The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is poised to rear its ugly and dangerous head again in the U.S. Senate in the next few weeks. The controversial Democrat-sponsored bill (S. 815) currently has 55 co-sponsors, only two of whom are Republicans: U.S. Senator Susan Collins (ME) and our very own, perpetually irksome U.S. Senator Mark Kirk, who has a particular fondness for all pro-homosexual legislation (don’t say we didn’t warn you). U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is also a co-sponsor.

ENDA “[p]rohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees).” If passed, no public elementary school or small business owner will be permitted to refuse to hire a man masquerading as a woman.

Every decent human opposes illegitimate discrimination based on objective characteristics that carry no behavioral implications, conditions, for example, like race, sex, or nation of origin. Many people, however, believe that making distinctions among behaviors is not only a legitimate human activity, but an essential one—essential, that is, for any moral society, particularly one in which religious liberty is jealously guarded.

ENDA will curtail religious liberty by prohibiting Americans from making distinctions between right and wrong actions even when those distinctions reflect deeply held religious convictions of orthodox Christians, orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

Our founding fathers knew that religious liberty was essential to a free society. It must never be subordinated to a manufactured civil liberty to engage with absolute unfettered freedom in acts of sexual perversion. And it is not unconstitutional to allow one’s religious beliefs to shape either business or political decisions. The Left does it all the time.

It is true that ENDA has a provision that says employers have the right to require an “employee to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards.” It would be foolish, however, for Americans to believe that this language will help employers who don’t want to hire cross-dressers because such perverse behavior violates their religious beliefs and will harm their business.  It would be foolish because progressives believe it is unreasonable to require gender-confused men and women to dress in accordance with their actual, objective sex. To a “progressive,” prohibiting a gender-confused man from wearing lipstick, falsies, and a dress to work as a first-grade teacher or toy store clerk is unreasonable. No young child should ever see cross-dressing (or even hear anything about gender confusion or homosexuality as is happening now in our public schools).

Every homosexuality-affirming policy and bill is based on the conflation of objective conditions with no moral/behavioral implications like race, sex, and nationality, with homosexuality, which is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that many consider immoral. Are our foolish lawmakers willing to provide special protections to other conditions similarly constituted—conditions like polyamory, paraphilias, or incest? I can hear the howls of indignation from homosexual activists that their sexual proclivities and theirs alone constitute a morally positive identity. But others will stake that claim for theirs as well. And when “identity,” which in common usage is merely the aggregate of those feelings one chooses to act upon, becomes unassailable, we’re left with a society in which moral judgment is either wholly eradicated or left exclusively to those in positions of power.

Decent people should have compassion for those who are afflicted with gender confusion, gender dysphoria, or Gender Identity Disorder. But decency, compassion, and love do not require people to affirm disordered thinking as right thinking. Quite the opposite. And compassion and love do not require people to set aside their true beliefs about what behaviors are perverse and harmful to their livelihood. Real love requires that we first know what is true. This bill is based on false, destructive assumptions and must be defeated along with any lawmaker who supports it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your U.S. Senators in Washington D.C. an email or a fax asking them to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA!
(Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

 Click HERE to support the work of IFI.

Once again, Barack Obama has affirmed his commitment to radical, subversive change; his sycophancy to the homosexual lobby; and, implicitly, his embrace of heresy. He has already signed into law the dangerously flawed “Hate Crimes” bill, declared his intent to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and committed to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Then on May 28, 2010 Obama issued the following proclamation

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level….

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

Joe Carter writing on the First Things blog seeks further clarity from Obama:

Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals-because of their bisexuality-have enriched America and how transgendered-because or their transgendered orientation-have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.

Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks-people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual-who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example.

Obama wants all Americans to “recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans,” insisting that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”

No sane person would ever argue that homosexuals have contributed nothing to society. That’s as absurd as claiming that adulterers, porn users, or gossips have contributed nothing to society.

But the sexual impulses and sexual behavior of homosexuals and cross-dressers are irrelevant to their contributions. Therefore, making irrelevant characteristics the central focus of “Pride” month as Obama did is absurd. More important, the particular irrelevant characteristics that Obama has chosen to highlight are, in the view of many, disordered and immoral.

Those who experience, for example, selfish, vain, greedy, gluttonous, deceitful, promiscuous, incestuous, sadistic, pederastic, gossipy, philandering, or polyamorous impulses and engage in behaviors impelled by such impulses have also contributed to society. How would Americans respond if the president were to proclaim June “Polyamory Pride Month”? Substituting another irrelevant and morally questionable characteristic for homosexuality brings into sharper relief the dubious nature of Obama’s proclamation.

Joe Carter emphasizes this point:

Presumably all of these Americans who have “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” have other characteristics besides their sexual orientation. They are men and women, black and Asian, right-handed and left-handed, etc. So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if it has no bearing on their accomplishments?

Imagine if we swapped out “LGBT” for “left-handed white people” in his proclamation: “Left-handed white Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, left-handed white individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly left-handed, white employees are serving at every level.”

Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals?

All mature people understand that fallen, sinful humans also do good acts and make positive contributions to society because fallen, sinful people are all that the world has. There exists nothing but fallen, sinful people who experience disordered impulses and engage in immoral behaviors. We don’t honor our fellow men and women for those impulses and behaviors; we honor them for their good deeds.

It is justifiable to single out for special attention the accomplishments of a group defined by characteristics that carry no behavioral implications open to moral assessment and whose contributions are overlooked because of society’s ignorance or bigotry, like African Americans or the disabled. But homosexuality is not ontologically equivalent to race or disability, and volitional homosexual conduct is a legitimate object of moral assessment.

Obama is using his power, his position, and this proclamation to make a fallacious association between good deeds and homosexuality. It is an exploitative stratagem to normalize homosexuality. Associate homosexuality with something positive like creativity, compassion, or self-sacrifice, and eventually the good feelings society has for creativity, compassion, or self- sacrifice will be (irrationally) transferred to homosexuality or cross-dressing.

It’s critical to understand the fallacious assumptions embedded in Obama’s declaration because these assumptions are promoted in many societal contexts, including public education. Homosexuals are not a category of humans in the same sense that racial minorities are a category of humans. Homosexuality is a sin disposition–not a morally neutral condition like skin color. When homosexuals have contributed something of value to society, those contributions should be noted. Their sexual predilections, however, are worthy of neither honor nor mention.

My sense and the sense of those who are similarly engaged in the cultural debate about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder is that far too many conservatives refuse to participate in this critical debate for a number of reasons, including an unbiblical and selfish unwillingness to experience persecution (aka cowardice); an unbiblical unwillingness to experience righteous anger; and a (perhaps willful) ignorance of the cultural implications of their indefensible passivity even as perversion is promoted as righteousness through our public schools, courts, legislatures, news media, entertainment industry–and even the highest elective office in the United States.

Editor’s Note: IFI requested comments or clarifications on the AOL article from Focus on the Family. They did not respond.

There has been much speculation about why James Dobson left Focus on the Family (FOTF). The speculation is that he was, in effect, forced out because some in leadership hope to create a kindler, gentler face for FOTF, which seems strange in that it’s hard to imagine someone kindler or gentler than James Dobson.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson writes that “Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.”

A recent AOL article about the shift in leadership at FOTF, although not providing proof for those rumors, does suggest they may be true.

James Dobson’s replacement Jim Daly said:

“When you look back from a pro-life perspective, what were the gains there?…We don’t see the results for the energy, the money, everything else that’s been poured into the political sphere.”

Daly is simply wrong in his assertion that the pro-life position has seen little or no gains. Because of the perseverance of pro-life warriors, polls show that there has been significant decline in support for the anti-life position, particularly among the younger generation.

Daly also said:

“We as a Christian community need to refocus a bit on what’s important in the culture. For us, it’s family. That’s our mission….I don’t know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I’m not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles, [for] 98 percent of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.”

This statement reveals a rather surprising naivete. Perhaps Mr. Daly hasn’t read any of the research done by Stanley Kurtz who found that when “same-sex marriage” was legalized in Scandinavia, heterosexual investment in traditional marriage declined. This makes sense. Legalized “same-sex marriage” embodies and promotes the radical and subversive ideas that marriage has no intrinsic connection to heterosexuality and no intrinsic connection to procreation, so why should 98 percent of the population find an institution that is unrelated to heterosexuality and unrelated to procreation relevant? Why should those who do not hold orthodox Jewish, Muslim, or Christian views find traditional marriage relevant?

If the family is FOTF’s mission, then they better figure out how to stop the pro-homosexual juggernaut — nicely, of course — because soon every child from kindergarten through high school will be taught about “diverse family structures” and Heather’s two nice mommies.

What FOTF needs to bear in mind is that while it’s easy for the pro-life position to be advanced through emotional appeals to the heart like the Tim Tebow ad that aired during the Super Bowl, it’s very difficult for the pro-traditional marriage and anti-homosexuality position to do that. The other side has the clear narrative advantage. It’s much easier to create a touching film about a little boy with two mommies or a picture book about cute furry homosexual animals than it is to create heartstring-tugging picture books and films that show the immorality and societal devastation of homosexual practice and “same-sex marriage.”

We live, and move, and have our being in a culture that Neil Postman described as a place where “imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response” reign supreme and where “logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline” resonate little. This means that those who can create compelling stories that pack an emotional punch will win the hearts and minds of Americans. Those who must rely on logic, exposition, and objectivity are at a distinct polemical disadvantage.

As evidence for his claim that a kindler, gentler approach to cultural issues is more effective, Daly claimed that the soft Tebow ad was a “game changer.” What a Barna poll showed was that of those who believe abortion should be legal, 4 percent said the commercial was cause for them to reconsider their opinion about abortion. Oddly, the poll also showed that the ad caused 8 percent of those who believe abortion should not be legal to reconsider their opinion on abortion.

Methinks Mr. Daly overstates the case, but perhaps the ad will be a “game changer.” If so, then FOTF should make a slick and soft game-changing ad about homosexuality.

For the most part the church has long adopted the soft, “We heart homosexuality” approach, dribbling virtually no energy or money into the political sphere, and we see the effects: even as the younger generation of Christians moves to an anti-abortion position, they have moved to a love the sinnerand the sin position on homosexuality.

Mr. Daly also said “I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for (sic) the process.” To whom exactly is Jim Daly alluding? James Dobson? Or is he referring to those relatively few stalwart culture warriors who are willing to endure the malignant lies and obscene epithets that a courageous stand for truth in the public square on this issue elicits? The language employed by Mr. Daly here is the kind of language commonly employed by either homosexualists (i.e., homosexuals and those who support their ontological, moral, and political views) or by those Christians who are unwilling to publicly condemn volitional homosexual practice as immoral, even as our public schools affirm homosexuality to children with public money.

Who defines “demeaning” for FOTF? That’s a critical question because those who affirm a homosexual identity believe that public statements about the immorality of volitional homosexual acts are demeaning. And those who support legalized “same-sex marriage” believe that moral opposition to it is demeaning. If FOTF allows the culture to define what is demeaning, then silence is their only option.

Moving forward, how will FOTF oppose “homosexual marriage”?

How will FOTF oppose the widespread cultural embrace of specious ideas about the nature and morality of homosexuality, even among Christians?

How will FOTF work to stop the exposure of elementary, middle, and high school students in public schools to homosexuality-affirming resources disguised as “anti-bullying” resources?

Mr. Daly rejects being “highly confrontational,” a commitment with which I would wholeheartedly agree — depending on how “confrontational” is defined. If Daly means that he seeks to confront the culture, but without hostility, his goal is admirable. If, on the other hand, he is rejecting not just hostility but also cultural confrontations, then there’s a problem. To confront means to defy or come up against, which is what will be required if we hope to protect the unborn, children, the family, speech rights, religious liberty, and truth.

Shouldn’t we boldly confront the efforts of homosexualists who are working feverishly to expose our littlest ones to homosexuality and “transgenderism” in our public schools? How perverse does the behavior that our public schools affirm have to become and how young the children to whom and in whom it’s affirmed before the church as well as para-church organizations will become willing to confront the unproven, corrupt ideas promoted in public schools?

It certainly has not been any mythical confrontational tactics of serious orthodox Christians that have rendered our Christian youth vulnerable to the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. Here’s what has led the body of Christ, including our youth, to respect and affirm heresy:

• The cowardice and ignorance of the church which results in a retreat from the public square
• The successful infiltration of homosexual activism in public education through critical pedagogy, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)and its satellite Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the American Library Association, schools or departments of education that are dominated by “progressives” who train teachers, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “educational” project ironically named “Teaching Tolerance,” and numerous “anti-bullying” curricula and resources
• Hollywood that uses the powerful media of television and film to transform cultural views by idealizing homosexuality and ridiculing traditional views of sexuality without ever having to make a well-supported argument. Hollywood knows that if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s being uncool.
• Judicial activism
• The biased mainstream news media that celebrates homosexuality through sound bites and imagery
• Advertising that uses imagery to glamorize homosexuality

Far too many churches and para-church organizations are adopting emasculated approaches to the pro-homosexual movement. Not only are we not pro-active in preparing our youth intellectually to understand the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality, but we’re not even sufficiently re-active.

Just when the cultural threat is greatest; when Obama has appointed lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; when he has appointed Kevin Jennings, homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to be the Safe Schools “czar”; when the “Hate Crimes” bill has passed Congress; when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is soon up for a vote; when the Student Non-Discrimination Act has been proposed; when the Safe Schools Improvement Act has been proposed; and when efforts to eradicate marriage continue unabated, we need warriors who are willing to confront lies and protect children.

Let’s hope and pray that Focus on the Family continues to lead courageously, perseveringly, and unambiguously on the critical cultural issues pertaining to life, family, and marriage.

Even as we’re working to represent Illinois families in Springfield, we must continue to keep an eye on what’s going on at the national level! The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) could come up in the U.S. House as early as this week, and it’s important to stand firm against this bill!

ENDA would prohibit both public and private employers from making employment decisions based on an employee’s actual or “perceived” sexual behavior, ambiguously defined as “sexual orientation.” What this means is that all Christian business owners, including those who run Christian bookstores and daycares, could not make choices about hiring or firing someone because of their sexually immoral conduct (or cross-dressing or “transgenderism”), even if their behavior contradicts what the company stands for. This is a direct attack on religious freedom.

ACTION: Please tell your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA! (Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

Twelve of Illinois’ 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsors of this anti-business, anti-religious bill. Two are Republican: Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk. The other ten are Democrats: Mellisa Bean, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Luis Gutierrez, Deborah Halvorson, Phil Hare, Jesse Jackson Jr., Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, and Jan Schakowsky.

We’ll make sure to let you know when this bill comes up in the U.S. House.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is again being considered by our lawmakers in Washington D.C. ENDA is a federal law proposed by the homosexual lobby and would create a special class of protection based on someone’s actual or perceived ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender preference.’ The law would force Christian schools, organizations, Christian business owners, and more to hire and give preferential treatment to people involved in homosexual behavior and/or people physically altering their gender.

ACTION: Please ask your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA! (Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

Twelve of Illinois’ 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsors of this anti-business, anti-religious bill. Two are Republican: Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk. The other ten are Democrats: Mellisa Bean, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Luis Gutierrez, Deborah Halvorson, Phil Hare, Jesse Jackson Jr., Mark Kirk, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, and Jan Schakowsky.

Background
Practically, how would ENDA be applied?

• A male teacher comes into work dressed as a woman because it is his ‘gender preference’ that day. He must be allowed to teach, talk with the children about why he’s dressing this way, and even use the women’s restroom.
• As a Christian business owner, you decide not to hire a person who is openly engaging in homosexual behavior because it is against your religious beliefs. You are convicted of discrimination, because ENDA only gives religious exemptions to churches and religious orders, not businesses or ministries.

ENDA will also promote an unprofessional discussion of sexuality in the workplace. People will be emboldened and be given carte blanche (in fact a governmental shield of protection) to air their sexual laundry and express their sexuality including their “gender identity.”

Morevoer, employers will face conflicts between meeting their duty to provide a fair and professional environment free of sexual harassment and making accommodations for employees’ sexual expressions in the workplace.

The Human Rights Campaign, the homosexual lobbying group with the $30+ million budget that is pushing hard to get ENDA passed in Congress, has described what it would like a ‘non-discrimination’ workplace to look like. Actions go as far as distributing Transgender Handouts at work. CLICK HERE to read more.

Unfortunately, due to the billions of dollars behind the pro-homosexual lobby, the U.S. House of Representatives is very close to passing this bill, and thousands of homosexual-friendly businesses and business associations have signed onto the law. CLICK HERE to see which businesses and associations favor ENDA.

MORE ACTION: If you are a member of an association supporting ENDA, call immediately and voice opposition!

As Christians, employees, and business owners, it is important that we understand ENDA, and with a voice louder than the homosexual lobby, tell our state leaders this bill violates American and Christian liberties.

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex. 

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement:

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers — seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty. 

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

• “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” 
• “The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People” 
• “Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity – a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,'” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family. 

There’s no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum’s appointment: Obama doesn’t care, and the Senate won’t be consulted.

On Saturday night, President Barack Obama delivered his sycophantic, pro-homosexual magnum opus to the nation’s largest homosexual and “transgender” lobbying organization: the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Obama promised attendees a veritable smorgasbord of legislation that will further their anarchical social agenda, while undermining speech rights, parental rights, and religious liberty.

• He declared that he is “committed” to ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prevents open homosexuals from serving in the military.
• He promised to pass a “hate” crimes bill which would allow government intrusion into the thoughts and beliefs of citizens and criminalize beliefs that offend homosexuals.
• He acknowledged that he and his administration are “pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill” (ENDA) which will likely prevent even private faith-based organizations and institutions, including churches and schools, from making employment decisions based on legitimate judgments about behaviors that violate their own beliefs.
• He “called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the “Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act” which would result in states having to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and would further financially burden the federal government by requiring the provision of benefits to relationships that are morally disordered and do not serve the public good. The Domestic Partners Act defines a “domestic partner as an adult unmarried person living with another adult unmarried person of the same sex in a committed, intimate relationship.” How, one wonders, do these partners prove to the government that they are in a committed, intimate relationship?

Obama began by thanking the HRC for the work they do “every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people . . . who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.” The HRC does not work for equality. They work to compel societal approval of volitional homosexual acts. Nor do they seek tolerance, which means to put up with something objectionable. Rather, they seek affirmation, and they pursue it by deliberately misconstruing moral claims as bias, bigotry, discrimination, and hatred.

The claim that disapproval of homosexuality is analogous to racial discrimination depends on the utterly fallacious comparison of homosexuality to race or skin color. Race is 100 percent heritable and devoid of behavioral implications. Homosexuality is not 100 percent heritable and is centrally defined by acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment — and moral disapproval. If society permits this group of people to be defined as a specially protected class based on their subjective feelings and volitional acts and accorded special rights because of those characteristics, then logically other groups must be defined as a specially protected class based on their subjective feelings and volitional acts and accorded special rights because of them.

Homosexualists don’t apply their assumptions regarding what constitutes hatred consistently. They don’t, for example, view moral disapproval of polyamory as hatred of polyamorous people or moral disapproval of paraphilias as hatred of paraphiliacs. The belief that homosexuality, cross-dressing, and elective amputations of sexual anatomy are immoral is the one moral claim that they have successfully misconstrued in the minds of many as hatred.

Obama laughably described the HRC as advocating “on behalf of those without a voice.” To suggest that in the last thirty years homosexuals have had no voice is ludicrous at best, utterly deceitful at worst. It’s hard to defend the claim that homosexuals are voiceless when they are trumpeting their subversive views through the arts and entertainment industry, public education, and myriad organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; the National Education Association; The Southern Poverty Law Center; the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; the Safe Schools Coalition; the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; the American Library Association; and the Transgender Law Center.

Obama fretted about laws that yet remain to be changed and hearts that yet remain to be opened, condescendingly describing “fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes.” Although the beliefs that same-sex attraction is disordered and that volitional homosexual acts are immoral are most certainly enduring, they’re no more outworn than are the beliefs that sexual attraction to one’s parent is disordered and that sexual engagement with one’s parent is immoral. Moreover, the belief that homosexual acts are immoral does not suggest a “closed heart.” If, in reality, homosexual acts are objectively disordered and contrary to God’s will, telling others that hard truth constitutes an act of genuine love.

And if the arguments in favor of traditional views of sexual morality are outworn, perhaps our enlightened, progressive president should share his wisdom with the many well-respected scholars who hold such antiquated notions, including Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Henri Blocher, Joseph Bottum, D.A. Carson, Tim Challies, Charles Chaput, Mark Dever, Anthony Esolen, John S. Feinberg, John Frame, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Wayne Grudem, John Finnis, Stanton Jones, Walter Kaiser, Meredith Kline, Al Mohler, Douglas Moo, Russell Moore, Mark Noll,David Novak, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Patrick Henry Reardon, Leland Ryken, Thomas Schreiner, Janet E. Smith, John Stott, Bruce Ware,Thomas Weinandy, Christopher Wolfe, N.T. Wright, and Ravi Zacharias.

Obama faulted those who see families led by homosexuals as different from families led by heterosexuals. But families led by homosexuals are different from families led by a heterosexual couple. In their preference for their same sex, homosexuals acknowledge that men are by nature different from women. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex must by nature be different from a union of two people of ontologically different sexes, with each bringing to the family that which is distinct to his or her “gender.”

Obama also faults those he claims would deny homosexuals “the rights most Americans take for granted.” We as a society, however, ought never come to the place where we start ascribing rights to people based on their subjective, emotional desires, sexual attractions, and volitional sexual conduct. And we ought never deprive citizens of their right to freely associate or not with those whose public conduct and espoused beliefs they find objectionable and destructive. I should have the right not to rent an apartment in a building I own to an unmarried heterosexual couple, an incestuous couple, a polyamorous union, or a homosexual couple.

Obama disingenuously claimed that it is the “force of the arguments” homosexuals make and “quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance” that have brought about change. He’s right. It has been acts of defiance and rebellion that have resulted in the tragic cultural shifts we are seeing. Defiance; rebellion; libertinism; false arguments; judicial activism; censorship; the exploitation of public education, and the use of epithetic language are just some of the behaviors and tactics that have transformed the culture in foolish and destructive ways–ways which Obama calls “progress.”

Obama appealed to foundational American principles when he described a movement to legitimize deviant sex as a “movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” But what rights and responsibilities have homosexual men and women been denied? Despite obscurantist arguments to the contrary, all homosexuals have access to marriage. Men who want to have sex with men and women who want to have sex with women do not constitute some particular class of people denied access to marriage. The truth is that they don’t want to participate in the institution of marriage whose cornerstone and central feature is sexual complementarity. The particular sexual proclivities of those who experience same-sex attraction do not entitle them unilaterally to change the definition of marriage to fit their own inclinations.

Softening the image of the riots that sparked another phase of the sexual revolution, Obama referred to the “Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.” He’s right again: we should support those who experience intense, persistent, and seemingly intractable desires: we should support them in their efforts to resist those impulses. We should come alongside them, pray with and for them, and love them through their difficult struggle to submit to God’s will. But we must never support them in their sin or treat their sin as if it’s good, beautiful, or worthy of affirmation.

Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama declared that he is with homosexuals in their fight to elect candidates who share their values, and he’s with them in their “stand” against those who would enshrine “discrimination” into our Constitution, and he’s with them in their fight for “progress” in our capital and across America. Obama announced that he desires that all Americans would come to view homosexual relationships as just as “admirable” as heterosexual relationships. Clearly, his fight for public affirmation of homosexuality; his unequivocal opposition to historical views of sexual morality; his willingness to aggressively use legislation to promote controversial, unproven sexual theories; and his battle-ready stance to promote heresy prove that he is man committed to public peace.

Homosexual activists are again pushing radical legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — H.R. 2981 & S. 1584. It has already been introduced in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and is currently in committee. President Barack Obama is on record supporting ENDA.

Take ACTION: Please contact your Congressman and ask him/her to vote NO on ENDA. You can also call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators at (202) 225-3121 and provide your zip code to be connected to your House member’s office.

Co-sponsors from Illinois are U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D), Roland Burris (D) and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th).

Background
The Illinois Family Institute opposes ENDA, in part because it will elevate self-identified homosexual and gender confused indivuals to protected class status in the workplace. If passed, this will force religious employers to hire and promote homosexual employees even if they find that lifestyle to be morally objectionable. Other federally protected classes are determined by the following criteria:

1) an obvious immutable (not capable of change) characteristic; 
2) a history of discrimination evidenced by economic disenfranchisement; and 
3) political powerlessness.

“Sexual orientation,” “transgenderism” and “gender identity” fail to meet any of the above criteria.

The underlying purpose of ENDA, contrary to its disingenuous title, is to discriminate against anyone opposing homosexuality and transgenderism in the workplace. It is another effort to normalize homosexuality in the culture. ENDA will establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in the workplace, equivalent to unchangeable characteristics of race and gender and constitutionally protected religious beliefs. 

Under ENDA, employers will be forced to make decisions that run contrary to their religious beliefs — a violation of their First Amendment rights. Employees will be forced to remain silent regarding their views on homosexuality in order to avoid “hostile work environment” claims. Many real-life examples attest to the negative impact ENDA-type policies have in the workplace.

ENDA, at the very least, is a serious threat to the religious liberty of Christians in the workplace.

Written by Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and Research -The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

People of faith are on a collision course with the radical homosexual agenda. It is inevitable. In order for the radical homosexual agenda to be fully implemented, people of faith are going to have to be silenced and marginalized. The radical homosexual community will have to violate our religious liberty and our consciences in order to achieve this.

At this very moment, three issues move us closer to what I believe is an eventual clash. These issues affect our religious liberty in unique and distressing ways. I will mention two related to each.

Same-sex marriage

First, same-sex marriage will lead to the violation of our children’s consciences. Many of us send our children to government-run schools armed with our convictions and the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality. Yet our children are already getting a much different message in some of them. Imagine what will happen if the government feels compelled to indoctrinate our children about the new civil right of same-sex marriage. We can expect government to look for ways to achieve this. The “struggle for same-sex marriage” will be detailed as a civil rights triumph in their history and civics textbooks. Our children will be exposed to speakers who will “help” them understand and accept same-sex marriage. Doubtless, many more insidious means will be deployed to indoctrinate our children and undermine their faith convictions about homosexuality. 

Second, our freedom to choose our associations based on our religious convictions will be trampled. Legalization of same-sex marriage will create a situation in which the government will prohibit religious groups from using convictions about homosexuality as a determining factor in membership. This will extend to our participation in activities and access to religiously based accommodations, like church camps or retreats. What we have been seeing on this front lately is just the beginning. Imagine if we get to the place where same-sex marriage is treated as a civil right and all of the power of the United States government is brought to bear on making sure that no one involved in a same-sex marriage has his or her civil rights violated. It will not be possible for the government to secure the civil rights of those who are in a homosexual marriage and simultaneously accommodate our religiously held beliefs about homosexuality. 

Employment protections

The Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) is a perfect example of the coming conflict. This bill is live today in Congress and it threatens religious liberty. First of all, our ability to hire people who share our values will be taken away. A version of this bill provides an exemption for religious groups, but not all of their religious activities. The provision defines what is to be considered an exempt religious activity. So a church may be exempted from the requirement to extend employment to homosexuals, but this same exemption will not be available to other faith-based activities, like bookstores, daycare centers, or retreats. ENDA will prevent churches from applying their faith convictions about homosexuality to all of their hiring decisions. 

Second, our faith will lead to accusations of discrimination in the workplace. These non-discrimination laws will treat as bigots all who communicate any kind of negative conviction about homosexuality in the workplace. Part of the current bill reads: ‘It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.” This language is so broad in its scope that a homosexual would have legal grounds to sue an employer who keeps a Bible on his desk. He can simply argue that by displaying a Bible, the employer is publicly identifying with its condemnation of homosexual behavior and thereby “adversely affecting” his status as an employee.

Hate crimes

Hate crimes bills also threaten our religious liberty. First, our faith conviction about homosexuality could lead to federal prosecution for hate crimes. Under hate crimes statutes a Christian who happens to engage in an act of violence against a homosexual could be charged with a hate crime simply because he believes the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, regardless of whether that has anything to do with the crime. No one should engage in acts of violence against a homosexual simply because he is a homosexual. But neither should someone’s religiously held beliefs about homosexuality be the cause of his prosecution.

Second, hate crimes legislation could have a chilling effect on religious speech that is critical of homosexuality. A precedent already exists. Today some pastors are reluctant to speak about political issues because they fear the loss of their tax exempt status. To assure compliance with the law, they even shy away from political speech that is still permissible. We can expect a similar response from some pastors if they begin to fear being charged with a hate crime for potentially inciting violence against homosexuals through their preaching or teaching or if they fear endangering their tax exempt status.

These are all serious issues. They must be addressed. Our faith and the radical homosexual agenda are on track for a cataclysmic conflict. If the radical homosexual agenda is codified into law, our own government will be arrayed against us and our struggle to protect our religious freedom. We can fight this battle now or we can fight it later, but we are going to fight this battle. We must stand up and protect our freedom to believe and to practice our faith according to God’s leading, not governments’.

Literally within minutes after President Barack Obama took the oath of office yesterday, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of “The Agenda: Civil Rights” – to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.”  His stated plans include the following:

• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage; 
• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
• Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy;
• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;
• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law; and, 
• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel released the following statement today in response to Obama’s stated pro-homosexual agenda:

“Well, the high-sheen veneer and ‘cult of personality’ euphoria surrounding Barack Obama looks to be dissolving rather quickly.  While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’    

“For all the talk of ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and ‘coming together,’ it’s becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama’s administration will likely be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory.  I suspect the immediate, stark and ‘in your face’ changes made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of policy, from his administration. 

“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.  Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.  The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space.  It’s a zero-sum game.  When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority.  People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it’s going to be a bumpy four years.”

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) may be voted on in US House this week. Please read this note and take action as recommended. Then please forward this note to everyone you know, and especially to anyone associated with a Christian business, charitable organizations, or religious school!

ENDA would prohibit employers from making employment decisions — such as hiring, promotions and firing — based on an individual’s “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.” While the bill purports to exempt religious groups, it really doesn’t do that. The court has to decide if your purpose is sufficiently religious enough in character.

ACTION: Please tell your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA (H.R. 2015)!

ENDA would add gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons to the list of federally protected groups included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill would institutionalize homosexuality and other long condemned sexual and social behaviors to a protected right under the law, and it would punish employers, landlords and others who discriminate in any way against such persons.

ENDA will require the accommodation of language, dress and “gestures” by ENDA-covered individuals, including transvestites and others experimenting with their “gender identity” at public facilities that provide services for CHILDREN or whose facilities are frequented by children.

Please contact your Congressman today!

Background

Here is more information about ENDA (H.R. 2015) from our friends at the Family Research Council:

• ENDA affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
• The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists’ attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.
• The first “religious exemption” clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual applicants. 
• The second “religious exemption” clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the organization or company. 
• It is unlikely that the “religious exemption” included in the bill would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees. 
• ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.
• ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.