Rob Portman Votes for Sexual Orientation Based Hate Crimes Legislation

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47es/pdf/BILLS-113s47es.pdf

In section 3 of S.47, 113th Congress, ‘‘underserved populations” is defined as “populations who face barriers in accessing and using victim services, and includes populations underserved because of…sexual orientation, gender identity...”

In section 120 of this bill it says, ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the amounts appropriated under the grant programs identified in paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall take 2 percent of such appropriated amounts and combine them to award grants to eligible entities described in subsection (b) of this section to develop and implement outreach strategies targeted at adult or youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in underserved populations and to provide victim services to meet the needs of adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in underserved populations…PLANNING GRANTS.—The Attorney General may use up to 25 percent of funds available under this section to make one-time planning grants to eligible entities to support the planning and development of specially designed and targeted programs for adult and youth victims in one or more underserved populations…”

In other words, this bill would require the government to spend more taxpayer’s money to protect people just because of their sexual orientation.  And the Republican U.S. Senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, voted for it.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 17

This is part seventeen of an ongoing series of articles containing my proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Here is my seventeenth proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: Neither the United States nor any State shall bestow privileges, immunities, or protections of law contingent upon the sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality of any Person.

Section 2: No funds shall be set aside by the United States or any State for the particular purpose of providing protection of law for persons contingent upon the sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality of those persons.

Section 3: No law of the United States or of any State shall increase the penalty of a crime committed if such an increase is contingent upon the motives of the perpetrator in regards to sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality.

Section 4: This article shall not be construed as affecting the rights and responsibilities that parents have over their children.

Section 5: This article shall not be construed as prohibiting laws against certain sexual behaviors.

Section 6: All laws of the United States and of the several States which violate the terms of this article are hereby null and void.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

The Federal Marriage Amendment does not put an end to sexual orientation based hate crimes legislation, anti-discrimination laws, civil unions, legally recognized domestic partnerships, etc., but only legally recognized gay “marriage”. It defines marriage and there are dangers in this. Most people who support a Federal Marriage Amendment do so, not because they want homosexuals to be punished or to take away their rights as citizens, but because they don’t want the government to give them (or any other group of people) any special rights or special protections under the law. Why not just say this, then? A form of this could be passed as law into the U.S. Code, but then it wouldn’t apply to the States. A constitutional amendment would also be more permanent.

This amendment would also forbid governments from giving people incentives to marry (which causes more divorces) and would prevent those who chose neither to marry nor to engage in illicit sexual behavior from becoming second class citizens.

Click here to read the next article in this series.

Remove Activist Judges

The Founding Fathers of our nation never intended for the Supreme Court to be the final authority on the law of the land. Article III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to limit what cases the Federal court's and SCOTUS can hear. Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for life, but for times of good behavior. Congressman Ron Paul has once again introduced legislation into the Congress that would remove from the Federal courts jurisdiction cases involving freedom of religion, abortion, and sexual orientation. The bill is called the We the People Act (H.R. 539).

In reference to these limitations, this act would establish the following enforcement mechanism against activist judges:

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

So far this bill has only two cosponsors, Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ted Poe of Texas.

Contact your congressman and tell him/her to cosponsor this bill.

outing the same-sex agENDA, part three

Taking Back the Rainbow

For whom the church bells toll

We continue our series about how the same-sex agenda is already being carried out by activists and by government agencies and the activist judges. This is occurring even though in most parts of the country. sexual orientation is not officially a class of discrimination as are race, age, gender or disability, nor should it be!

In part one of this series we discussed an individual, a black woman, who was fired from her job for freely expressing her faith conviction in regard to same-sex unions or same-sex ‘marriage’ in writing her response to an editorial opinion in her local newspaper. In part two we discussed a case in New Mexico where a business was sued by a same-sex couple for not agreeing to photograph their so-called “commitment” ceremony. The small business was a photography shop. The owner refused, because of her beliefs and convictions, to take the job. The same-sex couple sued the business and won in a ruling by the state human rights commission. Today, in part three, we will discuss a not-for-profit, CHURCH-related organization legal battle with the same matter of alleged so-called sexual orientation discrimination.
.

NO SANCTUARY EVEN IN A CHURCH

It seems like every time the church or the Christian people in the church venture outside our stained glass fortresses on Monday morning and dare to bring our faith to the public arena, the marketplace or the school campus the PC patrol trolls take note. The same-sex activists are one key component of the PC police. Such is the case in Ocean Grove, New Jersey where a same-sex couple wanted to rent from the local Methodist Church its facilities to conduct an ungodly same-sex ceremony. The church rightfully said, “No.” The lesbian couple cried foul and discrimination. The human rights commission again listened to and sided with the powerful, politically correct, and influential same-sex activists.


In the Ocean Grove case, the same-sex couple wanted to rent a Pavilion on the boardwalk which was owned and operated by the Methodist Church for many, many years. The “couple” apparently wanted to hold their civil union ceremony in the church-owned facility. If the church would have gone against its principles and beliefs and allowed the ceremony to take place, they would have desecrated their mission and their property, because same-sex unions or “marriage” is an abomination to the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible and to all true Christian believers.

THE RESULT

How is the Ocean Grove case similar to the New Mexico case? Both “offending” parties and defendants in their respective cases are represented by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys. Both of the defendants in both cases are sued for discrimination. Both defendants initially lost their cases. In addition, the Ocean Grove church also lost its TAX-EXEMPT status for one of their parcels of land. Both cases are in the process of being appealed.

According to an ADF Fact Sheet for the New Jersey case (Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OCCMA) versus Vespa-Papaleoon), ADF attorneys filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on August 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in response to the state of New Jersey’s investigation of a complaint form a same-sex couple that demanded to use OCCMA's private worship facility for a “civil union” ceremony.

THE RAMIFICATIONS

On the May 7th WallBuilders Live Radio Show, where I most recently heard about this case, ADF attorney Jordan Lorence said, “I think that churches (being) drawn into this is a likely scenario. I think the TAX-EXEMPT status is probably going to be the weapon of choice (against) the churches.”

Laws like the intolerable Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) along with so-called needless “hate crimes’ legislation on both the state and federal levels will have the effect of silencing Christians and churches and will take away freedom of speech and freedom to express one’s faith.

If a pastor is asked to perform a same-sex ceremony and refuses, will he be fined, jailed or risk losing his church’s tax-exempt status? Absolutely, if both ENDA and hate crimes are enacted individuals, businesses, pastors, Christians and churches will be facing the same accusations of discrimination as Crystal Dixon, the Huguenins and the Methodist church organization in New Jersey are facing. America, beware, this is already happening to a great extent in Western Europe and in our neighbors to the north, Canada.

TAKE ACTION

This election find out who supports same-sex civil unions or “marriage” and who favors legislation that codifies sexual orientation discrimination and who supports “hate crime” laws and vote AGAINST them on all levels – national, state and local.