Written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Marriage is very important to me. Personally, it is a covenant that I made with my wife of over 35 years. It is a sacred trust between the two of us but it is more than that. Marriage plays a significant part in the health of our society and the future of our children. This is why I have fought so hard to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In November, Illinois became the sixteenth state (including the District of Columbia) to change its definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. You probably didn’t hear too much about the fight in Illinois, which dragged on for several months longer than homosexual “marriage” activists had intended. Why did it take so long for an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to approve what homosexual activists promise us is an inevitable part of our future?

The answer is that, for quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous stand—which included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislators—had the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on their activity in May, noting, “stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan [to redefine marriage] from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation [to redefine marriage] in check, with several House members still undecided.”

In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan, and Ron Sandack.

As the Associated Press explained, after the bill failed in May, “Proponents then launched another aggressive campaign with help from labor, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and the ACLU… [Illinois Governor] Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan also persuade[d] lawmakers in the final days.” Shortly after Illinois’ decision, New Mexico’s State Supreme Court ruled homosexual “marriage” a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists have been hailing these victories as an unstoppable tide of change sweeping the nation. They rarely mention the fact that 31 states have already passed amendments to their state constitutions clarifying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even with the Supreme Court striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, the tide may in fact be turning.

From now on, advocates for homosexual “marriage” face a very different landscape. Only one of the remaining states (which have not redefined marriage) has a Democrat-controlled state legislature. That state is West Virginia, where recent polls suggest that less than 20 percent of the population supports redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Thus far, homosexual activists have relied on bullying and on two major deceptions. The first is that all they want out of the redefinition of marriage is rights for loving, committed couples. The second is that homosexual marriage is so incredibly popular that its universal acceptance is inevitable. To be on the “right side of history,” we are told we must get on board now.

The first lie is being exposed before our eyes. Illinois had already legalized civil unions. But as a brief “Civil Unions are not Enough: Six Key Reasons Why” from Lambda Legal explains, “Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage…those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment…” What homosexual activists want, and have always wanted, is mandatory public approval of their lifestyle.

The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.

But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the fight is nearly over and that their victory is inevitable. Yet barring action from United States Supreme Court, it seems most likely that the real fight is only beginning. The battle will be waged state by state, and it will test the patience and perseverance of all. Several of the black Democrats in Illinois who voted to redefine marriage are facing primary challengers, as are all three Republicans. Will they face consequences for their decisions? Only time will tell.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com blog.

Politicians and pundits are making mincemeat of marriage, faith, and religious liberty.

Rumors are circulating that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and homosexual activist, State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) may call for a vote on the marriage redefinition bill (SB 10) next week. Because their ideological accomplices in the political and punditry spheres are promoting this effort with fervor and tenacity, it’s essential that Illinoisans understand the specious nature of the arguments that animate them. The Chicago Tribune once again provides a cornucopia of lousy — that is to say, false and destructive — ideas about marriage, ideas which, unfortunately, extend beyond the narrow boundaries of the Tribune and the narrow minds of newly installed Chicago Alderman Deb Mell, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, and Governor Pat Quinn.

Lesbian activist Deb Mell’s recent Tribune commentary isn’t actually a rational argument for the redefinition of marriage. Rather, it’s an extended piece of demagoguery that embodies and conceals a troubling set of assumptions and an absurd conclusion. And it’s the only thing Mell’s got, so she repeats it ad nauseum.

To summarize her “argument”: She and her partner have been together for nine years, they own a home together, they do household chores together, they are raising a child together, they assume extended familial roles together, they attend a church that rejects orthodoxy together, they care for one another during illness, and they manage their finances together. Therefore, marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity.

Yes, folks, that’s what passes for an argument in the alternate universe called “progressivism.” No attempt to define marriage. No attempt to justify why marriage is restricted to two people. No attempt to explain why platonic friends, siblings, or polyamorists — all of whom can do all the things listed above — should not have their unions legally recognized as marriages. No attempt to justify the deliberate denial of children’s inherent right to be raised by both a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. No attempt to explain what the government interest is in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships.

While Mell replaces sound logic with appeals to emotion, Eric Zorn replaces it with ad hominem arguments and condescending dismissals, starting with calling business owners who make distinctions between right and wrong actions “intolerant.” To business owners like the Christian photographers who have been fined $6,637 for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony, Zorn offers these tolerant and compassionate responses: “Tough,” “Please,” “Yawn,” and “Then don’t open a business.”

Zorn believes that anyone who makes moral judgments with which he disagrees is intolerant. One wonders, would Zorn similarly malign a photographer who refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between a father and his 30 year-old consenting daughter? And let’s complicate the question by hypothesizing this refusal comes during a time when laws prohibiting incestuous acts between consenting adults have been repealed. After all, the government has no business in our bedrooms.

Out of either ignorance or dishonesty, Zorn fails to address the fact that the photographers did not decline to photograph homosexuals. They declined to photograph a homosexual ceremony. They were not discriminating against people. They were making legitimate ethical distinctions among types of activities—an inconvenient truth for “progressives.”

Zorn seems to believe that the ultimate arbiter of all matters moral is THE LAW. Yes, laws like the Illinois Human Rights Act, which was created by Left-leaning Illinois politicians in cahoots with homosexual activists, are the ultimate arbiters of moral truth. Regarding religious liberty, Zorn says:

“You want to open a business that serves the public? Then you can’t practice discrimination on the basis of…religion…sexual orientation and so on….The law [the IL Human Rights Act] doesn’t care what you think about customers in these protected categories.”

Zorn doesn’t seem to see his inconsistent application of both a principle and a law. He uses the law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and religion to compel business owners to engage in an activity that violates their religious beliefs.

Further, “sexual orientation” is merely a dishonest term concocted to disguise the fact that a condition constituted by subjective sexual desires and volitional sexual acts has no similarity to other protected categories. Zorn with unequivocal eagerness subordinates religious liberty to the newly minted sexual “rights” of homosexuals. Methinks there’s some rollicking grave-rolling roiling the cemeteries of our Founding Fathers.

Zorn harrumphs that the religious protections in the proposed marriage revision bill that protect the right of churches to refuse to solemnize homosexual “weddings” are all the protections conservative people of faith deserve. This exposes Zorn’s ignorance of what it means to be a Christian and what the First Amendment was intended to protect. The totality of the life of a Christian is informed by his or her faith. There is no distinction between the sacred and the secular spheres for true followers of Christ, a point Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

Governor Quinn, who claims to be a Roman Catholic, reveals, like Zorn, a troubling measure of theological ignorance. Quinn defends his defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage by stating that he is acting in accordance with his “conscience.” Zorn and Quinn share a strange and stunted view of faith, doctrine, and religious liberty. Zorn wants to keep religion out of the public square. Quinn wants to keep it out of the public square and his conscience.

IFI is extending an urgent plea to our readers to take a few moments to express your opposition to SB 10, the bill that will permit the government to recognize non-marital unions as marriages, will harm children, and will further undermine religious liberty. It’s not just homosexual activists in Illinois who are watching this vote. Homosexual activists and their ideological allies throughout the country are watching Illinois. So too are conservatives in other states in which marriage is now or soon will be under attack. Defeat of this bill will offer hope to them.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your state representative.  Encourage your him/her to uphold marriage, family and religious freedom in Illinois by voting against SB 10.  Then take a moment to call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and ask your state representative to vote NO to SB 10.

 Please help your Illinois Family Institute remain strong in this fight.  
Please, click HERE to contribute what you can today.

Thank you.

Chicago Tribune columnist and self-presumptive GOP consultant  Eric Zorn offered to “straighten out state GOP’s gay mess.”  In a nutshell, his nutty recommendation is for the Illinois Republican Party to “appoint someone who supports the legalization of same-sex marriage” to run the party. At least Zorn recognizes the critical importance of that oft-dismissed “social issue” of marriage.

He has joined homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans in calling for a more inclusive “big tent.”

He has two reasons for this suggestion: 1. It will result in “sputtering, incoherent apologies from cynical Leftists,” and 2. It’s good politics.

Zorn claims conservative fears about the erosion of religious freedoms are unwarranted. Apparently, he hasn’t heard about the florist in Washington who is being sued by the state for her religiously based refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding.”

And apparently he is unaware that lesbian and former Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum has publicly stated that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. Surely, Zorn is not so foolish as to believe these kinds of cultural effects happen immediately.

Zorn is either ignorant or disingenuous when he seeks to reassure people of faith by stating that the same-sex “marriage” bill pending in the Illinois House “provides significant protection for religious institutions that don’t wish to formalize same-sex unions.” Why doesn’t Zorn talk about the protections—or lack thereof—for Christian schools in hiring or for Christian owners of businesses, particularly those involved in the wedding industry (e.g., florists, caterers, photographers, videographers, wedding/reception venue-owners).

I give Zorn credit for one surprising admission. He looked at the cultural shift on marriage among younger voters and admitted that “their high schools…have had gay-straight alliance groups and assemblies at which tolerance for homosexuality has been drummed into them” (emphasis added).

Well, I give him partial credit for the “drummed into them” part. What he failed to acknowledge is that it’s not “tolerance” that’s being drummed in, but compulsory approval.

Zorn then makes the risible claim that people are “looking at the evidence and arguments” and concluding that legalization of same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. The vast majority of Americans, especially our youth, have never heard the best arguments from conservative scholars on marriage. They are not carefully examining evidence and arguments. They’re being indoctrinated in schools that censor conservative resources. They’re being  emotionally manipulated by skilled Hollywood myth-makers. And they’re being maligned into silence by liberal bullies who hurl the “hater” epithet at anyone who dares to express moral propositions with which the Left disagrees.

This dearth of intellectual exploration explains why our lawmakers and liberal pundits refuse to answer the following questions:

1. What is marriage? What are the inherent, fundamental constituent features of marriage? 
2. Why should marriage be limited to two people? 
3. Are polyamorists and bisexuals denied their civil rights and are they being treated unequally since they cannot marry the persons they love? 
4. Marriage revisionists claim that the sole defining feature of marriage is love. They claim that marriage is solely about “who loves whom.” If that’s so, why is the government involved? If the government has a vested interest in legally recognizing and affirming love, then why doesn’t it recognize other loving relationships, like close platonic friendships? 
5. Do children have an inherent right to a mother and a father? 
6. Since marriage revisionists assert that the prohibition of “same-sex marriage” is analogous to the prohibition of interracial marriage, could you tell me in what specific ways homosexual unions per se are analogous to interracial unions? 

Liberals accuse the Republican Party of being “non-inclusive” because it seeks to preserve in law the recognition of marriage as an inherently sexually complementary institution. If that’s the case, is the Democratic Party non-inclusive when it seeks to impose its dogmatic view that sexual complementarity is wholly irrelevant to marriage?

If “progressives” think marriage revisionists have been treated poorly in the Republican Party, imagine how “progressives” would treat the ideological enemy in their midst. How about busting wide open the welcoming doors of the Democratic Party to those who believe that marriage is inherently sexually complementary? And I don’t mean just to those Democrats who privately hold those beliefs. I mean open up those inclusive doors to Democrats who hold those views, express them, and lobby for them. Embrace those Democrats who publicly endorse the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Imagine what would happen if Democrats were to start lobbying for a change in the Democratic platform’s position on marriage or if Speaker Michael Madigan began “privately” urging his colleagues to oppose the redefinition of marriage.

Actually, we don’t have to imagine. The Democratic Party, the bastion of pseudo-tolerance, “monoversity,” and hypocrisy, would go ballistic. Just look at how “progressives” talk about Republicans who believe marriage has a nature, fundamental to which is sexual complementarity.

Common sense and statistics would suggest that surely there are some Democrats who recognize that marriage is inherently sexually complementary. Why don’t we hear about or from them? We don’t hear from them because the “progressive” demand for intellectual and political conformity is too oppressive, too nasty, and too costly for dissent on issues related to homosexuality.

By calling the abandonment of principles “inclusivity,” progressives hope to badger the Republican Party into inviting foxes into the hen-house, something which the Democratic Party would never do—not even in the service of “inclusivity.”

The Left insists on abusing MLK Jr.’s paraphrase of Thomas Parker in the service of normalizing homosexuality: “The arc of the Moral Universe is Long, but it Bends Toward Justice.” Those words have a pithy quotable ring to them, but they’re not absolutely true. Or perhaps it’s the “long” part to which we pay too little attention. Societies move toward and then retreat from justice. For example, ancient societies once embraced the practice of sacrificing children to gods and then later rejected such barbarism. But in 1973, America, arguably the most just and compassionate society in history, once again publicly embraced the sacrifice of children, and in a form even more incomprehensible: Mothers started sacrificing their unborn babies on the altar of their own selfish desires.

Ancient civilizations once embraced homosexuality and then moved away from such a corrosive embrace. And now destructive foolishness is once again embraced.

Currently on this issue, the arc of morality is just bent. 

There are issues on which political pragmatism is warranted and acceptable. The nature of marriage is not one of them—never was, never will be. The nature of marriage is not a peripheral issue of relative insignificance. It is essential to children’s rights, parental rights, speech rights, religious liberty, and the future of any society.  The Left’s continued denial of the ineluctable erosion of these rights through the normalization of homosexuality and the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” points to either their failure of imagination, their lazy refusal to think through the logical implications of an idea, or their dishonesty. (By the way, the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” doesn’t signify smaller government. It will increase dramatically the government’s intrusion into marriage.)

The Republican door to those who actively seek to radically redefine marriage or any other homosexuality-affirming legislation should be slammed shut. Log Cabin Republicans can meander over to that wide open, inclusive, welcoming Democratic door and try to change the views of the Democratic Party on guns, immigration, tax policy, or abortion.

Oh, and while we’re celebrating all this Democratic openness, maybe the Democratic supporters of true marriage (i.e., sexually complementary marriage) can pop out of the closet and be celebrated by those diversity-loving Dems.

As to Zorn’s reasons for his presumptuous and foolish suggestions: 1. Only vengeful, small-minded people would sacrifice essential principles and truth for the “sputtering, incoherent apologies of cynical Leftists,” and 2. Only foolish people would sacrifice the single most important cultural institution, the inherent needs and rights of children, and truth for political expediency.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

The Veto Session is November 27-29, December 4-6, and possibly January 2-9, 2013.  Governor Patrick Quinn (D-Chicago) told the Associated Press he believes a compromise on gambling is in the offing.  State Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie), sponsor of the massive gambling expansion bill (SB 1849) said House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has orchestrated discussions designed to lead to a deal.  

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, an override would have to start in the Illinois Senate, where SB 1849 received the minimum number of votes (30) for passage.  Sponsors of the massive gambling expansion bill (SB 1849) are counting votes for a potential override of the bill, or they may try to introduce a new bill.    

One of the arguments used to expand gambling is that slots at the tracks will help agriculture. Horse racing revenue declined when casino gambling was legalized in Illinois.  Legalizing more slot machines at 6 racetracks and 5 new casinos will not increase betting on horses.  SB 1849 includes a provision whereby the number of live racing days may be decreased without affecting the tracks ability to conduct video and slot machines gambling. 

Iowa allowed dog tracks to operate casinos only on the condition that casino profits would subsidize dog racing, even though wagering on races has dwindled and crowds are sparse.  Casino owners have tried to change the law to eliminate the races and pay a set fee to the State.  Live racing is costly.  

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to Gov. Quinn, your state senator and state representative asking them to uphold the veto of SB 1849. Then please follow up with a phone call to the Governor’s office to leave the same message, “No More Gambling!”     (Phone:  312-814-2121, 217-782-6830, or 800-642-3112.)

The death of 24 year-old Tonya Reaves on Friday, July 20, following an abortion at Planned Parenthood has prompted a renewed call for accountability in the state’s currently unregulated abortion industry.

Pastor Ceasar LeFlore, Midwest Director of Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), appealed via letter to Illinois’ President of the Senate John Cullerton (D-Chicago), Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), and House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Plainfield) to increase abortion clinic regulation.

Reaves’ death following her abortion in a facility that is not regulated by the State of Illinois is a tragedy, but the letter to Illinois’ legislative leaders points out that “this state’s lack of even the most basic health regulation of abortion providers and clinics is setting the stage for it to happen again.”

Illinois law does not require Planned Parenthood’s clinics to be inspected by the state’s Department of Public Health. This lack of oversight is particularly negligent in light of the fact that Reaves’ second trimester abortion was performed in Planned Parenthood’s Loop Health Center in Chicago, a facility that, according to its own website, refers all surgical procedures to two other abortion clinics, only offering “medication abortion,” commonly known as the “abortion pill,” at the downtown site. 

LeFlore’s missive implores the lawmakers to join the twenty other states that mandate counseling for women who are scheduled to undergo an abortion. Often referred to as “Informed Consent” laws or “Women’s Right to Know” laws, these measures require the physician to inform the pregnant woman of the many risks involved in an abortion. More than half of the states require at least a 24-hour waiting period between receiving counseling for the abortion and completing the procedure.

“Planned Parenthood’s Loop Health Center is clearly not equipped to provide a second trimester abortion or to respond to an emergency situation such as the one that resulted in the tragic death of an otherwise healthy young woman,” explains LeFlore. “A woman who goes to an abortion provider naturally assumes that she is going to a medically approved facility and not to a company that is operating an unlicensed, uninspected, and unregulated surgery.”

L.E.A.R.N. is the nation’s largest black pro-life organization and its Midwest Director is not alone in sounding this clarion call for increased abortion clinic regulation. The letter is cosigned by leaders from the Illinois’ broader pro-life community, including Aid for Women of Northern Lake County, Belleville Area Right to Life, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Concerned Women for America of Illinois, Illinois Citizens for Ethics PAC, Illinois Family Institute, Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Illinois Review, Illinois Right to Life Committee, Knox County Right to Life, Lake County Right to Life. Life Advocacy Resource Project, Lutherans for Life, McHenry County Right to Life, Professional Women’s Network, Pro-Life Action League, Pro-Life/Pro-Family Coalition, Students for Life of Illinois, Tradition Family and Property, and Word of Hope.

The coalition insists that, “The Illinois General Assembly must take seriously the health and safety of the women of Illinois… [and] immediately enact laws and policies that insure the protection of women.” 

It is noteworthy that in the last legislative session, the Illinois legislature failed to call for a vote on H.B. 4117 which would have required all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards as all other ambulatory surgical treatment centers, including those run by Planned Parenthood.

The letter from L.E.A.R.N., et al to the Illinois General Assembly leaders is available HERE.  

 About L.E.A.R.N.: 

The Life Education and Resource Network exists to proclaim the pro-life message within the African-American community through various educational projects. L.E.A.R.N.’s Midwest Director, Pastor Ceasar LeFlore, is available for interviews at 708-849-1630 (office) or 708-378-4712 (cell).

Two Illinois state lawmakers are pushing back against an ACLU lawsuit seeking to overturn the Illinois’ 1996 marriage law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Defying Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, State Reps. Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) and David Reis (R-Olney) have introduced House Joint Resolution 95 (HJR 95) in the Illinois House, which would allow Illinois voters to vote in the 2014 Illinois General Election on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in our state constitution.

(Note: A constitutional marriage amendment has been introduced in every General Assembly since 2003 but has never been given even a hearing.)

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is on record in support of redefining marriage as well as in support of the ACLU lawsuit intended to circumvent the will of the people to accomplish that goal. 

Rep. Reis is “calling upon Lisa Madigan to recuse herself and the resources of her taxpayer-funded state office from supporting two lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of Illinois’ gay marriage ban.”

“‘As Attorney General, it is her office’s duty to support the Illinois Constitution. Statutorily, it has been long established in Illinois that marriage is between a man and a woman,’ Rep. Reis said. ‘Madigan’s use of scarce taxpayer resources is an injustice to the oath of office she swore to uphold.’” 

“Attorney General Madigan stated her office would not defend the state’s marriage definition by law, saying her office will ‘present the court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution.’”

“‘Rather than questioning the constitutionality of a longstanding law in Illinois, the Attorney General’s office should be focused on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implemented by the Obama administration,’ Reis stated. ‘Instead of standing with the twenty-six states across America who are challenging the constitutionality of Obama Care, Madigan has chosen to use taxpayer dollars to legalize same-sex marriage.’”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

“If we don’t, this issue might very well get decided in the courts,” said Reis. 

Similar lawsuits have been filed in states like Massachusetts and in Iowa which resulted in their state supreme court legalizing the redefinition of marriage.

***Update:  State Representatives Paul Evans (R-Highland), Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Jil Tracy (R-Quincy), Wayne Rosenthal (R-Litchfield), Mike Bost (R-Carbondale ), Adam Brown (R-Decatur), Brad Halbrook (R-Effingham), and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont ) are now co-sponsoring this important resolution.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL 60188.

While media pundits and liberal activists feign “concern” about the prominence of “social issues” in the GOP primary race for president, liberal activists tirelessly work to advance their social agenda. Whether it is the mandate from Washington D.C. that requires all healthcare insurance plans to provide free contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization services or the introduction of a “same-sex marriage” bill in Springfield merely nine months after “civil unions” became legal in Illinois, the Left aggressively promotes its social agenda, often with the approval of the mainstream media.

Lesbian activist and recently appointed — not elected — StateRepresentative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) is fast becoming Illinois’ champion of all things liberal. Leftwing zealot Cassidy is co-sponsor of the following bills: “same-sex marriage” (HB 5170), universal health care (HB 311), “medical” marijuana (HB 30), “comprehensive” sex education (HB 3027), a two percent sales-tax increase on firearms ammunition (HB 5167), a resolution to support the Occupy protesters (HR 610), and chief sponsor of another onerous “bullying” bill (HB 5290), which I will address in a future IFI E-Alert.

But it is Rep. Cassidy’s sponsorship of a legislative proposal that would add Gender Identity Disorder (euphemistically referred to as “gender identity”) to the existing “hate crime” law in Illinois (HB 4725) that is the subject of this article.

Enumerated “hate crime” laws are intellectually and ethically flawed and dangerous. This proposed amendment would only make a bad law worse.

It is important to remember that opposition to hate crime laws does not constitute endorsement of criminal acts committed against anyone. One can oppose both criminal acts of all kinds and the pernicious purported solution of hate crime laws, which pose a serious threat to liberty.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state representative to ask him/her to oppose HB 4725 and the addition of Gender Identity Disorder to existing hate crime law. You can also call the Springfield switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and speak to your local representative’s administrative aide about your concerns with this proposal.

It is interesting to note that this bill was originally heard in the Judiciary II committee last Friday, but failed by a vote of 2 yea, 2 nay and 3 present.  Yesterday, however, two of the lawmakers who voted “present” [Reps. Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago) and Esther Golar (D-Chicago)] were substituted by Rep. Toni Berrios (D-Chicago) and the chief sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Cassidy. Obviously, Rep. Cassidy, who was appointed to the General Assembly last summer, has enough clout with Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) for this kind of maneuvering. This exposes Madigan’s eagerness to cater to the aggressive efforts of homosexual activists to promote their “social issues” in the General Assembly.

Problems with hate crimes laws in general:

• American jurisprudence traditionally and rightly takes into account the mens rea, or state of mind, of perpetrators of crimes. In the prosecution and sentencing of crimes, we take into account whether the perpetrator was negligent, reckless, knowing, or purposeful. These categories reveal that our system takes into account the perpetrator’s mental state or the degree of intentionality with regard to his or her actions.
  
  In contrast, hate crime laws are concerned not with the perpetrator’s mental state with regard to his or her actions, but with the beliefs, feelings, or values that impel a particular criminal act. Hate crime laws depend on an evaluation of what the perpetrator believed to be true of the victim, and whether he or she acted because of that belief. This constitutes the most troublingly intrusive form of Big Brother thought control.
  
  There is no ethical justification for meting out more severe punishments for identical actions based on the beliefs, feelings, or values of the perpetrator. The beliefs, feelings, and values of citizens — even beliefs, feelings, and values that society or some segment of society views as erroneous — should be off-limits to the law.
  
  The enhancement of punishments based on the beliefs, feelings, or values of perpetrators opens the door to unconscionable government intrusion into the minds and hearts of citizens. Such intrusion into and evaluation of the beliefs, feelings, and values of citizens is inappropriate in regard to any conditions, including conditions that have no moral implications, but it’s even more problematic when it pertains to volitional behavioral conditions of which questions of morality are central (e.g., homosexuality, cross-dressing).

• The purpose behind enhanced punishments for particular beliefs, feelings, or values is to eradicate those beliefs, feelings, or values, which is decidedly not the role of government or the law.

• Equality before the law is a principle upon which this country is founded. That principle is undermined by establishing particular groups as more worthy of protection than others. Our legal system is based on punishing behavior, not selecting out particular victims for special treatment. Preferential treatment for one group, particularly a group that is constituted my subjective desires and volition, establishes a troubling precedent.

• Preferential treatment for one group will exacerbate rather than reduce inter-group tensions and hostilities.

• Establishing particular groups as deserving of special protections, preferential treatment before the law or establishing other groups as deserving of harsher punishments for committing the same criminal act because of their beliefs, feelings, or values creates a social and political climate that will affect the administration of justice.Imagine a scenario in which the victim of a mugging is a cross-dresser and the perpetrator is known to hate cross-dressers, but the perpetrator had not committed the crime because of his hatred for cross-dressing. Rather, he had committed it because the cross-dresser was alone and appeared to be wealthy. Could the perpetrator be treated fairly before the law? Should his feelings about cross-dressers be the concern of the government? Would the kind of politically charged legal context we are creating with laws that evaluate feelings ever concede that such feelings did not play a role in the commission of the crime? What crimes are prosecuted, and what sentences are levied become political acts.One writer explains this:

Prosecution is selective. This means that the district attorney or prosecutor decides which cases to pursue and which to dismiss. They also decide which charges to file. In most cases this is mainly about expediency, but there is always an element of politics involved. When it comes to hate crimes, the political element grows immensely in a potential prosecution. This is because the hate crime casts an offense against an individual or small group of individuals as an offense against an entire demographic subset.

Problems with the inclusion of the term “gender identity”:

• The term “gender identity” is a biased, non-neutral, political term that was created to disassociate certain behaviors (e.g., cross-dressing) from the psychological disorder that impels them. The neutral terms are “gender dysphoria” and Gender Identity Disorder. We object to the inclusion of “gender identity” because embedded in it are a number of non-factual assumptions about the nature of gender dysphoria and the morality of particular behaviors associated with gender dysphoria and Gender Identity Disorder.

• This term “gender identity” was invented as a rhetorical tool to legitimate or normalize behaviors that citizens have every right to view as disordered and immoral.

• The term “gender identity” was invented as a rhetorical tool to stigmatize those who view gender aberrant behaviors as disordered and immoral.

• Making possible enhanced punishments for crimes committed against those who experience gender confusion raises the question of whether those who experience other disorders/conditions that have volitional behavioral implications will demand inclusion of their conditions in enumerated hate crimes laws.

• Using laws to make social, moral, and political statements about moral beliefs that one group doesn’t like is unethical and dangerous.

Conclusion:

We are becoming a society increasingly removed from fundamental American principles of justice. The law is being used to treat people differently depending on their group membership and to invade the thoughts minds and feelings of people, all in the service of transforming the social, moral, and political beliefs of Americans.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, an infamous pro-abortion organization, is described by Fortune Magazine as “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America.” NARAL Pro-Abortion America recently published its annual Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States report. According to this vehemently anti-life group, the United States received a “D” grade for so-called “reproductive rights.” 

The report not only graded the nation but also graded states individually. The report card uses a point system based on an assessment of governors, laws, access to contraceptives, access to abortions, spousal and parental consent, “post viability abortion restrictions” on abortions, state constitutional guarantees of abortion, “contraceptive equity” (a euphemism for state-subsidized contraceptives), and the codification of Roe v. Wade in state law. 

The “D” given to our nation means that our federal laws tend to lean pro-life. Those of us who believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death look forward to the day that NARAL assigns the United States an “F.” 

The report explains that both state restrictions and federal “anti-choice” laws determine the nationwide grade. These laws include the Federal Abortion Ban, signed into law in 2003 by President George W. Bush; the Federal Refusal Clause of the 2004 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which protects health care practitioners who oppose abortion; and abortion restrictions for U.S. military women. 

This relatively good news, however, does not extend to the Land of Lincoln. In fact, NARAL lauds Illinois’ state constitution for providing “greater protection for a woman’s right to choose than the U.S. Constitution.” (The U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly guarantees the “right” to abort an unborn baby.) 

Additionally, NARAL lists our state’s top executive, Pat Quinn, as “pro-choice,” the Illinois Senate and Illinois House are listed as “mixed-choice,” however; the Illinois General Assembly is led by abortion supporters Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago). 

NARAL enumerates several anti-life laws in Illinois, which include requiring health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide the same coverage for contraception, requiring pharmacies to dispense birth control, and providing access to “family planning” to low-income women through Medicaid. The report also highlights the long-litigated case to enforce Illinois’ 1995 Parental Notification Act, which remains in legal limbo and unenforced. 

The NARAL report underscores the unacceptable reality that Illinois’ laws and far too many lawmakers favor abortion. After the tabulation of points, NARAL ranks Illinois as the 17th most anti-life state in the nation — with Louisiana ranking 50th and California placing 1st in this dubious competition. NARAL also gave the state of Washington an “A+,” while Maine, Oregon, Maryland, Hawaii, and Connecticut received an “A.” States that received an “A-” are Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Montana and Vermont.

The states that received a failing grade from NARAL, thus being the safest for the unborn, are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, an infamous pro-abortion organization, is described by Fortune Magazine as “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America.” NARAL Pro-Abortion America recently published its annual Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States report. According to this vehemently anti-life group, the United States received a “D” grade for so-called “reproductive rights.”

The report not only graded the nation but also graded states individually. The report card uses a point system based on a n assessment of governors, laws, access to contraceptives, access to abortions, spousal and parental consent, “post viability abortion restrictions” on abortions, state constitutional guarantees of abortion, “contraceptive equity” (a euphemism for state-subsidized contraceptives), and the codification of Roe v. Wadein state law.

The “D” given to our nation means that our federal laws tend to lean pro-life. Those of us who believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death look forward to the day that NARAL assigns the United States an “F.”

The report explains that both state restrictions and federal “anti-choice” laws determine the nationwide grade. These laws include the Federal Abortion Ban, signed into law in 2003 by President George W. Bush; the Federal Refusal Clause of the 2004 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which protects health care practitioners who oppose abortion; and abortion restrictions for U.S. military women.

This relatively good news, however, does not extend to the Land of Lincoln. In fact, NARAL lauds Illinois’ state constitution for providing “greater protection for a woman’s right to choose than the U.S. Constitution.” (The U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly guarantees the “right” to abort an unborn baby.)

Additionally, NARAL lists our state’s top executive, Pat Quinn (D), as “pro-choice,” the Illinois Senate and Illinois House are listed as “mixed-choice,” however; the Illinois General Assembly is led by abortion supporters Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago).

NARAL enumerates several anti-life laws in Illinois, which include requiring health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide the same coverage for contraception, requiring pharmacies to dispense birth control, and providing access to “family planning” to low-income women through Medicaid. The report also highlights the long-litigated case to enforce Illinois’ 1995 Parental Notification Act, which remains in legal limbo and unenforced.

The NARAL report underscores the unacceptable reality that Illinois’ laws and far too many lawmakers favor abortion. After the tabulation of points, NARAL ranks Illinois as the 19th most anti-life state in the nation — with North Dakota ranking 50th and California placing 1st in this dubious competition. NARAL also gave the state of Washington an “A+,” while Maine, Oregon, Maryland, and Connecticut received an “A.” States that received an “A-” are Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

The states that received a failing grade from NARAL, thus being the safest for the unborn, are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.