The Illinois Family Institute, the Alliance Defense Fund and allied attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Friday in support of an Illinois law that allows a “period of silence” for the state’s public school students. In January, a federal judge concluded, in a lawsuit filed by an atheist, that that the law was “unconstitutionally vague.”

“This case is of significant concern to IFI because it believes that while the moment of silence law does not establish or endorse a particular religion, it does recognize students’ First Amendment right to exercise — or not exercise — their religious liberties,” said IFI Executive Director David E. Smith. “Simply offering students a moment of silence for prayer or reflection each school day in appreciation of that sacred right should not create a constitutional crisis.”

“A period of silence isn’t unconstitutional just because someone is afraid that someone else may use that time to pray. The emotional response of offended atheists does not amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “A voluntary period of silence cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. To make that accusation, one must harbor both a hostility to the nation’s history and a deep misunderstanding of the First Amendment.”

Since 1969, the state of Illinois has had a law that allows for a “period of silence” for public school students to engage in voluntary prayer or reflection. In October 2007, an atheist sued the Township High School District in federal district court over the law. In October 2008, ADF and allied attorneys with the Chicago firm of Mauck & Baker filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief opposing the law.

The new ADF brief, filed in the 7th Circuit for the case Sherman v. Koch, states, “Astoundingly, the lower court charts an entirely new constitutional course. No federal court has ever ruled a moment of silence law unconstitutionally vague… . Illinois’ moment of silence statute…is constitutionally indistinguishable from moment of silence statutes recently upheld by the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits. Thus, this Court would stand alone among the circuits if it affirmed the lower court. In fact, neither this Court nor the lower court should even reach the merits as Plaintiff’s alleged injury is entirely speculative.”

From the Alliance Defense Fund Alliance Alert

Washington Post: “President Obama announced Monday his intent to nominate Chai R. Feldblum for Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” According to the hunter for justice blog, Feldman will become the “first openly gay Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

White House Press Release: President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

Weekly Standard (May 15, 2006): “Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own [lesbian] community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, ‘I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.'” (emphasis added) See also Dean Broyles, A gay-marriage Pandor’s Box, LA Times (Oct. 27, 2008); Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty, The Weekly Standard (May 15, 2006).

Georgetown Law Center Biographical Entry

Related:

Various related ADF Alliance Alert posts

Answering tough questions raised by Calif. ruling

The Washington Blade carries this article discussing the ramification of the Cal. marriage ruling and its impact on religious freedom. It indicates:

. . . Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?

That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles.

Chai Feldblum, a lesbian and professor of law at Georgetown University, said lawsuits in this area are inevitable but that she’s confident the courts will exercise “common sense.”

“The state will have trouble with some of these things,” she said. “Let’s say it’s a Christian daycare center. I think it will depend. If your daycare looks like any other daycare except the owners happen to be Christians and they don’t want to take the kid with the gay parents, that’s quite a different thing from a place where it’s a very religions setting with religious instruction. What it comes down to is a clash of constitutional rights. The law is developing in this area and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.” . . .

Redefining Marriage by Redefining Good and Evil

Prof. Chai R. Feldblum of the Georgetown Law Center has prepared this paper (43 pages, pdf) as part of the Moral Values Project. A few excerpts:

Moreover, to the extent that the struggle for marriage equality focuses solely on achieving the right to marry because that is what a pure equality discourse calls for, the movement will also miss the chance to make a moral case for supporting the range of other creative ways in which we currently construct our intimate relations outside of marriage. And that would be as much of a missed opportunity as would be the lost opportunity of convincing the general public of the moral equivalence of gay and heterosexual sex . . .

Direct engagement with the issues of morality surrounding either gay sex or gender identity is thus not at the forefront of either our political or legal advocacy for LGBT people. Nor is it highlighted in our theoretical understandings of LGBT rights. This is both unfortunate and short-sighted. As a practical matter, 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 . . .

There is a conversation that is happening regarding visions of normative good in the struggle for marriage equality-but it is largely an “internal movement” debate about whether marriage is a good institution and whether it is one into which gay couples should seek entry. Radical feminists, queer theorists, and others argue that marriage, as historically and currently constructed, constitutes a normative harm that should be dismantled by society overall rather than embraced by gay couples. On the opposite end of the spectrum, socially conservative gay rights advocates argue that extending a traditional expectation of marriage to gay couples will help solidify an appropriate social norm of sexual restraint and care-giving within the family. In these discussions, the moral merits of fitting (or condensing) gay coupling into the marital institution are interrogated, while the moral good of gay sexual coupling is at least implicitly uncontested or assumed by all discussants.

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’.

Don’t Allow DuPage County to Discriminate Against Religious Assemblies!

On April 7th the DuPage County Development Committee met in Wheaton to consider amendments to zoning ordinances which, if approved as written, would have dramatic consequences for “religious assemblies” such as churches, mosques, temples and synagogues.

The amendments provide that any “religious assembly” with three or more uses (e.g. a place of worship, an auditorium, preschool, recreational facility inside or outside, or school) could not expand on its existing property or build on new property in unincorporated DuPage County unless the plot size is at least 5 acres, and it is located next to a road rated to handle at least 10,000 vehicles per day – roads such as Roosevelt Road, North Avenue, and Illinois Route 59.

FYI, Municipalities often adopt County Board ordinances so it is not just religious assemblies in “unincorporated DuPage County” that should be concerned, but ALL religious assemblies in the County.

ACTION: Please make a phone call or send E-mail message TODAY to the County Board member on the Development Committee representing your District, saying you oppose the Amendments to DuPage ordinances that prohibit growth of religious institutions & ask the Member, respectfully, to vote against the Amendments.

Chairman Kyle Gilgis (Dist. 3 — Downers Grove)
KGilgis@dupageco.org (630) 969-3857

Vice Chairman Anthony Michelassi (Dist. 5 — Aurora)
amichelassi@dupageco.org
(630) 788-8338

Dirk Enger (Dist. 6 — Winfield)
denger@dupageco.org
(630) 588-0344

Rita Gonzalez (Dist. 1 — Addison)
rgonzalez@dupageco.org
630) 456-1792

Debra Olson (Dist. 4 — Wheaton)
DOlson@dupageco.org
(630) 221-9593

Jeff Redick (Dist. 2 — Elmhurst)
jredick@dupageco.org
(630) 607-9681

John Zediker (Dist. 5 — Naperville)
jzediker@dupageco.org
(630) 697-3062

If you are unsure of the District in which you live, see map at http://www.dupageco.org/cobrd/generic.cfm?doc_id=291

Background

Letter from Pastor Stewart Ruch

The Demonization of Veterans and Social Conservatives

President Barack Obama’s head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, has created a firestorm of controversy with the release of a “rightwing extremism” report. To paraphrase this report, returning U.S. military veterans, pro-life proponents, anti-illegal immigration activists and Evangelical Christians — including conservative Catholics — may be considered threats to the American government or possibly terrorists.

The Obama administration sees you, pro-life and pro-family citizens across the nation, (including IFI email subscribers), as a possible threat. While you may think you hold valid concerns and are being good citizens by exercising your First Amendment rights to make this country a better place, the Obama administration suggests that you should be classified with the likes of domestic terrorists.

This report is not innocuous. It is designed to be used by the nation’s law enforcement community and could affect our freedoms to peacefully protest at abortion mills, hold marriage rallies, or assemble for prayer at the capitol. The dominant media and even our schools may use this report to further communicate and teach liberal socio-political ideology and against “right-wing extremism”, as they refer to it.

According to an AP story:

[T]he DHS warns imposing new restrictions on firearms and returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their communities could lead to terror groups or individuals attempting to carry out attacks. DHS states returning war veterans have skills and experience that are appealing to right-wing groups looking to carry out an attack.

The report says right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily “hate-oriented” and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority or rejecting government authority entirely.

Napolitano signed off on the document which identifies certain conservative movements as being prime breeding ground for hate-mongers and threats to national security.

Quoting the DHS report, “many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.”

So those of us who disagree with President Obama’s administration on the sanctity of life and want to see our immigration laws enforced are now considered extreme. It’s ironic that for the last 7+years, the anti-war haters have told us that it’s patriotic to oppose injustice. Apparently we have a new definition of injustice.

On April 16th, Napolitano issued a half-hearted apology regarding the unclassified national warning, while also saying she regretted the legalese-worded footnote which pointed to pro-family activists, defenders of state’s rights and members of the clergy as possible terrorist threats. However, in defending the ominous DHS document, Napolitano continually refers to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as an example of how anti-government sentiment can manifest itself into violence. Glaringly absent in the report are people like unrepentant former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers as an example of left-wing extremism.

The most important aspect of this official government document is how law-abiding American citizens — who differ in their opinion about the administration’s policy – may now be considered a threat to the state. However, more insidious is what lies in between the lines and where this is heading. Clearly, the DHS intelligence report gives a glimpse into the mindset of those in charge of stated government policy. Pro-life and pro-family citizens and organizations like IFI are on notice: we are being targeted.

Historically, totalitarian regimes, including Hitler’s Nazi Germany, used similar methodology, blaming the Jews for all the problems which befell that nation after Germany’s surrender at the end of World War I. We know well that Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat.

Perhaps comparing the horrors of Nazi Germany and what led to one of the darkest periods in the history of mankind to Napolitano’s salvo against conservative Americans and members of the military is premature. Yet with less than one hundred days into the Obama administration, the President is aggressively pursuing his radically liberal agenda. This report seems to indicate that the Obama administration is willing to use the heavy hand of government against his political opponents. This report is simply a shot across the bow of those who hold views eschew from an administration whose far left views have amazed even the most nonpartisan observers of American politics.

No matter conservative or liberal, Republican, Democrat or Independent, the Department of Homeland Security’s “right-wing extremism,” report should be considered chilling. The nine-page DHS report questions the patriotism of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong, but hold a belief system contrary to that held by those currently in power. Is this report a frightening harbinger of what may be to come? This report’s importance must not be overlooked or dismissed.

The unclassified DHS report, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” can be read at OneNewNow.com.

Last month, the Chicago Tribune reported that the Obama administration will move to cancel “Protections for healthcare providers who choose not to participate in abortion related activities” — a radical and disturbing gesture to Christian medical professionals!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to the White House about this important issue.

Background
The current rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor’s office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their right of conscience. It applies to more than 584,000 health care facilities.

The Obama administration is doing the bidding of pro-abortion advocacy groups who seek to penalize health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions.

According to The Washington Post, Obama administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment. That is why it is so very important for you to let the White House hear from you today.

Speak up to protect this preeminent American freedom so it does not become subservient to the manufactured and illegitimate “right” that allows a mother to kill her unborn child. If the President rescinds the conscience rule, health care workers could lose their jobs or could have their professional licenses revoked for adhering to their deeply held religious beliefs.

Please act today — your conscience demands it!

Read more: Extinguishing Physician Conscience (American Thinker)

President Barack Obama is considering an astonishing proposal that would eliminate the religious freedom and right of conscience for doctors and other medical workers in favor of the so-called “right” to abortion. (Read more at the American Family Association.)

Congress has upheld the First Amendment rights of doctors who believe that abortion is murder for more than 35 years now, thus protecting the right of medical workers to freely exercise their faith. But now, President Obama wants to use the heavy hand of government to make this preeminent American freedom subservient to the manufactured and illegitimate “right” that allows a mother to kill her unborn child. If the President rescinds the conscience rule, health care workers could lose their jobs or could have their professional licenses revoked for adhering to their deeply held religious beliefs.

Take ACTION: Send a message to the White House about this issue in less than 60 seconds: Click HERE.

Last year was particularly contentious with the presidential election, marriage protection amendments in three more states and numerous other controversial issues in the public debate. One of the most distressing trends last year was the brazen attack on Christians and their faith.

California Proposition 8’s focus on protecting natural families drew attention to the Christian belief in a heterosexual, nuclear family unit and resulted in unprecedented Christian bashing.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (no longer in service) compiled a list of the most egregious attacks on Christians and published them on their web site. Included on the list was the internet video featuring several famous Hollywood actors in a spoof musical play (no longer available) that attacked Christians for supporting Proposition 8. Another finalist on the disgraceful list was the contemptuous assault on Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s Christian faith.

To read the full Top 10 list click HERE.

Regularly during each work day, we gather in prayer and ask the Lord to give us guidance,” said Andy Norman.

Now some of you might think I’m quoting the wise words of a pastor or the dean of a Christian school, but Andy Norman is a senior member of Mauck & Baker, a law firm headquartered in Chicago. Norman and his associates at the firm have worked on some monumental cases in the attempt to protect religious freedom and fight against unjust and immoral laws — from attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade, to fighting to close Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinic in Aurora, to supporting pharmacists’ right of conscience not to stock the Plan B contraceptive which can act as an abortifacient.

Currently, Mauck & Baker is representing the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) as a friend of the court in a very important case here in Illinois. ADF has more than 1100 allied attorneys nationwide who fight in court for our religious liberties.

Last year, our state’s General Assembly amended a law titled the “Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” (,u>SB 1463). The legislation now requires a public school teacher to call for a moment of silence before the start of each school day. In the past, the moment of silence was not mandatory, so if educators preferred not to observe the intent of the law, no sanctions would be levied against them. But SB 1463 has taken that judgment call away from teachers, and many believe the bill has reinstated some of the First Amendment rights regarding religion that have been systematically stripped away from Americans during the past 50 years.

Of course, in our modern society, no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, however, good deeds are frequently met with ridiculous lawsuits in our litigious society and the moment of silence bill is no exception to the rule.

An atheist from Buffalo Grove decided to file a suit against the moment of silence legislation and, through the luck of the draw, he happened to find an activist judge who agreed with him. The atheist obtained an injunction against Buffalo Grove High School where his daughter attends as a sophomore, preventing observation of the moment of silence. Without going into the legalese, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ruled the case against the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act had merit because, in part, it was taking study time away from students — if they indeed took a moment to silently pray, contemplate the world’s events or think about what they would be wearing on tonight’s date. Even more ridiculous, the judge also wrote that if a student or students had to choose between being silent or saying a silent prayer, it was a violation of the First Amendment.

The case will be in front of Gettleman again on March 5th where he will decide if the fifteen year old plaintiff can represent every student in Illinois and if the Buffalo Grove School District can represent every school district in the state.

Many believe the object of the lawsuit is to levy a statewide ban on the implementation of the moment of silence legislation, but that ruling will not be made on March 5th. Without fail, the ACLU has decided to take a role in the litigation as a friend of the court on behalf of the Buffalo Grove student. Some question why the legislation flew threw both Houses of the Illinois General Assembly in the first place. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill, but his action was roundly defeated in an override vote by a huge bi-partisan margin.

Political observers question why the ACLU is bucking strong forces in this case, including the NEA (National Education Association) and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) when it comes to this issue. The teachers unions were mute when the moment of silence legislation was before the Illinois General Assembly and many believe it was because SB1463 was widely endorsed by the African-American community, an important voting bloc within the Democratic Party.

As to the hearing on March 5, 2008, Norman said “for a number of reasons which we are putting into a brief for the court, we believe it would be inappropriate for Dawn Sherman to represent all public school students in Illinois, and for School District 241 to represent all public school districts in the state. We will strongly urge the court to reject these efforts.”

Many believe the Illinois “Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” is a landmark case. Some see it as the first step in a fight against the effort to completely remove expressions of faith from the public square. The case has received a great deal of attention throughout the nation and other states are considering similar bills.

Eventually, the battle over the moment of silence in Illinois public schools may make it to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and perhaps on to the United States Supreme Court. The ADF has been a constant defender of religious liberty in America and law firms like Mauck & Baker play a significant role in the fight for religious freedom and Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Founding Fathers.

The importance of this case cannot be underestimated. Even though common sense would indicate a moment of silence would make sense in these days of violence and turmoil in our public schools, there are those who are determined to advance an agenda which has nothing to do with the welfare of students or our nation.

The Illinois Family Institute, the Alliance Defense Fund and Mauck & Baker are on the front lines in a bloodless war we as Americans cannot afford to lose.

The Illinois Family Institute today condemned the Midwest branch of the Anti-Defamation League for lecturing a District 214 School Board candidate because she wrote to pastors appealing for support as a “Christian engaging the culture.” 

At issue is a letter that candidate Leslie Pinney wrote to Arlington Heights pastors on March 3, in which she wrote:

“Controversial political issues are being taught and those students with conservative, Christian positions are being labeled as intolerant and hate-filled. We must hang on to our freedoms and our children must not be wronged for their Biblical beliefs. … My position … [would be] one of bringing my Christian beliefs into all decision-making while on the board. This means carefully weighing all decisions and votes, praying about them … and providing the best stewardship of the tax dollars the community provides to us.”

In response, Daniel Elbaum, Midwest Civil Rights Counsel for the ADL, warned Pinney in a March 17 letter: “we strongly believe that appeals to voters should never be based on race, religion, or national origin. Such appeals are inherently divisive and foster the notion that a candidate’s race, religion or national heritage can somehow substitute as a shorthand summary of a candidate’s qualifications… We urge you to refrain from political appeals based on religious faith.”

IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said Pinney did absolutely nothing wrong by informing potential supporters of her faith perspective, and said the ADL letter is “part of the Left’s long campaign to intimidate Christians and other people of faith from involvement in the public square by misapplying Jefferson’s ‘separation-of-church-and-state’ doctrine.” 

“How can it be that our tax-funded public schools have become ‘safe zones’ for radical secular ideologies such as the teaching of values-free sex-ed and the celebration of homosexuality, yet religion must be locked out of our schools?” he said. “Such thinking would have been alien to our Founding Fathers, who championed the role of Christianity in government and aimed for freedom of religion-not freedom from religion.”

LaBarbera said two factors are at work in the ADL’s targeting of Pinney for criticism:

1) The ADL’s discriminatory and hyper-secularist misinterpretation of the “separation of church and state,” which distorts the Constitution; and

2) The ADL’s and the Left’s new political tactic of divorcing morality from traditional Christianity and faith perspectives. The goal is to highlight “Christian” and religious support for heretofore anti-religious causes like abortion and homosexual “marriage,” thus implying that there is NO Judeo-Christian consensus on moral issues. Hence, candidates such as Pinney who apply their faith to traditional moral positions like right- to-life and opposing the promotion of homosexuality in schools are vilified.

“The ADL’s unstated goal is to ostracize candidates who bring a traditional Christian or religious worldview to the public debate,” LaBarbera said. “They fear greater involvement of faith-based conservatives in politics, and obviously have singled out Leslie Pinney because, like President Bush, she talks honestly about her faith rather than hiding it in the closet.” 

IFI Condemns Passage of SB 3186, “Gay/Transgender” Bill That Tramples Freedoms of Conscience, Religion and Association.

GLEN ELLYN, Ill.-Peter LaBarbera, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, condemned the passage of SB 3186 by the House and Senate, saying legislators have passed a bill that will trample on the freedoms of others, especially people of faith opposed to homosexuality and gender confusion. 

IFI is urging concerned citizens to ask Governor Rod Blagojevich to veto the bill, which passed 30-27-1 in the Senate and 65-51 in the House. 

“SB 3186 opens a Pandora’s Box for the homosexual, bisexual and transsexual agendas in Illinois,” LaBarbera said. “Under the guise of ‘equality,’ legislators have passed a bill that undermines the rights of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior to live out their beliefs. 

LaBarbera said SB 3186’s “religious exemption” is “so big you could drive a semi through it” and said the bill “sets a dangerous precedent by creating civil rights based on homosexual and transgender behavior. He predicted it would lead to legal challenges to churches and groups like the Boy Scouts that oppose homosexuality. 

LaBarbera said SB 3186 would: 

1. create special legal protections for cross-dressers and transsexuals, because its definition of “sexual orientation” includes “gender-related identity.” (“Transgenders” identify as members of the opposite sex.); 

2. be used later by pro-homosexual lawyers and liberal judges to argue for the legalization of homosexual “marriage” or “civil unions” in Illinois (as occurred in Massachusetts); 

3. make it easier for “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans) teachers to promote the acceptance of their lifestyles in schools, by appealing to the bill’s “nondiscrimination” provisions; 

4. invite lawsuits against private businesses and even churches and religious institutions by “gay” or “trans” activists who could claim they are victims of “discrimination.” 

LaBarbera said Illinois GOP conservatives are furious at the Republican Party leadership’s weak resistance to the homosexual bill (with notable exceptions like Senators Roskam and Lauzen). He said Democrats in the Chicagoland area are the polar opposites of southern Illinois Democrats “who still recognize that homosexuality is not a civil right.” 

“The Chicagoland Democrats’ pro-gay and pro-abortion agendas will continue to push southern Democrats out of the party,” he said. “Ultimately, this trend threatens the Democrats’ control over the General Assembly.” 

IFI is a non-profit group that defends marriage, family and the sanctity of life in Illinois.