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.

By Sonja Dalton

Lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding published a post on Mar 3, 2007, entitled Intimidation Tactics In the Name of Religion Will Not Stop Change. In it, she accuses Christians of inciting violence against homosexuals — for example,

• Bil Browning, head of Indiana Action Network and Bilerico blogger, claims that, following his coverage of a protest in Indiana over SJR-7, he received threatening phone calls and that the window of his car was smashed.
• 72-year-old Andrew Anthos of Detroit was taunted and viciously beated with a metal pipe, leaving him paralyzed and in a coma for ten days until he finally died. A sketch of the suspect has been released, but no arrests have been made at this point.
• A 19-year-old Hoboken High School student, Andy Rivera, has been charged (and a second person is sought) in the brutal beating of a 21-year-old man, allegedly for wearing pink pants.

Ms. Spaulding, a Duke employee whose blog has been lauded by the university (which has historic ties to the United Methodist church), says:

“This behavior occurs because many fundies actually justify explain violence against gays and lesbians as God’s wrath being visited upon them. It’s about controlling the behavior of people who are different, who may or may not share their worldview, or else, dag nab it, ‘God’ is going to work in his mysterious ways by inspiring someone to take a pipe to beat a 72-year-old gay man to death or beat up a gay man for wearing pink pants, for instance.”

Though none of the perpetrators have claimed to be Christians nor to have acted on God’s behalf (some are not yet identified), Ms. Spaulding blames these heinous crimes on “fundie” (fundamentalist) Christians — and she is not the only activist to make such claims.

On Feb 24, 2007, Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (which takes in over $30 million/year), issued the following statement blaming Christians:

“The hatred and loathing that led to the vicious murder of Andrew Anthos only because he was gay is not innate. Instead it is being taught every day by leaders of the so-called Christian right and their political allies. They disguise their bigotry as ‘deeply-held religious beliefs.’ They cloak themselves in ‘family values.’

“For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to ‘protect marriage’ by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan’s court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.

“It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos…”

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.

We received the following comment on Out & Costly on Mar 2, 2007 (sic):

“You failed to include the fact that the tax for domestic partmer benifits are paid by the employee and not the employer as the plan is a non-qualifying 125 plan.”

AFTAH’s response:

That information was included in the post:

“…Out & Equal’s ‘spousal equivalency policy’ would require the employer to compensate the homosexual employee for the absence of tax exemption on homosexual partner and children health insurance costs…. Because there is no federal recognition of ‘gay marriage,’ although a homosexual may receive domestic partner benefits, his contribution is paid with taxable dollars.”

The point of the latter section of the post, perhaps made more clearly:

• Currently, some employers do — and some employers do not — offer domestic partner benefits (DPB) to homosexuals; additionally, some offer DPB also to cohabiting heterosexuals as well.
• Most employees contribute some portion of the cost of their benefits through payroll deduction.
• Under current federal law, single employees (whose benefits may cover self only, or self and children) pay their portion with pre-tax dollars; married employees (whose benefits normally cover spouse and children) also pay their portion using pre-tax dollars.
• Federal law recognizes marriage between one man and one woman; it does not recognize “domestic partnership.” Therefore, homosexual (or cohabiting heterosexual) employees who currently have access to DPB pay their contribution for a “partner” and/or “partner’s” children using taxable dollars, but…
• A homosexual (or cohabiting heterosexual) employee still pays the contribution toward his/her own benefits and his/her own children’s benefits with pre-tax dollars, just like any other single employee.
• Out & Equal is advocating that employers pay homosexuals (or cohabiting heterosexuals) using DPB more than married heterosexuals to compensate the pre-tax/taxable difference on the partner/partner’s children portion.

AFTAH is not in favor of domestic partner benefits for homosexuals (or for cohabiting heterosexuals), nor are we in favor of the 15-step Out & Equal agenda for corporate America.

By Sonja Dalton

A gender confusion activist responds to the firing of a “transgendered” faculty member — a male now living/dressing as a woman — by a private Christian university:

Dr. Albert Mohler is quoted in Gender Issues at the Heart of Culture War (published Nov 23, 2004, by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) as saying:

“The issue of gender, in my estimation, is at the very center of the target of our secular age and postmodern world,” Mohler said. “It is also at the very center of the target of where we see theological accommodation is taking us, not only in the body of divinity, but also in the complex of the comprehensive truthfulness of God’s Word. What we are looking at here is an assault upon God’s glory.“

So, Danny Baker, we offer you a few examples of Scriptural authority that address “changing genders” and we pray that you will consider them soberly:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

— Genesis 1:27

The Bible describes a strict gender binary — only two sexes, male and female. God did not create a “FTM trans-male” and a “MTF trans-female” or a “genderqueer” or a “two-spirit” person. He created man and woman, and that is what He blessed.

Notice that Scripture says whoever — a completely inclusive term that leaves no room for justifying alternate behavior, even despite confused emotions, discomfort or dissatisfaction, or intense desire. This passage teaches that whoever (i.e., anyone, all, no matter who) cross-dresses, whoever mutilates their natural sexual organs in order to emulate the opposite sex, is an abomination to the LORD your God — not to “trans-phobic, hateful, judgmental Christians,” but to Jehovah God who created them.

After all, Christians are merely repentant sinners, formerly alienated, enemies of God ourselves, so how could we as redeemed sinners rightly look at another sinner as an abomination to us? No, we as Christians look with compassion, we warn of God’s impending final judgment, and we urgently invite all to share in the mercy which we ourselves so desperately need and for which we are so grateful: Come and see how Jesus Christ can transform your mind and your life!

A followup to AFTAH’s exclusive special report on Out & Equal’s radical agenda…

From the Out & Equal website:

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates is proud to display our ever-increasing list of corporations who support LGBT workplace equality by encouraging and fostering their own employee resource groups (ERGs). With such valuable workplace groups in place, employees in one ERG can turn to leaders in other groups to share resources and establish good workplace practices for LGBT employees. LGBT employees trust their employers are keeping their interests in mind when making key business decisions that affect all employees…

True Out & Equal Workplace Leaders

TAKE ACTION — Pass this article forward to the executives at your company and contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C. (Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121) to express opposition to the “ENDA Our Freedom” Bill. (ENDA is the pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” Employment Non-Discrimination Act.) Also, call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 456-1414 and ask him to veto any and all pro-homosexual bills that emerge from the Democrat-led Congress.

AN Americans For Truth EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL REPORT

Amy Andre, program manager for Out & Equal, presented a workshop at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s Creating Change conference, November 8-12, 2006, in Kansas City, Missouri, entitled 15 Steps to an Out & Equal Workplace. (AFTAH’s reporters went undercover at the conference because the Task Force ejects critical observers at its events.)

One key initiative revealed by Andre: the promotion of a “spousal equivalency policy” that would require employers to pay homosexuals a higher salary than married heterosexuals.

These are the steps that homosexual activists are recommending for American corporations (our comments are in bold and italics):

(1) Support and attend the annual Out & Equal “Workplace Summit”

(2) Start an “employee resource group” — This employee group will be used to pressure the company to complete the remaining steps.

(3) Offer domestic partner benefits — O&E supports domestic partner benefits for cohabitating heterosexuals as well as homosexual partners.

(4) Include “sexual orientation” in your company’s EEO policy — Such a policy would prevent the company from “discriminating against” homosexuals or bisexuals.

(5) Include “gender identity and expression” in your company’s EEO policy — This policy would prevent an employer from “discriminating against” a transvestite (cross-dresser) or transsexual (who might be considering a “sex change” operation or might be partially or completely “transitioned”), even if this situation creates a problem with clients. (For example, these policies have been used to ensure that a teacher who cross-dresses or proceeds with a “sex-change” operation cannot be fired. Instead, children are expected to understand and cope with this outrageous situation.)

(6) Include LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] workplace diversity training — “Knowing someone who is LGBT changes attitudes” so O&E recommends having the trainer or another employee “come out” during the session — a manipulative tactic.

(7) Support the LGBT community through corporate giving — Although homosexual activists generally express disdain for corporate America, executives are urged to contribute money to promote the normalization of homosexuality.

(8) Recruit and develop LGBT employees

(9) Market to the LGBT community

(10) Create LGBT-specific advertising

(11) Provide LGBT leadership development opportunities

(12) Develop spousal equivalent policies for LGBT employees — See below — this one is very important.

(13) Include LGBT-owned businesses in your supplier diversity program — O&E recommends the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce’s certification program. This policy results in business moving from family-oriented companies to pro-homosexual companies. (Case in point: Wal-Mart.)

(14) Promote an LGBT-friendly corporate culture

(15) Share best practices around LGBT workplace issues

Out & Equal convinces companies that homosexuals comprise both a vital source of talent and a uniquely attractive target market segment. Using data from Witeck-Combs, a pro-homosexual firm, O&E suggests that homosexuals comprise 6 to 7 percent of the population. (Their number far exceeds more scientific estimates that put the figure at 1-3 percent.)

Using their inflated numbers, O&E says the 14 to 16 million homosexuals will spend about $640 billion in 2006. They report that homosexuals are twice as likely to be professionals or managers, are early adopters of new technologies, are brand loyal, and have a higher discretionary income. That enticement, along with a little “social justice” guilt, deceives companies into implementing O&E recommended policies.

First, a corporation would incur additional expense to fund “domestic partner” benefits. Most corporations contribute a substantial portion toward the cost of an employee’s personal health care and some toward the cost of coverage for an employee plus spouse or employee plus spouse/children. O&E recommends that an employer make that same contribution for those who are not married — for instance, a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend or a homosexual partner.

Homosexual “Spousal Supremacy”?
Next, Out & Equal’s “spousal equivalency policy” would require the employer to compensate the homosexual employee for the absence of tax exemption on homosexual partner and children health insurance costs. An employee normally makes a contribution, deducted from his paycheck, toward the cost of his health care coverage. For a married man, that expense is paid with pre-tax or tax-exempt dollars. Because there is no federal recognition of “gay marriage,” although a homosexual may receive domestic partner benefits, his contribution is paid with taxable dollars.

In the example Ms. Andre used (and she did note that the figures would vary according to each unique circumstance), she estimated that the employer would need to pay a homosexual employee with a partner $3787.20/year extra to compensate for the different tax status; that figure would soar to $7006.32/year for a homosexual with a partner and children. The net effect of this concept would be to pay a homosexual with a “partner” thousands of dollars more than a married heterosexual.

And add to that the cost of employee time spent networking, calling or e-mailing, meeting to focus on their “victim” status, lobbying HR/management, etc.

Executives would do well to examine Eastman Kodak, Ford, and Wal-Mart as case studies and to note the negative effect of capitulating to GLBT demands — on corporate revenue, volume, and stock price.

Or they could simply heed the words of one (white, female) activist in a separate Task Force Creating Change session, who expressed disdain for American corporations and said:

“…I am happy to take the white man’s money
and use it to subvert [everything he stands for].”

Out & Equal’s 2007 Workplace Summit will be held September 27-29 at the Hilton in Washington, D.C. Human Resource executives would do well to take their calculators along.

A revolutionary assault on sex and gender norms requires a revolutionary new vocabulary. The homosexualist movement stole the word “gay,” and is busy redefining “marriage” and “spouse.” Next comes the basic descriptors of the family. Mom, dad, children? How utterly heterosexist of you! The following is excerpted from Good LGBT Practice in the NHS, a joint publication from the homosexual activist organization Stonewall Scotland and Scotland’s National Health Service:

Page 2 — Scots’ tax money at work…

Page 7 — “In order to avoid this confusion…”

Partners and “next of kin”
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status. Many people hold a mistaken belief that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. In order to avoid this confusion it may be advisable to use “partner, close friend or close relative”. This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them. For example, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 200310 defines the most important nearest relative (after spouse or civil partner) as a
cohabiting same-sex or opposite-sex partner.

Page 7 — Anthing but mom and dad…

Parenting
LGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. According to a Scottish wide survey (11), one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted into heterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into same-sex relationships or adopted by an LGB individual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using “parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”.

The booklet advocates “a zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” for health care workers in Scotland.