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…

Posted on Log Cabin Republicans website as of Mar 6, 2007:

Republican Wyoming State Rep. Takes Courageous Stand for Basic Fairness

Republican Wyoming State Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) urged his colleagues to vote against a discriminatory bill that would have banned recognition of marriages for same-sex couples performed in other states, saying

“I believe this is the civil rights struggle of my generation…If standing up for equal rights costs me my seat, so be it. I will let history be my judge—the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote.”

Read the full text of Rep. Zwonitzer’s remarks.

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.

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.

A news release from American Family Association of Pennsylvania dated Mar 6, 2007:

With Stephen Glassman’s involvement with a homosexual rights Get Busy, Get Equal Conference on Saturday, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) once again questions his authority to speak in his official capacity as the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). The AFA of PA asks Governor Rendell to review Mr. Glassman’s involvement in not only this conference, but his meeting with those who opposed last year’s Marriage Protection Amendment and his efforts to get municipalities to add ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to their human relations ordinances.

The PHRC has the responsibility of administering and enforcing the PA Human Relations Act (PHRA) and the PA Fair Educational Opportunities Act (PFEOA). These acts prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, ancestry, age (40 and above), sex, national origin, non-job related disability, known association with a disabled individual, possession of a diploma based on passing a general education development test and familial status.

“Stephen Glassman has a personal agenda and he has become more aggressive in recent years. He is continually pushing for the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to human relations ordinances on the local level and beyond. Those terms are not part of the mission of the PHRC,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA, a statewide traditional values group.

Newsletter from Indiana Voice for the Family published Feb 28, 2007:

Today I am able to bring you good news! In a previous email last week I alerted you to a very dangerous bill that the Representative Greg Porter drafted. HB 1459 the Indiana Hate Crimes bill flew out of committee with a vote of 9:1. House Bill 1459 would have made it a worse crime to assault a gay man walking out of a bar than attacking a grandma walking down the street. It would have created 2 classes of victims, and punished someone more because of their thoughts. This bill represents an attempt to give special protection to homosexuals and cross dressers by stating that a crime against them is to be treated with more severity than a crime against a senior citizen, a child or a pregnant mom. It was a step in the wrong direction for the freedom of speech. I believe a crime is a crime, and needs to be punished to the full extent of the law! One would wonder, would the next step have been to prohibit speech that someone views as hateful? For example, will legislation be introduced to prohibit pastors from speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle? This legislation has already been introduced in the US congress (HR 254), and stands with the votes aligned ready to pass. Already, we have people who are being arrested under the “Hate Crimes” laws. Ask these 2 grandmothers in Pennsylvania who have received a 40 year jail sentence for passing out what Pennsylvania described as hate speech. (The Bible!!!) Read their story.

The pro family leaders united, and you acted! Thousands of emails were received by the Indiana Legislators. Then Indiana House Republican Jackie Walorski (pictured left) did the unexpected — She killed the controversial hate crimes bill by offering a pro-life amendment. Representative Walorski asked the House to give the same special protections to unborn babies as homosexuals and cross-dressers in the hate crimes bill. Democrats didn’t want to deal with that controversy and failed to allow a vote on it. Representative Walorski needs to be commended for her courageous action to stop this dangerous legislation (call or select “contact us” to send an e-mail).

This is what we are able to accomplish when we unite and say enough is enough! Thank you for acting so quickly in this matter! The Indiana Voice for the Family, American Family Association of Indiana, Advance America, Indiana Right to Life, Focus on the Family, and the Indiana Family institute are working together to bring these issues to the forefront! There are several key issues we will be watching this week.

1. SJR7 has made it to the house. Speaker Bauer has said that he will let this be heard. We need to hold him to his word! Call his office today, and ask him to follow his word. Let SJR7 be heard!
2. SB327, which is the HPV bill, is now ready for the House. We will be there to makesure this is not a mandatory vaccine for the girls of Indiana. We will soon need your help in letting our Representatives know that this is not a public health issue. This is a behavioral issue. It should not be forced on our girls. We do not want Indiana girls used as guinea pigs for a vaccine that has only been studied for 4.5 years.

We will continue to keep you up to date on the Issues at the statehouse. Thank you for your prayers and your support!

Monica Boyer
Indiana Voice for the Family

From HIV-Positive Rep Seeks Homosexual ‘Marriage’ in IL, by Jim Brown and Jody Brown, published Feb 28, 2007, by One News Now:

An Illinois pro-family group is voicing opposition to what it calls a “counterfeit” marriage bill in the state legislature that seeks to make Illinois “the Massachusetts of the Midwest.”

Illinois’ only openly homosexual representative, Democrat Greg Harris, has introduced HB 1615, which would repeal Illinois’ ban on same-sex “marriages.” Pete LaBarbera of the Chicago-based group Americans for Truth says Harris and other homosexual activists are hoping to wear down Illinois voters, and over time pass what he describes as “radical” legislation.

“Greg Harris is the new homosexual rep representing ‘Boystown,’ which is the homosexual neighborhood in Chicago. He replaces another homosexual,” says LaBarbera. “He is HIV positive and even put … on his resume, publicly, that he has AIDS.” The Americans for Truth spokesman says he finds that both sad and ironic. “He’s bearing a disease that is caused by this lifestyle,” he notes, “and now he wants to take this lifestyle and say that it merits being called ‘marriage.'”

According to LaBarbera, the bill introduced by Harris is “sneakily” called the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” And homosexual activists like Harris, he notes, play long-term politics, whereas many in the pro-family movement play short-term politics.

“The long-term goal of the homosexual activists is to make Illinois ‘the Massachusetts of the Midwest,'” says the pro-family leader. “[T]hey would desperately love to get a state in the Midwest to go for so-called ‘homosexual marriage.'”

For that reason, LaBarbera is encouraging conservatives and people of faith likewise to think long-term. “We must retain the goal of repealing all ‘sexual orientation’ laws — in Illinois and across the nation — since they are incompatible with the basic American freedoms of religion, conscience, and association,” he says on his group’s website. “And we must act to protect marriage as between a man and a woman at the state and federal constitutional levels.”

Toward that end, LaBarbera says Americans for Truth will be working with other Illinois pro-family groups to push for another referendum calling on the state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual “marriage.” One pro-traditional marriage referendum, HJRCA 1, he explains, has “languished” in the General Assembly for years. LaBarbera blames what he calls “Democrats’ subservience to the state’s powerful ‘gay’ lobby.”

Our culture is increasingly coarse and vulgar. Recent television commercials include one for a new show where the main character talks about a “tiny v*****” (female anatomy) and one for “Interactive Male” (which advertises their service as “the best place for gay and bi-curious guys to meet and hook up for sex, dating or friendships”). Lifetime TV (the channel for women?) is airing another new show called Gay, Straight, or Taken? where single women test their guy-dar (or gay-dar?). If she picks the available straight man, she wins a “luxurious dream getaway” with the bachelor, practically a stranger; if not, the guy she picks wins the trip with his female or male “partner.” Not so long ago, the public would have been outraged at such filth.

Now the cultural sewage spills into our state legislatures which will be debating: Toilets for “Transgenders.” The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition has created a “resource” crudely entitled Peeing in Peace.

“Gender neutral” public toilets are part of the homosexual/”transgender” activist vision of the future — which means women and children will be forced to share restroom facilities with cross-dressing men or with “femme” homosexual men or even potentially with predators who decide to frequent women’s public restrooms. The purpose for exposing the heterosexual majority to mixed gender bathrooms is allegedly to protect the sexually confused from attack or harrassment in men’s public bathrooms. AFTAH categorically condemns violence against any practicing homosexual or cross-dressing person…but we also oppose this radical change to public toilet policy, as well as the waste of taxpayer resources in debating it. — Sonja Dalton

Read more at MassResistance…