The untruthiness (or ignorance) of our state Democrat legislators

Some of you may have seen the video of the business owner asking state senator Jeff Danielson about the impact of adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code. That is the video in which Danielson accused that citizen of being hateful. Danielson and two other legislators (Dotzler and Kressig) denied the predictions of what would happen if those two categories were added to the civil rights law. However, everything predicted has now been affirmed by One Iowa, the state's largest LGBT advocacy organization. Either these legislators were ignorant as to what would happen, or they were dishonest, neither of which is good. This is also evidence that the predictions made by the business owner were not just fear tactics, or "hate in [his] heart", or "digust" for people who practice that behavior, as Danielson claimed.

An interesting sidenote is that Danielson asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for a "whole host of enumerated traits". First of all, there are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, having protected classes in the state's civil rights code actually violates the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it offers greater protection to some classes of people than to others. I wonder how Danielson--Pro Tempora of the Iowa State Senate--can uphold and defend the Constituion, as he acknowledged he is obligated to do, when he doesn't know what it says and/or understand what it means?

Here's the video with Danielson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2R7ISGE794

It is too late to do anything about this. Too many of us were uninformed and/or unmotivated to call our legislators. However, it is good to know this information if you ever get into a discussion with someone about this subject. It can be especially valuable come next election time. However, we can't just wait for the next round of campaigns to heat up. We need to do a better job during the time between election cycles (if there IS such a thing as time between election cycles anymore!) of informing the public of the effect of laws that are being pushed by the Dems, or that have already been passed. Let's not be asleep at the wheel if the same-sex "marriage" issue comes up again.

If you haven't watched the video of Chuck Hurley's meeting with the Des Moines Register's editorial board, I encourage you to do so. I know it is long, but it is a great demonstration of where both sides are on this issue, the arguments being used, and the rebuttals being offered.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881208013

You can find the complete text from which the below excerts were taken at:

http://www.oneiowa.org/web/beInformed/civilRights/faq/

Keep in mind, this is not a proposed law--it is already in effect.

Emphasis below (and comments in parenthesis) is mine.

Dress codes:

...dress codes are not precluded by state or federal law as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee's gender identity.

("Gender identity" is self-identified, and is whatever the individual decides it is at any particular moment)

Restroom usage:

It is still legal in Iowa for businesses to maintain gender-segregated restrooms. The new law does require, however, that individuals are permitted to access those restrooms in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth. And, just as non-transgender individuals are entitled to use a restroom appropriate to their gender identity without having to provide documentation or respond to invasive requests, transgender individuals must also be allowed to use a gender-identity appropriate restroom without being harassed or questioned.

(Ladies, don't be surprised if you run into a man who has defined himself as female next time you use a public restroom)

"Harassment" and "hostile work environment":

Workplace harassment is any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct that either denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity that:

Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment;

(A person could say the workplace was hostile if they knew there was a Christian there who believed homosexuality is a sin. The believer wouldn't even have to verbalize it for the person to claim they are offended having such a person in their workplace.)

Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee's work performance

(An employee could claim that having such a person as mentioned above in the workplace was interfering with his performance.)

Employers should ensure their employees are protected not only from other supervisors and coworkers, but also from harassment by third parties, such as service users and vendors.

(So employers are not only responsible for themselves and their employees, but also their customers and suppliers?)

Public accommodation:

Harassment, intimidation, or other demonstration of hostility

(This is wide open to interpretation. If a person has Bibles in his business for people to take, would that be considered harassment or intimidation?)

Does the law apply to churches?:

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law's provisions, e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public.

Legislators Won't Call Homosexuality Immoral

In today's Waterloo Courier, in a piece about the proposed addition of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code titled "Civil rights bill shows shift in political winds", columnist Charlotte Eby observes that "one of the interesting shifts taking place is the refusal of opponents to publicly call homosexuality immoral or distasteful." Unfortunately, she is right.

There are at least four reasons for this:

1) Some people (Christians included) have actually been convinced that perhaps homosexuality is not sinful after all. Many of these people have bought into the argument of the homosexual movement that "God would not create people with same-sex attraction if homosexuality was a sin". They often buy into this argument after learning that a family member or close friend is attracted to same sex. However, knowing someone in this lifestyle--no matter how nice of a person they might be--does not alter the fact that homosexuality IS sinful, and God did NOT create man to lie with man.

2) Many well meaning Christians have come to believe that we cannot use God's word when making arguments in a secular world, instead arguing with statistics about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and trying to show that promoting homosexuality is bad for our culture. They think that Bible-based arguments will be rejected out of hand and they will be condemned for basing their arguments on something as archaic and irrelevant to today's society as the Bible. They have also cowed to the false assertion that religious beliefs have no place in the public square (I submit that ALL decisions are based on a person's religious beliefs, even if the person is an atheist). The trouble with this is two-fold: a) the pro-homosexual "rights" crowd will not accept any argument, no matter how many statistics you throw at them, and b) without a moral foundation like the Bible--if there is no objective truth and unchanging view of right and wrong--people who might be open to considering both sides of the argument will see no more validity in our view than in the view of the pro-homosexual crowd. We will be left to appeal on the basis of emotion and compassion, and we have seen that the pro-homosexual crowd has had much more success in that arena than we have.

There is spiritual power in God's word. There is no spiritual power in statistics. Most often, we will be rejected anyway, but it is better to be rejected for Christ, rather than for our secular arguments. All we can do is tell people what God says and leave the results up to Him. They may boo, hiss, and laugh when we try to use biblical arguments, but didn't Jesus tell us that's what we would face when we professed to be His followers? Why, then, should be be surprised, and why should we cringe from what we have been commanded to do?

3) The majority of people who think homosexuality is a sin are not willing to publicly state that view, because the homosexual movement has been very effective in portraying their members as helpless victims in need of protection, and portraying anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong as "homophobic", "bigoted", "hateful", "fascist", and other nice names. No one wants to be called one of those nasty names, so most keep silent, which was the goal of the homosexual movement all along. They weren't able to win the debate on the basis of morality, or any other basis, so their strategy was to silence the opposition by making them appear hateful, intolerant, and even dangerous. In almost every case where people have been able to express their opinion privately, they say homosexuality is wrong. Witness the fact that out of 28 states that have voted for an amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman, 27 have approved it, by margins that are not even close.

4) Contributing to the previous three reasons, is the fact that few pastors teach that homosexuality is a sin anymore. Most churches either avoid the subject entirely or, in the case of liberal churches, they (wrongly) teach that same-sex attraction is a trait given us by God, and therefore just as normal as opposite-sex attraction. One could make that same argument about all kinds of sinful behavior that people are predisposed to. In fact, just that fact that we are all sinful could be used as an argument that God doesn't condemn sin. The truth is that we are born with a sinful nature because of the sin of the first man, Adam. We all sin; it is a choice we make. That does not mean that God created us to sin, nor that He condones sin of any kind.

There has been no credible scientific research showing that some people are born with same-sex attraction. And, even if a "gay gene" were to be found, that does not mean homosexuality is virtuous, or that God created us to be that way. People are born with birth defects and other genetic abnormalities, a predisposition toward alcoholism, etc., but that does not mean they are good. We live in a fallen world, and have imperfect bodies with imperfect genes.

I believe we are probably past the point of no return concerning our society's acceptance of homosexuality (Heaven help us all), but we must still be faithful and not be afraid to call homosexuality what it is--a sin--even if we are part a very small minority that is willing to do so. This applies to all sins, not just homosexuality. The reason homosexuality seems to have so much attention directed toward it is because no other sinful behavior has such a well-funded, well-organized, well-strategized, and successful movement behind it that is focused on getting the behavior not only legitimized and written into law, but also silencing any contrary views and indoctrinating our children a positive view of homosexuality, starting in Kindergarten.

When people in a supposedly free society are afraid to call something wrong that IS wrong, for fear of backlash from the politically-correct, elitist, thought police, that's scary! We are not moving toward enlightenment, but toward facism.

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.

Character-building message acceptable...unless the messengers happen to be Christian

This story is about a week old, but I felt it important to cover it anyway, in case you hadn't heard about it from another source. It seems that now we have gotten to the point that not only can't a Christian group come into a school to give a religious message, they can't even come in and give a secular message! This according to a recent editorial in the Ames Tribune, written in response to the appearance of the Power Team at Ames Middle School.

This view was shared by Iowa state Representative, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, who claims to be a Christian, but says, "we would not endorse this interpretation of Christianity." What "interpretation" of Christianity is that, Representative? Biblical Christianity? She also said, "not every family attending the Ames Middle School is a Christian. This assembly definitely verges on a civil rights violation."

Wow! A civil rights violation?! That's pretty serious! Explain to me again, Representative, how bringing a positive, character-building, non-religious message "verges on a civil rights violation"? I think I can say with some certainty that you won't see a "civil rights violation" when the homosexual agenda is shoved down the students' throats. After all, didn't you vote for the "Bully Bill", which will do just that?

The Tribune made the statement that, "(Superintendent) Beyea is right in that the schools do have enough on their hands just fulfilling their own mission." Hmmm....do you suppose they would say that if the object of controversy was an assembly bringing a message of tolerance for homosexuality conducted by GLSEN, GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force, or a school's Gay-Straight Alliance? Not likely! You see, such platitudes are only applicable when the secular left disagrees with your position. They have no problem finding a place for indoctrination they support.

Homosexuality is a civil right?

Tomorrow is designated "Civil Rights Lobby Day" at the Iowa Capitol by the groups pushing the homosexual agenda. Wake up folks! Our rights and liberties are fading away with each new piece of legislation that writes homosexuality (specifically "sexual orientation" and "gender identity") into law. Schools are indoctrinating students into this lifestyle without giving parents an opportunity to opt their kids out. Employees who don't accept the celebration of homosexuality are being disciplined and fired. Public officials who say homosexual acts are immoral are attacked, and their resignation is often demanded. And it will only get worse.

If this law passes, employers will be unable to prevent male employees from dressing and making themselves up to look like females, churches and other religious institutions will be forced to hire individuals who--contrary to the beliefs of the institution--are in the homosexual lifestyle (with the only exception being for positions that have "bona fide" religious qualifications), and public establishments may be required to provide a third (or fourth) restroom for those who claim a different sexual identity than that with which they were born.

If you are opposed to making homosexuality a civil right, and all that will result from that, contact your legislator as soon as possible. The bill in question is SF427 / HF603.