I still wonder what our agenda is, exactly. I suppose I missed that session during the National "How to be a Lesbian" convention, lol. At any rate, the Concerned Women for America (who I'm fairly sure aren't lesbians, but you never know, lol) have announced that the homosexual agenda was the definitive winner in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. In a rather entertaining article which really only reiterates the assertions CWA previously made. The reason I'm posting on this yet again is because of a paragraph added to their update dated May 16th...
"It is not new for liberal Members of Congress to actively promote the
homosexual agenda, but a key difference in the last four months is that a shift
in the balance of power has given liberals the political power to pass their
legislation. Three especially destructive bills have been introduced since
January, and without a groundswell of support for righteousness and Biblical
principles, the homosexual agenda will continue to creep forward and erode our
constitutional freedoms."
Those three destructive bills mentioned are...
*H.R. 1592: The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007...This bill, as I've discussed extensively, adds violent crimes committed on the basis of gender, sexual identity or disability to the already existing 1968 legislation.
*H.R. 2015: Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA)...Introduced by Rep. Barney Frank, this bill would make it illegal for an employer to reject a potential employee or fire an existing one because of their sexual orientation.
*H.R. 808: Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act...Infused with phrases such as, "celebrate diversity," and "promoting tolerance," this bill suggests that a Federal Department of Peace or Peace Education be established.
So, I have a few questions for CWA. First, would you be equally incensed by the introduction of legislation that would include religion-based, violent crimes? Second, since employers cannot discriminate against a potential or existing employee on the basis of religious belief, why shouldn't the same protection be extended to people of differing sexual orientations? Finally, would you raise as much of an uproar if Congress were to suggest establishing a federal department overseeing religious tolerance or education?
I seriously doubt that Mr. Barber's ladies at CWA would fight so vehemently against any of what I have suggested, so the only question left to be answered is where is the erosion of constitutional protections? As I see it, the first 100 hours of this Congressional session have done nothing but reinforce and enhance constitutional protections for everyone. Perhaps CWA was too busy obsessing over the mystical homosexual agenda to notice.
Posts
