1105 by the Traditional Values Coalition states that S. 1105 “makes the following fraudulent and ridiculous claims in [its] Findings:

• Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
• Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
   
• Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. [now that’s a whopper–Editor]
   
• These false claims about homosexuals fleeing across state lines are being used as a hook to justify federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
   
• No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists! S. 1105 falsely claims in The Findings, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”
   
• FBI statistics from 2005 (the latest available) reveal that there is no national epidemic of hate against minority groups or against homosexuals:
   
• According to the FBI, in 2005 there were only 5,190 hate crimes directed against all persons. Of this figure, only 1,171 were sexual orientation bias crimes. Out of this 1,171:
   
• 301 were listed as “intimidation.”
   
• 333 were listed as “simple assault.”
   
• 177 were listed as aggravated assault! There was one forcible rape and no murders based on sexual orientation in 2005.
   
• 1 forcible rape; 30 robberies; 10 burglaries; 27 larceny-theft; 2 motor vehicle theft; 1 arson; 275 damage/vandalism; 3 other; 5 crimes against society.
   
• Nationwide there were 862,947 aggravated assaults against all persons. (Source: FBI Crime in the United States 2005, Aggravated Assault)
• Out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, only 177 were motivated by sexual orientation bias. This is 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005.
   
• In a nation of 300 million, this is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement. (Source: Tables 2 and 4, FBI Hate Crime Stats, 2005)

My good friend Bob Knight lays out the basic problems with expanded, pro-homosexual federal “hate crimes”, arguing that legislation like S. 1105:

• violates the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
• politicizes criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
• vastly expands the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.”
• has a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
• confuses law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
• is not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The last thing America needs is to expand federal power unnecessarily while creating the foundation for dubious federal “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. Read the full TVC report on S. 1105 HERE. And call your Senators today at 202-224-3121, or e-mail them at http://www.congress.org/.

This “hate crimes” bill has already passed the House, so if it passes the Senate, we will be urging President Bush to wield his presidential veto: call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or use the Contact Page on the presidential website.

Thank you for standing up for truth and freedom.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth

Randy Thomasson of the VoteYesMarriage.com in California coalition writes:

Please forward today to your pro-family friends:

Dear friends, the following news is appalling. Please help place rock-solid marriage protection into the California Constitution by donating right now to VoteYesMarriage.com or by calling 916-265-5643 to discuss making a major gift. We need to raise $1 million in the next two weeks in order to qualify for California’s June 2008 ballot. Any U.S. citizen or legal resident may donate. Thank you.

Here is the media release issued Monday by the VoteYesMarriage.com coalition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2007
 
California Governor and Attorney General
Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage

Sacramento, California — In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license “same-sex marriages” next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown’s 8/17 brief] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: …the words “marry” and “marriage” have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …The Administration submits that use of the words “marry” and “marriage” is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: …except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

“This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians,” said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

“Protecting the word ‘marriage’ in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman,” concluded Thomasson. “Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy.”

— end —

VoteYesMarriage.com (ID #1276880) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization sponsoring The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. Please help us protect marriage once and for all in the California State Constitution by making an instant online donation or sending a generous gift to:

VoteYesMarriage.com
P.O. Box 1978
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5643
(916) 290-0114 fax

Donate Online:

* Donations to VoteYesMarriage.com are not tax deductible.
* Please write your occupation and employer on your check, as required by state law

Reprinted with permission from the website of Concerned Women for America; published July 5, 2007

__________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexual “Marriages” in Massachusetts  

2004                        2005                      2006                     2007 (through April)  

6,121                      2,060                     1,427                              87 

__________________________________________________________________________________

By J. Matt Barber 

Getting married isn’t even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals. 

The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as “marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.

By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media, government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable, sexual lifestyle.

They yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image wherein all are compelled to not only accept, but to celebrate high-risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as both normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their ideal is a society in which inherent gender distinctions are eliminated and God’s express design for human sexuality is replaced by morally relative and surreal notions of sexual androgyny.

Nowhere are the dumbing-down of sexual morality and the blurring of gender lines more evident than in the left’s effort to radically redefine marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that currently allows “same-sex marriage.” Nine other states permit some form of “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” which, in truth, are simply “gay marriages” by another name. (Those states are Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.)

But despite the feigned and fevered cries of liberals for “marriage equality,” it’s becoming abundantly clear that the arguments conservatives have been making against “gay marriage” are spot-on. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t desire “marriage;” rather, militant homosexual activists desire to use “same-sex marriage” as both a tool to normalize homosexual behaviors and as a weapon to tear down the institution of legitimate marriage.

 Whoever heard of a sex club float at a parade? Proud homosexuals, that’s who. Above, a bus float for “Steamworks,” a 24/7 bathhouse in Chicago’s (“gay”) Boystown neighborhood — where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men — rides in the Chicago homosexual “pride” parade June 24. Many young children watched or participated in the Chicago parade. 

The lawless hate God. The name of Jesus is an affront to sinners. The [Columbus “gay pride” parade] crowd cheered the apostate churches as they displayed their man-made signs declaring their man-man opinion of Jesus’ acceptance of sin. They cursed and spat upon those who held a sign that displayed the Word of God, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”

 

Christian men are afraid to stand up for Jesus. They act just like women, striving to be “nice” to everyone. They won’t fight for their communities, won’t protect their children from indoctrination, and won’t storm the gates of hell.
— Coach Dave Daubenmire, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?” 

TAKE ACTION: Send Americans For Truth a $10 donation (postpaid) or make a $10 gift online and we will send you a “Truth Packet” that reveals some cold, hard realities about the homosexual agenda — including our booklet, “The Homosexual Agenda Targeting Children.” The Truth Packet will guide you on simple steps you can take to start standing up for truth against the pro-homosexual issue in your community. You’ll be shocked to see how the “GLBT” lobby is converting the next generation to their ungodly cause. Send $10 (postpaid) to AFTAH, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, or go online to give HERE. 

___________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

I’d like to call your attention to a wonderful call-to-arms from Coach Dave Daubenmire, who is a great American and a spiritual treasure for this deeply troubled nation. As one who has observed a bunch of “Gay Pride” parades over the years — they now call them just “pride” parades to mask their real purpose: celebrating homosexuality (perversion) — I echo Coach Dave’s call for Christian men to get off their comfortable keisters and observe firsthand the moral disintegration of this country.

Coach Dave is a man’s man, and his frank observations are, well, too gut-real for some even in the “pro-family” movement. American Christianity has been feminized, or perhaps emasculated — or even “psychologized” — to such a degree that we shy away from bold truth-telling. We rationalize our withdrawals from the culture wars, sometimes using theology to justify our cowardice. In his article, “Have You Visited a Gay Pride Parade?”, the Coach shows us the end-game of “tolerance” and “diversity”: the glorification of sin, churches parading in support of behavior that God condemns, and the promotion of ungodly lifestyles to innocent kids. 

Do we hate sin?

It’s funny. Guilt-ridden Christians talk a lot about how they don’t hate “gays.” That should be a given: we are commanded to love sinners supernaturally — even to suffer for the sake of the Gospel, as my friend Dan Musick and Joe Christopherson did at Chicago “Pride” last Sunday.  But I’m wondering: do we hate homosexual behavior like God does? (Can I say that? — alert the Thought Police immediately.)

No, we don’t. The result is that men who should be out contending with the evils of the day — and surely this is one — are instead fretting over not appearing “intolerant,” overly “judgmental,” or too radical. Or they withdraw into the business world and reading their stock reports, to prepare for a retirement in which they can retreat even further from the culture wars that we are already losing, badly.

Why is it that the wicked (in this case, homosexual activists) can give 150 percent to their their cause, but we who claim the “Truth” adopt a defensive posture and are saddled with doubt and apathy in the fight for godly values?

Guys, Jesus was radical. He was a man’s man. If you can’t bring yourself to join Americans For Truth in confronting the homosexual lobby in the culture and public policy, then get out on the streets and witness the Gospel to people headed for hell in the name of “pride” (oops, I said the H-word: another speech code violation…).

Listen to this podcast interview between Christian Civic League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath and MassResistance founder Brian Camenker (scroll and click on “Homosexual Totalitarians”). Camenker explains how the pro-family movement’s compromising, defensive approach contributed to the defeat Thursday of the marriage amendment in the Massachusetts Statehouse.

Camenker describes how pro-family efforts to be “reasonable” by watering down the amendment (e.g., it would NOT overturn existing “same-sex marriages”) actually boomeranged on the pro-marriage forces. Rather than let down their opposition, aggressive and savvy “gay” activists continued to insist that the amendment was a full-blown assault on their “marriage” rights.

Meanwhile, Camenker says, Massachusetts pro-family forces evaded any discussion of homosexuality for fear of being perceived as “anti-gay.” They floated a “Benefits Fairness Act” which awarded marriage-like benefits to “two dependent adults who are ineligible for marriage,” hoping that would placate the homosexual activists. (It didn’t.)

The question remains — not just for Massachusetts but the whole nation: can we defend marriage (and that includes blocking “civil unions” laws) without critically discussing and exposing homosexual behavior, and explaining the pitfalls of normalizing such behavior through public policy?

Listen to Heath’s interview with Camenker by clicking HERE; for now it plays automatically, but later you may need to scroll down to “Homosexual Totalitarians” and click it to play. 

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, one paragraph in the following alert from California pro-family hero Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families — about that State Senate’s passage of radical pro-homosexual/transsexual school indoctrination bill (SB 777) — sums up WHY we are seeing the “gay” agenda roll over America. Randy writes:

But you should also be frustrated with the [California State] Republican senators who seem to have lost their God-given VOICES and have forgotten their MORAL OBLIGATION to speak out in defense of children and family and morality. On Thursday, when given the opportunity to speak out against SB 777 in front of the several TV, radio and newspaper reporters who cover always attend the floor sessions, NOT ONE Republican state senator raised his microphone in defense of children.

So here’s the current political situation in so many areas (not so much in solid red states):

1. The Democrats as a party have largely sold their soul to the homosexual lobby;
2. The Republicans usually cast the “right” vote (there are key exceptions) but refuse to speak out against pro-homosexual bills;
3. The media are so biased in their coverage of homosexual-related issues that they intimidate politicians from speaking out against pro-“gay” legislation; thus, even many conservative lawmakers view this issue as the “third rail” they don’t want to touch.

Of course, on point 3, the media would have a much tougher time ignoring these issues if the GOP actively engaged the Democrats on the dangers of the homosexual agenda. Besides, conservatives should be used to dealing with left-wing media bias on a whole range of issues, so there’s something bigger going on here. Call it a “live-and-let-live” (“tolerance”) zeitgeist — driven by pro-“gay” groupthink in the media, Hollywood and academia — that is leading many to give up fighting.

Here’s Randy’s alert:

We are cheered by the following e-notice from the Family Institute of Connecticut Action, but this victory is bittersweet. That’s because, as you will learn from the link to the Hartford Courant in this story, Connecticut’s legislature passed “civil unions” (“gay marriage” by another name) in 2005. (Connecticut was “the first state in the nation to pass a civil union or same-sex marriage law voluntarily through the legislature and without judicial intervention,” Wikipedia notes.)

When the pro-family movement is reduced (in blue states) to proclaiming as a “massive victory” the mere stalling of a legislative vote for actual “same-sex marriage” — legislation that would have been laughed off just a few years ago — you know the hour is late in the struggle to preserve sexual sanity in this nation. Does that mean we give up? No, but it’s best that we view the present reality clearly.

Christians, conservatives, and traditionalists, let’s be honest with ourselves and the public: preserving “the word” marriage is only a minor — and many would say symbolic — victory, and no victory at all if we lose all else in the “culture war” over homosexuality. This small battle in Connecticut may have been “won,” but the war was almost lost two years ago when the Democrat-controlled legislature voted for a bill — which a Republican governor then signed into law — to give government approval to relationships based on homosexual perversion. — Peter LaBarbera

Family Institute of Connecticut Action writes: 

Massive Victory For Marriage!

 

Earlier today the Family Institute of Connecticut asked you, our supporters, to call your legislators and ask them to oppose holding a vote on same-sex “marriage.” That battle has now been won:

 

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Mike Lawlor, D-East Haven, said Friday afternoon they do not intend to push for a vote on same-sex marriage this legislative session, saying the bill does not have enough votes to win…

 

Opponents of the bill were cheered by Lawlor and McDonald’s decision. “The Family Institute of Connecticut is thrilled that the legislature has heeded the majority of voters in the state who do not want to see marriage radically redefined,” said Peter Wolfgang, the institute’s public policy director.

 

This is a massive victory for marriage protection and it happened because of you: the pro-family citizens of Connecticut who heeded FIC’s call to make your voices heard at our state capitol. Thanks to you, our Feb. 21st lobby day was a tremendous success, turning out twice as many people as our opponents on a day picked by them. Thanks to you, FIC provided the outstanding testimony of Maggie Gallagher, Dawn Stefanowicz, Brian Brown-and over 40 pro-family activists like you-for the most successful public hearing on same-sex “marriage” we have ever had. And thanks to your phone calls and e-mails-whose effectiveness was grudgingly acknowledged even by our opponents-we have today’s massive victory for marriage protection.

 

Today’s victory came about because of your hard work. But our opponents have vowed to try again, which is why we need your support to continue to defend marriage from their attacks.

 

Our May 23rd Rally and Lobby Day for Marriage will go forward-beginning at 10 a.m. on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford. We need as many pro-family state residents as possible to attend.

 

And, even for this year, a radical redefinition of marriage is still possible. The state Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments Monday in a case brought by activists seeking a judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage.” FIC and other pro-family groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs. And FIC’s Peter Wolfgang will be appearing with pro same-sex “marriage” Rep. Mike Lawlor the following morning (May 15th at 9:00 a.m.) to discuss the case on WNPR’s “Where We Live” program.

 

Congratulations to all of you who stood with us and helped bring about today’s marvelous victory for families and children. May there be many more.

 

Your support for marriage protection made the difference! But the battle is far from over and your help is urgently needed. Please click here to double your donation to our matching grant campaign.

H.R. 2015 Would Force a Gender Confusion Revolution on U.S. Businesses

By Peter LaBarbera

For once we agreed with Barney Frank (sort of), at least before he sold out to the “transgender” lobby. 

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress. I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

—Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), BEFORE he changed his mind and embraced including “transgenders” in the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA)  

“Technically, you cannot truly change one’s sex. That’s why the procedure is not really called ‘sex change surgery’ but ‘sex reassignment surgery.’ The idea is to alter the physical appearance of a person’s anatomy to approximate as nearly as possible the anatomic arrangement of the other sex.”

— Melanie, “Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), the Nuts & Bolts,” a “Transgender Support Site” 

*          *          *

Employment NonDiscrimination Act (H.R. 2015) Language: 

“EMPLOYER PRACTICES.—It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or

(2) “to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

*          *         *

TAKE ACTION:  Call the Congress (202-224-3121) or use e-mail to urge your Representative and Senators to reject ENDA (H.R. 2015) and the insanity of forcing business across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender confusion in the name of “civil rights.” Also, call President Bush (202-456-1414) or e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov to urge him to veto the “trans”-affirming ENDA, along with the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) that his aides have indicated will likely be vetoed. 

Fast on the heels of the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1597, recently passed by the House) is the second of two top homosexual activist priorities: ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act,” H.R. 2015, recently introduced by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Please read at the bottom of this story the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade’s analysis of the “transgender” provision of this radical bill.

To read about ENDA’s dubious “religious exemption” provision, click HERE.

Veteran observers of the “gay” movement will recall that Frank himself once strongly criticized the idea of including transsexuals in the ENDA bill (see above quote). But like most “progressives,” Frank has seen the light, or maybe he just heard the shouts — from radical “trans” activists who have skillfully adapted militant “gay” tactics to their own misguided cause, including calling their outspoken critics “transphobes.”

Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-“transgender” bathroom and dress policies — probably the same companies who would subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but can you imagine inflicting these “transgender” regulations on small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?

This is one of the most perverse applications of “civil rights” to date — and it’s headed straight for your business if you have 15 or more employees. What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-boned man claiming to be “transitioning” to “womanhood”? Will companies have to build “transgender male” and “transgender female” restrooms (or “Designated GLBT Restrooms”) to accommodate the various “orientations” and avoid government prosecution?

 

Churches and religious-oriented groups are quasi-exempt under ENDA but secular businesses owned by Christians or religious Americans are not. ENDA is a “gay” and “trans” lawyer’s dream. What about jobs such as a teacher in which the employer might not want the “transitioning” employee to model his newfound “gender identity” to children? Or service jobs (say a maitre d’) in which the employer may not want the newly “gender variant” employee to be in such a public role?

Imagine a male employee, John, who since he became employed at XYZ Corp., about a decade ago, has used the men’s restroom. Then one day he informs his boss that in a week he will come to work in a dress as “Joanna” and begin his MTF (“male-to-female”) metamorphosis into “womanhood.” (According to widely accepted regulations within the “transgender” world, he must “live” full-time as Joanna, taking female hormones, for a full year before he becomes eligible for “sex-reassignment surgery,” which will turn his healthy sex organ into a makeshift female sex organ. If you have the stomach to read what is actually done to a man’s body in “sex reassignment surgery,” click HERE, but be warned: it’s horrifying stuff. We must pray for these poor souls who are so confused that they would destroy their healthy, God-given bodies to assuage their inner conflict.)

Isn’t it a bit much to expect of normal, female XYZ employees to all of the sudden welcome “Joanna’s” presence in the ladies’ restroom? In fact, as I read the Blade account below, under ENDA’s proposed regulations, John/Joanna would be able to use the female restroom BEFORE his “sex reassignment” surgery. Indeed, the website “e-transgender,” quoting the homosexual/transgender group Human Rights Campaign, advises corporate human resources managers as follows:

“Employers should grant restroom access according to an employee’s full-time gender presentation.”

Read: if John “lives” (identifies) as Joanna full-time, he should be able to use the female restroom. Biologically-born ladies, beware!

What about the privacy rights of John’s female co-workers? Don’t they have the right not to feel personally invaded as they go to the restroom at their job? Will businesses have to put out new bathroom policies and undergo company-wide bathroom-usage training to explain the new policies?

 

But the situation becomes a crisis when the federal government — aided by politically correct activist judges — forces businesses to advance this Gender Confusion Revolution in the name of “civil rights.”

Is this really an area in which the federal government should even be involved? It’s bad enough that big business is rolling over to the bizarre “T” (Transgender) agenda — with some even subsidizing horrifying “sex-reassignment surgeries” that destroy men’s and women’s healthy bodies. (I once attended a conference for FTM (“female to male”) “transgenders” in which young women proudly showed off their flat chests — the result of “chest surgery” operations in which their healthy breasts were removed to make them look like the “men” they wanted to be.)

Of course, the larger goal here — shared by the “gay” and “transgender” lobbies — is to change your mind and heart regarding gender-confused conduct. The law is merely a tool in their never-ending quest to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian norms regarding family, sex and marriage.

We predict that businesses will deal with this very sad and strange “transgender” issue by building special restrooms and/or shower facilities for their “transgender” or alternatively “gendered” employees — spending countless millions to subsidize mentally disordered, deviant behavior. (Gender Identity Disorder, or GID, is a recognized mental disorder.) This corporate spending would accelerate dramatically should ENDA become law, as businesses would fear lawsuits if they failed to honor “trans” rights.

Call Congress (202-224-3121) or use e-mail to urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to reject ENDA, H.R. 2015. Also, call President Bush (202-456-1414) or e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov and ask him to veto the pro-“trans” ENDA, along with the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) that his aides have already indicated will likely be vetoed.