White House helped craft 'gay'/transsexual rights bill

[Soldier4Christ]

White House helped craft
'gay'/transsexual rights bill 
Family-values advocates oppose
sex-based workplace privileges

Staff members for President Bush have helped congressional staffers work on "religious exemption" language for a new "anti-discrimination" proposal that actually would codify in federal statutes an anti-Christian bias, and that will make it harder for him to veto, according to an activist group.

"Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill," according to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth organization.

"At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the president would veto [ENDA], saying that they will wait to see the bill's final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a 'no-brainer' by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it," he continued

His organization is running a campaign to encourage people to contact the White House to express their opposition to the plan.

"Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA's exemptions; we do not," he continued. "White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill.

"H.R. 3685's current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply held moral beliefs about homosexuality," he said.

The proposal, for which homosexual and transsexual activists are crusading, "has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal 'rights' based on wrong and destructive lifestyle," he said. The plan was approved just days ago by the House Education and Labor Committee and is headed for a House floor vote.

As WND reported earlier, proposals such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would give special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

Social conservatives have depended on President Bush to either use a veto, or threaten a veto, to halt the advance of such societal-changing plans being assembled in Congress. He's already expressed that there's "no need" for "hate crimes" legislation which also would create special privileges for those who identify themselves with an alternative sexual lifestyle.

But Barber said the "religious exemption" being assembled is anything but. "At best, only churches – and essentially pastors – could be exempt from the provisions of ENDA, and that's not even guaranteed."

"All other faith-based organizations – even though which are tax exempt – would be discriminated against under the bill. Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Bible book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of their faith," he said.

"ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It's the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don't," he said.

LaBarbera said the word that White House staffers have been working on proposals makes the situation worse,

"Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the president …. and urge him to 'please publicly pledge to veto ENDA ... in any form if it passes Congress,'" he said.

He said it is a dangerous precedent to install in federal law "rights" based on changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior.

"Homosexuality is not a 'civil right,' it is a human wrong – one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men's hearts … The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic 'constitutional rights,'" LaBarbera said.

The law as proposed would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … 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."

LaBarbera said the law also could be used to defend placing openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in public schools.

"It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their 'moral' claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their 'sexual orientation') trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality," LaBarbera said.

He also said the plan is built on house of cards, since there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired. Instead, it is Christians defending their faith in the public arena being mistreated, he said.

"ENDA would force all Americans who prefer to live within the realm of reality to pretend, by force of law, that a man is a woman – that an apple is an orange, simply because that apple thinks it's an orange (awkward, fruity pun not intended). It's 'The Emperor's New Clothes' meets George Orwell, and even if you're the Mary Lou Retton of mental gymnastics, you land flat on your keister on this one," Barber said.

He said the law actually would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "by codifying the very thing it purports to prevent – workplace discrimination."

As WND has reported, this issue recently came to a head in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on anything that includes a "discriminatory bias" that could be perceived as being against bisexuals, transsexuals and homosexuals in all public schools.

There, analysts have concluded that even the terms "mom and dad" and "husband and wife" could be banned because someone in a same-sex lifestyle choice could perceive that as being derogatory.

[Soldier4Christ]

White House warns 'gay' plan unconstitutional 
Senior advisers promise to recommend veto

The White House is warning that a pending piece of federal legislation to create new rights for homosexuals would push the boundaries on constitutionality, and President Bush's advisers will recommend a veto if it does come before him.

The plan at issue is H.R. 3685, on which WND has reported.

As WND reported earlier, proposals such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would give special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

(Story continues below)

In a statement yesterday, the CWA thanked Bush for "signaling" a likely veto on the proposal. "This dangerous bill would pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion, a situation which is unconstitutional on its face," Barber said. "Members of Congress should join the president and exercise their sworn duty to defend the U.S. Constitution by voting 'no' on ENDA."

The White House "policy statement" on the issue said H.R. 3685 would extend employment-discrimination provisions to set up "a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

"The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," the White House said. "H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.

"H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard. For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685," the White House said.

"A second concern is H.R. 3685's authorization of federal civil damage actions against state entities, which may violate states' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on 'perceived' sexual orientation, or 'association' with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach," the White House said.

Social conservatives have depended on President Bush to either use a veto, or threaten a veto, to halt the advance of such societal-changing plans being assembled in Congress. He's already expressed that there's "no need" for "hate crimes" legislation which also would create special privileges for those who identify themselves with an alternative sexual lifestyle.

And Barber said the "religious exemption" being assembled is anything but. "At best, only churches – and essentially pastors – could be exempt from the provisions of ENDA, and that's not even guaranteed."

"All other faith-based organizations – even though which are tax exempt – would be discriminated against under the bill. Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Bible book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of their faith," he said.

"ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It's the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don't," he said.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth said, "Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the president …. and urge him to 'please publicly pledge to veto ENDA ... in any form if it passes Congress.'"

He said it is a dangerous precedent to install in federal law "rights" based on changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior.

"Homosexuality is not a 'civil right,' it is a human wrong – one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men's hearts … The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic 'constitutional rights,'" LaBarbera said.

The law as proposed would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … 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."

LaBarbera said the law also could be used to defend placing openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in public schools.

"It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their 'moral' claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their 'sexual orientation') trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality," LaBarbera said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."

The couple, who have six grandchildren and one greatgrandchild, are both ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church.

When they first started fostering they took in young single mothers and their babies.

More recently they have been caring for children of primary school age.

Mr Matherick added: "It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen.

"There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules.

"They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date.

"They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.

"How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe?"

Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have complained that the rules force them to overturn long-held beliefs.

The Mathericks are planning to fight their case in the courts with the backing of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.

The same organisation is backing Christian magistrate Andrew McClintock who resigned from the family courts in a row over gay adoption.

He says he was forced to resign because he was not allowed to opt out of cases where he might have to send a child to live with gay parents.

The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.

An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.

Researchers have found that continually moving children from home to home can have a devastating impact on their education and general welfare.

But a report last year revealed that the shortage of carers meant that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year.

David Taylor, Somerset County Council's corporate director for children and young people, said: "No decision has been made about the deregistration of Mr and Mrs Matherick.

"The council is committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths."

[Soldier4Christ]

The stories in the last post took place in the UK. The laws they are based on are the same thing that has been attempted to be passed here in the U.S. so we can see some of the results of such a law. these are just minor in comparison to what will take place with this kind of law.