HOMOSEXUAL agenda, including MARRIAGE, unmasked


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

As of early Friday morning, the Illinois House of Representatives has not yet voted on HB 2234 or the now recreated SB 1716 which contains the language of HB 2234. If and when it happens, I will give you the information. I downloaded the following from Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org/) earlier this year. It contains information germane to our discussion on “homosexual marriage”—“civil unions.” Except for putting it into my format, I made no changes and because of the length made only a few comments. The article:

“Unmasking The ‘Gay’ Agenda 2/13/2008
By J. Matt Barber

Balance of Power:

Americans who self-identify as ‘gay’ or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement—led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.

Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals—many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence—as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.

The Goal:

As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the ‘gay agenda.’ At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are ‘equal.’ If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE (My capitalization—my addition) and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy. (AND HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL—my addition)

Plan of attack:

Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct—by force of law—through federal edicts such as ‘hate crimes’ legislation, the so-called ‘Employment Non-Discrimination Act’ (ENDA) and by IMPOSING GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED ‘SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.’ (My capitalization—my addition) All such government mandates grant special protected ‘minority’ status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be ‘tolerated,’ but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan ‘celebrate diversity’ supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity.’

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded ‘homophobic,’ ‘hateful’ or ‘discriminatory.’ They are to be silenced by all means possible.

In their own words:

What you are about to read is just a quick, though disturbing, glance behind the homosexual lobby’s lavender curtain.

Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their ‘1972 Gay Rights Platform’:

• ‘Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.’ (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification—so long as those children ‘consented’ to having sex.)

• ‘REPEAL ALL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS THAT RESTRICT THE SEX OR NUMBER OF PERSONS ENTERING INTO A MARRIAGE UNIT.’ [My capitalization—my addition] (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable ‘marriage’ combination, including polygamous ‘marriages.’ By watering down marriage, ‘gay’ activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)

Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) ‘March on Washington’:

‘The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.’ ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon—under penalty of law—sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)

• ‘Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.’ (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, ‘alternative’ sexual ‘orientation.’ This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)

• ‘The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.’ (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide ‘commitment ceremonies’ to homosexuals.)

• ‘PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS SHOULD SUPPORT PARENTING BY LESBIAN OR GAY COUPLES.’ [My capitalization—my addition] (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)

The push for federal ‘hate crimes’ legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists. For example, in 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with a ‘hate crime’ for merely preaching the Bible at a public homosexual street festival. They could have served up to 47 years in prison.

More recently, a Christian photographer was dragged before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ for a lesbian couple because lesbian behavior is inconsistent with Christianity.

Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the ‘gay’ agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, ‘The Gay Agenda’:

• On ‘hate crimes’ laws: ‘Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.’

• On ‘hate thoughts’ and ‘hate speech’ laws: ‘Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.’

• On influencing public policy: ‘Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.’

• ON ‘SAME-SEX MARRIAGE’: ‘DEMAND THE INSTITUTION AND THEN WRECK IT. [My capitalization—my addition] James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.’

• On ‘gays’ in the Church: ‘Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.’ (HOW OBSCENE and BLASPHEMOUS—my addition)

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the ‘gay’ agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. (Which they are! They are NOT victims! They are AGGRESSIVE and LYING CHALLENGERS of MORAL VALUES and GOD’S WILL!—my addition)

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

Desensitization:

‘Desensitization,’ wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a ‘continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.’

As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.

With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.

Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6: 23 says, ‘The wages of sin is death.’) [And soon, if the Obama Administration has its way, we will all be paying more to take care of those who have homosexual related diseases through either government “health” insurance or government “health” programs. I believe I read somewhere (and I didn’t check this) that the life expectancy of homosexuals is more than ten years LESS than it is for the rest of society. Consequently, we are not only going to be expected to accept all sinful homosexual behaviors but also pay to support the consequences of that immoral, deplorable, perverted lifestyle—my addition.]

And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.

The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.

As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the ‘Everyman.’ ‘In no time,’ they said, ‘a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.’

Prophetic words from two very smart men.

Jamming:

‘Jamming’ refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the ‘gay’ agenda. ‘Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,’ wrote Kirk and Madsen. ‘Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’

‘In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,’ they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, ‘[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.’ (DUH!—my addition)

And so words like ‘homophobe’ and ‘heterosexism’ were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a ‘homophobe,’ a ‘hatemonger,’ a ‘bigot.’

Not even churches are safe.

‘Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.’

And, oh, how it has.

Conversion:

‘Conversion’ means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, ‘conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.’

‘In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—and only later his unsightly derriere!’

So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of ‘hide the ball.’ In order to achieve widespread acceptance of ‘gayness,’ they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of ‘gay civil rights.’

In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to ‘consummate’ a so-called ‘gay marriage.’ Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for ‘civil rights.’ Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct. (VERY TRUE—my addition)

Therein lies the deception.

But There’s Hope:

There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.

But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. ‘Gayness’ is not an ‘immutable’ or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it. (JESUS, the SON of GOD, said that sexual immorality [which includes homosexual behavior] comes from the HEART—it is NOT GENETIC! Or maybe HE was just a “backwater” preacher who didn’t know any better?—my addition)

There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the ‘gay’ agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.

With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.

(For more information about Concerned Women for America and to learn how you can be part of unmasking the ‘gay’ agenda, please call us at (202) 488-7000 or visit CWA’s website at http://www.cwfa.org/.)

Matt Barber is one of the ‘like-minded men’ with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.”

Crouse Criticizes Newsweek for Distorting Christianity

CWA asks, “Can the NAE Have It Both Ways on Same-Sex ‘Marriage?’”

How many Central Illinois legislators are members of the immoral CHICAGO CABAL? How many Central Illinois legislators have fallen victim to the lies of homosexual activists and their apologists? You will know them by their VOTE!

“He then said to me: ‘Son of man, go now to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.’” Ezekiel 3: 4 (NIV)

“‘But the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for the whole house of Israel is hardened and obstinate. But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or terrified of them, though they are a rebellious house.’” Ezekiel 3: 7-9 (NIV)

“At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.

Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.’” Ezekiel 3: 16-21 (NIV)

“‘Now I (spoken by the apostle Paul—my addition) know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. (Spoken specifically to the elders of the church in Ephesus.—my addition) Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.’” Acts 20: 25-31 (NIV)

“The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did NOT REPENT of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. NOR did they REPENT of their murders, their magic arts, their SEXUAL IMMORALITY or their thefts.” Revelation 9: 20-21 (NIV) [my capitalizations—my addition]

(Spoken by JESUS) “‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.’” Luke 11: 23 (NIV)

House Bill 2234—homosexual marriage disguised as “civil unions”—is now Senate Bill 1716—oops, what happened?


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

I received the following from Illinois Family Institute Thursday morning. Except for putting it into my format, I made no changes. The e-mail:

“IFI Update: State Legislators Use Sneaky Maneuver in an Attempt to Pass ‘Civil Unions’ in Illinois
by Elise Bouc—Illinois Family Institute

It doesn’t get much stranger than this in the legislative realm. Last night, the House Youth and Family Committee took a Senate bill regarding legal procedures for court action after the defendant has died, and replaced the bill’s entire language with the ‘Civil Unions’ language of HB 2234. The number of the Senate bill (SB 1716) remains the same, but the entire nature of the bill has changed since the Senate voted on it.

Now the bill will be voted on by the House to determine if the legislators will support ‘civil unions.’ If it passes in the House, it will go back to the Senate for another vote, and if they pass it, it goes before the Governor for his approval. Why are they doing it like this? Because they are running out of time to pass their bill in the House. If they stuck with the original HB 2234, it would have had to be passed in the House, then read on 3 separate days in the Senate before they could vote on it, and they could possibly run out of time since the legislative session ends May 31st.

So, with little time left, they conveniently emptied out a senate bill that had already been read three times, and filled it up with new language to legalize civil unions. Presto change-o! If the House passes it, they only have to place it before the Senate for a concurrence vote (not three readings), and they have met their time deadline. This stinks! It strikes me that the state constitutional requirement for 3 separate readings was originally designed to ensure full time for legislators to understand the bill as well as to provide the public with ample time to understand the issue and contact their legislators with their views.

Last night’s approach completely violates the principle of democracy and is dishonest to its very core. Any legislator who votes for this new bill is voting to persist in ‘the business as usual’ methods that anger Illinois citizens. If you have a legislator who has said they support civil unions, please contact them and tell them they can not use a dishonest method to force this issue upon the citizens of Illinois. To do so, would inflame voters’ disgust with the legislature overall and with their own legislator specifically.

Take ACTION: We can stand up to such dishonesty and protect our traditional values. Please click HERE to contact both your state senator and state representative to let them know that this latest maneuver is an outrage. Encourage them to vote NO on civil unions by any name or number. And, ask them to be honest in their treatment of Illinois legislative procedures.

If you have a liberal legislator, now is the time to demand that they act honestly with integrity and respect for democracy and the procedures that are supposed to be followed in Illinois.
Please pass this on to others so that they too might know the underhanded means that are being attempted in Springfield.

Introduce IFI to your friends, church or civic group:

Serve as a contact person by receiving information from IFI and distributing it to others or posting it on bulletin boards. You can keep current by signing up for IFI E-Alerts and IFI E-Newsletters and be registering and checking in on our Take Action center.

Host a gathering of friends for a private evening with the IFI team.

Staff members are available to speak at your church or group function about IFI’s work at the Illinois Capitol, with parents working against liberal indoctrination at their public schools, and a variety of other issues including marriage, fatherhood, and current family policy initiatives.
For more information, please call us at (708) 781-9328.”

Additional Resources:

“Arguments Against Homosexual "Marriage"

Eroding Religious Liberty & Freedom of Conscience”

Besides bypassing the three reading requirement, this process gives those who support this abominable legislation an out. A supporter of this depraved bill can honestly, technically claim that he/she did not vote for HB 2234 even though Senate Bill 1716 contains the same language. Most voters will not do the necessary research.

Rest assured. I will identify every member of the General Assembly who votes for this despicable bill regardless of the number or name used for the final vote. Those who support this bill WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE!

How many Central Illinois legislators are members of the immoral CHICAGO CABAL? You will know them by their VOTE!

House Bill 2234—homosexual marriage disguised as “civil unions” is a SIN against GOD, the CREATOR!


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

Wednesday the 27th I filled out a survey sent by the Republican Party. There was not one relevant question on the survey dealing with the only important crisis that America faces. Consequently, along with mailing back the survey, I am also sending a copy of my post on November 3, 2008—the day before the last Presidential election. Then, I realized, that post is also relevant to the present attempt by the Democrats in Illinois to impose upon the State the immoral acceptance of the immoral behavior of homosexuality. So, tonight’s post is that post of November 3rd. The original post as slightly modified:

Monday, November 3, 2008 Wake-up America—Barack Hussein Obama and today’s crisis, part 34

Rule Chicago, rule Illinois, rule the nation.
Ruin Chicago, ruin Illinois, ruin the nation.

Wake-up America!!! Who ultimately is in control—GOD or man? Who determines right and wrong—GOD or man? Who controls the weather—GOD or man? Who determines righteousness and sin—GOD or man? Who controls our economy—GOD or man? Who defines good and evil—GOD or man? Who controls what happens to the United States of America—GOD or man?

The three crucial issues in this election are:

1) to END the MURDER of unborn babies

2) to NOT allow HOMOSEXUAL marriages

3) to APPOINT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST judges at all levels of the federal court system

Three crucial issues in this election and Barack Hussein Obama is WRONG on ALL three!!!

Barack Hussein Obama has been part of the Chicago Democratic political machine from the beginning of his political career. In his first political race, he was elected to the Illinois State Senate from Chicago. He was elected to the United States Senate from Illinois as a Chicago politician. He is running for the Presidency of the United States as a politician from Chicago.

The liberal mass media has identified numerous crises over the last few years. They include:

1) Energy crisis

2) Global warming crisis

3) Housing crisis

4) Mortgage crisis

5) Economic crisis—WOODROW WILSON: ‘The sum of the whole matter is this—that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.’ (p. 143) and—THOMAS JEFFERSON: ‘Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.’ (p. 225)

6) Global economic crisis

7) Terrorism crisis

What the liberal mass media has not identified as a crisis is the only crisis that is real and of monumental importance. That crisis is the crisis that may doom America if we, as a nation, don’t wake-up and repent. That crisis is the

MORAL/OBEDIENCE to CHRIST CRISIS

If this nation continues sinning against GOD—the creator of the world and all that is within—we can rest assured that GOD will discipline the nation. We have only two choices—repent and return to living a life pleasing to GOD or continued degradation and a continued slide into greater and greater immorality. When we sow sinful behavior we reap greater and greater amounts of sinful behavior just as the sowing of a corn kernel reaps a great quantity of corn kernels.

Government can not save us! Government certainly will not save us if it promotes sin including the MURDER of unborn babies and homosexual immorality. Who is in power in government has some impact on sin being promoted or not being promoted.

Barack Hussein Obama has been talking about change. Change is occurring all the time. Change will occur regardless of who is elected. Change, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. It is the specific changes that are evil or righteous.

Barack Hussein Obama has been talking about unity. How can he unify the nation when he supports the barbaric practice of MURDERING your own unborn babies? To unify the nation while MURDERING unborn babies, he must first silence Christians who know the difference between righteousness and evil because obviously HE DOES NOT!

We have a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. Why would any Christian want that holocaust to continue under Barack Hussein Obama?

“Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.” Romans 10: 3

“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” I John 3: 7-10 (NIV)

“The Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah, is called ‘the weeping prophet of Israel.’ He worked and wept more than forty years preaching a message of doom to his once proud homeland. His ministry was a sort of a last ditch effort we might say toward national repentance. It failed. Judah imploded. I mean it collapsed from within because of its immorality and idolatry. In the 18th chapter of his prophecy Jeremiah wrote these words, ‘The word which came to me, Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying: Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there will I cause you to hear My words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me saying; O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter? says the Lord. Look, as the potter’s clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! The instant that I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant that I speak concerning a nation, concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways good and your doings good.’’” (From “In Search of the Lord’s Way”, October 26, 2008)

“But concerning Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’” (Isaiah 65: 2) Romans 10: 21 (NIV)

Under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama can the United States of America be anything other than a “new” Israel—a disobedient and obstinate people—who promote MURDER and sexual immorality? The choice is the nation’s. Pray! And then vote to please the only entity that must be pleased—GOD the CREATOR!

Rule Chicago, rule Illinois, rule the nation.
Ruin Chicago, ruin Illinois, ruin the nation.

ARE people so BLIND that they can NOT or WILL NOT recognize the media created modern day pied piper?

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Remember this: NO public opinion poll has ever voted. An election is not decided UNITL the votes are counted.
The three crucial issues in this election are:

1) to END the MURDER of unborn babies

2) to NOT allow HOMOSEXUAL marriages

3) to APPOINT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST judges at all levels of the federal court system

Three crucial issues in this election and Barack Hussein Obama is WRONG on ALL three!!!

“Dangerous Radicals of the Religious right!
By Dave MacPherson
[quotes are from Vital Quotations by Emerson West]

01) ROBERT E. LEE: ‘In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.’ (p. 21)

02) DANIEL WEBSTER: ‘If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.’ (p. 21)

03) JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: ‘I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.’ (p. 22)

04) ABRAHAM LINCOLN: ‘I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.’ (p. 22)

05) GEORGE WASHINGTON: ‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.’ (p. 22)

06) HORACE GREELEY: ‘It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.’ (p. 23)

07) THOMAS JEFFERSON: ‘I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.’ (p. 45)

08) THOMAS JEFFERSON: ‘Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.’ (p. 47)

09) BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: ‘As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.’ (p.49)

10) WOODROW WILSON: ‘The sum of the whole matter is this—that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.’ (p. 143)

11) PATRICK HENRY: ‘There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.’ (p. 145)

12) THOMAS JEFFERSON: ‘Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.’ (p. 225)

13) THOMAS JEFFERSON: ‘Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.’ (p. 237)

14) GEORGE WASHINGTON: ‘The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.’ (p. 283) (I wasn’t going to comment on these but I have to for this one. Compare this comment with what is heard every day on TV and in the movies and you have some small idea of how far we have fallen as a nation! How can we expect GOD to continue to bless such a depraved nation! So depraved that we MURDER over 3,000 unborn babies every day of the year! AND SOME DECLARE IT TO BE A “RIGHT”! WAKE-UP AMERICA! WAKE-UP CHRISTIANS!—my addition)

15) BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: ‘Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.’ (p. 301)

16) CALVIN COOLIDGE: ‘The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.’ (p. 305)

17) GEORGE WASHINGTON: ‘The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.’ (p. 306)

Prior to our increasingly ‘Hell-Bound and Happy’ era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we have forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psalm 50: 22—‘Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.’”

I’m going to quote a larger section of that Psalm:

“But to the wicked, God says: ‘What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips? You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you. When you see a thief, you join with him; you throw in your lot with adulterers. You use your mouth for evil and harness your mouth to deceit. (Does that sound like Barack Hussein Obama? I will explain in a latter article why I am now going to use his middle name—my addition.) You speak continually against your brother and slander your own mother’s son. These things you have done and I kept silent; you thought I was altogether like you. But I will rebuke you and accuse you to your face. Consider this, you who forget God, or I will tear you to pieces, with none to rescue….’” Psalm 50: 16-22 (NIV)

“Thus, in 1789 President Washington issued ‘The First Thanksgiving Proclamation of the United States,’ which he began with these words, ‘Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly implore His protection and favor ….’”

“But the forces of unbelief that have moved in to control American life, would remove every influence of God among us. We are reminded of the statement by William Penn that, ‘If we are not governed by God, we will be ruled by tyrants.’”

“Rather He pronounced a blessing on ‘the nation whose God is the Lord.’ (Psalm 33: 12)

“He promised that his eye would be ‘upon those who fear him.’” (Psalm 33: 18)

“He has said, ‘Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach (or a disgrace) to any people.’” (Proverbs 14: 34)

“‘Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.’”

“Without the influence of Divine Providence, believers will be disenfranchised and America will fall as other great societies in the past have done, from within.”

House Bill 2234—homosexual marriage disguised as “civil unions”


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

The following is from the General Assembly website put into my format and with some comments from me:

“Bill Status of HB2234 96th General Assembly

Short Description: CIVIL UNIONS—RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (It’s supposed “religious freedom” because religious officials may refuse to perform the “ceremony” without legal repercussions—my addition.)

House Sponsors:
Member———District——Party——local office location

(These are my headings and the information other than the sponsors’ names have been added by me, i.e. the District, Party, and location of the local office—my addition.)

Rep. Greg Harris—13th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Barbara Flynn Currie—25th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Deborah Mell—40th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Constance A. Howard—34th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Sara Feigenholtz—12th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Harry Osterman—14th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
John A. Fritchey—11th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Lou Lang—16th Representative District—Democrat—Skokie (Chicago suburb)
George Scully Jr.—80th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago Heights (Chicago suburb)
Julie Hamos—18th Representative District—Democrat—Evanston (Chicago suburb)
Cynthia Soto—4th Representative District—Democrat—Chicago
Naomi D. Jakobsson—103rd Representative District—Democrat—Champaign
Mike Boland—71st Representative District—Democrat—Moline

(Note: ALL of the sponsors of this obscene, immoral, depraved, degenerate bill are Democrats and ALL but two of the sponsors are from the Chicago area. Rule Chicago; ruin Chicago. Rule Illinois; ruin Illinois. Rule the United States; ruin the United States—my addition.)

Last Action:

Date———Chamber—————action

3/19/2009—House—Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading—Standard Debate

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance:

New Act

Synopsis As Introduced:
Creates the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Defines “civil union” as a legal relationship between 2 persons, of either the same or opposite sex, established in accordance with the Act. Provides that a party to a civil union shall be entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses. Prohibits certain civil unions. Provides that the Director of Public Health shall prescribe forms for an application, license, and certificate for a civil union. Contains provisions regarding: application for a civil union license; certification of a civil union; and duties of the county clerk and Department of Public Health. Provides for dissolution and declaration of invalidity of a civil union. Provides that a marriage between persons of the same sex, a civil union, or a substantially similar legal relationship other than common law marriage, legally entered into in another jurisdiction, shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union. Contains provisions regarding construction, application, religious freedom, severability, and other matters.
Actions:

Date———Chamber—————action

2/17/2009—House—Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Greg Harris
2/18/2009—House—First Reading
2/18/2009—House—Referred to Rules Committee
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Harry Osterman
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. John A. Fritchey
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lou Lang
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. George Scully, Jr.
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Julie Hamos
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Cynthia Soto
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Naomi D. Jakobsson
2/19/2009—House—Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Mike Boland
2/20/2009—House—Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie
2/20/2009—House—Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Deborah Mell
2/20/2009—House—Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Constance A. Howard
2/20/2009—House—Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Sara Feigenholtz
2/23/2009—House—Assigned to Youth and Family Committee
3/05/2009—House—Do Pass / Standard Debate Youth and Family Committee; 004-003-000 (What an obvious MISNOMER!—my addition)
3/05/2009—House—Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Standard Debate
3/19/2009—House—Second Reading—Standard Debate
3/19/2009—House—Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading—Standard Debate
4/03/2009—House—Committee/3rd Reading Deadline Extended-Rule May 8, 2009
5/08/2009—House—Committee/Final Action Deadline Extended-9(b) May 29, 2009
5/22/2009—House— Final Action Deadline Extended-9(b) May 29, 2009”

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE in Illinois


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

I received the following e-mail Friday morning after I had gotten off the internet for the weekend. I am posting it tonight instead of my planned “hate crimes” post because of the urgency of the message.

“Gay Lobbyists More Determined Than Ever To Pass ‘Civil Unions’
by Kathy Valente, Policy Analyst—Illinois Family Institute

Rick Garcia, gay lobbyist for Equality Illinois, said yesterday that he ‘absolutely’ foresees both the House and Senate passing HB 2234, the civil union bill, as early as next Tuesday or Wednesday. It’s no secret that Governor Pat Quinn supports the bill and is likely to sign it into law.

If Garcia is right, Illinois will soon bestow its blessing upon homosexual couples, extending to them the same benefits as marriage, only under a different name. According to CapitolFaxBlog.com, ‘Equality Illinois has nine lobbyists working as either full-time staffers or contractors to encourage lawmakers to vote in favor of civil unions. Other groups assisting in passing the measure include the American Civil Liberties Union, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and the Service Employees International Union...’”

"Take ACTION: Please look up your state representative HERE and then call your state representative to ask him/her to please vote ‘NO’ on HB 2234 and, instead, pass a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage and its unique benefits for one man and one woman.If they receive dozens of calls from their constituents, they might tell their leadership not to allow the bill to be called. This would be a public record of their vote to be used against them. They fear losing their next race.

We don’t want to cry wolf, but we also don’t want to take for granted that the bill won’t pass. It’s a tug-of-war. There are far too many unethical lawmakers who lack a strong moral compass and who too easily bow to the powers that fill their coffers.

Additional Action:

1. Forward this email to everyone on your Illinois email list.

2. Print and make copies of this half-sheet flyer to pass out at your church, school, among friends and neighbors, etc.

This bill can be stopped, but only if you will make the 2 calls to your state representative and state senator AND if you will pass this information to others. It’s our responsibility to tell those who represent us how we want them to vote. This is still a government ‘of the people, by the people and for the people.’

The only difference between marriage and ‘civil unions’ is in name. The rights and privileges would be the same.”

This is an absolutely true statement. I have posted the bill as presented to the House of Representatives. Read it for yourselves. I’ve been watching this for awhile and the Democratic leadership has been leaning over backwards to make it possible to pass this bill—twice the time limits have been extended—“4/3/2009, House, Committee/3rd Reading Deadline Extended-Rule May 8, 2009;” “5/8/2009, House, Committee/Final Action Deadline Extended-9(b) May 29, 2009;” and now on “5/22/09, House, Final Action Deadline Extended-9(b) May 29, 2009”

This week may be the “do or die” week. If this bill doesn’t pass this year, it is less likely to pass next year which is an election year. The members of the House should be less likely to irate the voters by supporting this legislation since they know such a vote may hurt their reelection chances. If they vote for this, they are counting on the short memory and attention span of many voters. The last time a major bill was passed promoting the homosexually agenda was after the 2004 election—the so-called “lame duck” session after the November election and before the new members are sworn in in January—when a Peoria Democrat was defeated at the polls by now Republican Congressman Aaron Schock and voted for it and another Peoria Democrat, who was going to retire after this last term (2005-2006), sold his soul to receive a Democratic Party post in the General Assembly in return for supporting the legislation.

Help defeat this proposed legislation. But, if they do pass it, rest assured that I will post the name of every member of the General Assembly who supported this obscene legislation and will work for the defeat of every member, who voted for it, who comes up for reelection. There is a new Democratic legislator in Peoria who was elected for the first time in 2008 to Aaron Schock’s old district. If she supports this legislation, she may well be a one term legislator. I don’t think that Central Illinois has become the immoral cesspool that the Chicago area seems to have become. This legislation, if passed, will provide “marriage” for homosexuals who are engaged in immoral, detestable, depraved, GOD-condemned (in both the Old and New Testaments) behavior. Have we as a State become that immoral?!

The proposed law as I downloaded it about a month plus ago put into my format:

“House Bill 2234

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois 2009 and 2010
HB2234

Introduced 2/18/2009, by Rep. Greg Harris

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
New Act

Creates the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Defines “civil union” as a legal relationship between 2 persons, of either the same or opposite sex, established in accordance with the Act. Provides that a party to a civil union shall be entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses. Prohibits certain civil unions. Provides that the Director of Public Health shall prescribe forms for an application, license, and certificate for a civil union. Contains provisions regarding: application for a civil union license; certification of a civil union; and duties of the county clerk and Department of Public Health. Provides for dissolution and declaration of invalidity of a civil union. Provides that a marriage between persons of the same sex, a civil union, or a substantially similar legal relationship other than common law marriage, legally entered into in another jurisdiction, shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union. Contains provisions regarding construction, application, religious freedom, severability, and other matters.

AN ACT concerning civil law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.

Section 5. Purposes; rules of construction. This Act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to provide adequate procedures for the certification and registration of a civil union and provide persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.

Section 10. Definitions. As used in this Act:

“Certificate” means a document that certifies that the persons named on the certificate have established a civil union in this State in compliance with this Act.

“Civil union” means a legal relationship between 2 persons, of either the same or opposite sex, established pursuant to this Act.

“Department” means the Department of Public Health.

“Officiant” means the person authorized to certify a civil union in accordance with Section 40.

“Party to a civil union” means a person who has established a civil union pursuant to this Act. “Party to a civil union” means, and shall be included in, any definition or use of the terms “spouse”, “family”, “immediate family”, “dependent”, “next of kin”, and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law.
Section 15. Religious freedom.

Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.

Section 20. Protections, obligations, and responsibilities.

A party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law.

Section 25. Prohibited civil unions. The following civil unions are prohibited:

(1) a civil union entered into prior to both parties attaining 18 years of age;

(2) a civil union entered into prior to the dissolution of a marriage or civil union or substantially similar legal relationship of one of the parties;

(3) a civil union between an ancestor and a descendent or between siblings whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;

(4) a civil union between an aunt or uncle and a niece or nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption; and

(5) a civil union between first cousins.

Section 30. Application, license, and certification.

(a) The Director of Public Health shall prescribe the form for an application, license, and certificate for a civil union.

(b) An application for a civil union shall include the following information:

(1) name, sex, occupation, address, social security number, date and place of birth of each party to the civil union;

(2) name and address of the parents or guardian of each party;

(3) whether the parties are related to each other and,

if so, their relationship; and

(4) in the event either party was previously married or entered into a civil union or a substantially similar legal relationship, provide the name, date, place and the court in which the marriage or civil union or substantially similar legal relationship was dissolved or declared invalid or the date and place of death of the former spouse or of the party to the civil union or substantially similar legal relationship.

(c) When an application has been completed and signed by both parties, applicable fees have been paid, and both parties have appeared before the county clerk, the county clerk shall issue a license and a certificate of civil union upon being furnished satisfactory proof that the civil union is not prohibited.

(d) A license becomes effective in the county where it was issued one day after the date of issuance, and expires 60 days after it becomes effective.

(e) The certificate must be completed and returned to the county clerk that issued the license within 10 days of the civil union.

(f) A copy of the completed certificate from the county clerk or the return provided to the Department of Public Health by a county clerk shall be presumptive evidence of the civil union in all courts.
Section 35. Duties of the county clerk.

(a) Before issuing a civil union license to a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state, the county clerk shall satisfy himself or herself by requiring affidavits or otherwise that the person is not prohibited from entering into a civil union or substantially similar legal relationship by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.

(b) Upon receipt of the certificate, the county clerk shall notify the Department of Public Health within 45 days. The county clerk shall provide the Department of Public Health with a return on a form furnished by the Department of Public Health and shall substantially consist of the following items:

(1) a copy of the application signed and attested to by the applicants, except that in any county in which the information provided in a civil union application is entered into a computer, the county clerk may submit a computer copy of the information without the signatures and attestations of the applicants;

(2) the license number;

(3) a copy of the certificate; and

(4) the date and location of the civil union.

(c) Each month, the county clerk shall report to the Department of Public Health the total number of civil union applications, licenses, and certificates filed during the month.

(d) Any official issuing a license with knowledge that the parties are thus prohibited from entering into a civil union shall be guilty of a petty offense.
Section 40. Certification. A civil union may be certified:

by a judge of a court of record; by a retired judge of a court of record, unless the retired judge was removed from office by the Judicial Inquiry Board, except that a retired judge shall not receive any compensation from the State, a county, or any unit of local government in return for the solemnization of a civil union and there shall be no effect upon any pension benefits conferred by the Judges Retirement System of Illinois; by a judge of the Court of Claims; by a county clerk in counties having 2,000,000 or more inhabitants; by a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages; or in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, provided that when such prescriptions require an officiant, the officiant be in good standing with his or her religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group. The person performing a civil union shall complete the certificate and forward it to the county clerk within 10 days after a civil union.

Section 45. Dissolution; declaration of invalidity.

Any person who enters into a civil union in Illinois consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of Illinois for the purpose of any action relating to a civil union even if one or both parties cease to reside in this State. A court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of a civil union if at the time the action is commenced it meets the grounds for dissolution set forth in Section 401 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The provisions of Sections 401 through 413 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act shall apply to a dissolution of a civil union. The provisions of Sections 301 through 306 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act shall apply to the declaration of invalidity of a civil union.
Section 50. Application of the Civil Practice Law.

The provisions of the Civil Practice Law shall apply to all proceedings under this Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act. A proceeding for dissolution of a civil union or declaration of invalidity of a civil union shall be entitled “In re the Civil Union of ... and ...”. The initial pleading in all proceedings under this Act shall be denominated a petition. A responsive pleading shall be denominated a response. All other pleadings under this Act shall be denominated as provided in the Civil Practice Law.

Section 55. Venue.

The proceedings shall be had in the county where the petitioner or respondent resides or where the parties' certificate of civil union was issued, except as otherwise provided herein, but process may be directed to any county in the State. Objection to venue is barred if not made within such time as the respondent’s response is due. In no event shall venue be deemed jurisdictional.
Section 60. Reciprocity.

A marriage between persons of the same sex, a civil union, or a substantially similar legal relationship other than common law marriage, legally entered into in another jurisdiction, shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union.

Section 90. Severability.

If any part of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is adjudged invalid, the adjudication or application shall not affect the validity of this Act as a whole or of any other part.

“Hate crimes” part 13


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

I received the following by e-mail from the “Alliance Defense Fund” on 5/19/2009. I am posting portions of the e-mail with some comments. The e-mail with comments:

“The pretense of ‘tolerance’ by the opponents of religious freedom and free speech is over, and Christians are no longer free to disagree.
Watch the video (This video, as I understand it, is also on YouTube. I don’t normally watch these because I use dial-up here in Illinois and it takes forever. This one I did watch. You should too!—my addition)

Just mention, ‘Prop 8’ in a mixed crowd and you’re sure to get a lively discussion going. The issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ in this country has nearly everyone talking—and that’s good. However, in California, angry advocates of the homosexual legal agenda are trying to bully those who support marriage as the union God intended—between one man and one woman, only—into silence.”

“Pretense of Tolerance is over
Christians are no longer free to disagree

The ACLU and its allies are committed to push the mute button on those who disagree with them. Just how committed are they?

You’ll be shocked at the depth they’ve sunk to in their efforts. It has turned very, very ugly out there—especially after Arizona, California, and Florida voters enacted state constitutional marriage amendments, protecting biblical marriage, last November. The democratic process itself is under assault. (This is NOT the first time and it won’t be the last time!—my addition)

This is evidenced by the ACLU and its allies’ selective opposition to the democratic principle of free elections. It would prefer that courts force same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation. If you can’t beat them at the ballot box, go to court and sue them. Seriously! Just look at what the former head of the ACLU said after the people of Alaska overwhelmingly enacted a marriage amendment: ‘Today’s results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote.’ So, no sooner did voters in California enact Proposition 8, the ACLU ran again to the court and demanded that it overturn the results of the state’s marriage amendment.

Many of you, those who believe in marriage as God intended—the union between one man and one woman, only—joined together in the fight to protect this important issue. Some gave money. For some Californians who gave $100 or more, they got the shock of their life.

Californians Against Hate took personal information from the secretary of state’s website about donors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign and posted it on a Google Internet map. As the Google map and personal information became known, retaliation followed against individuals that had donated money to restore marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the Golden State. (It seems that Californians Against Hate don’t consider their actions to be motivated by hate. Or maybe, as a group, they are also opposed to their own group! Homosexual activists seem to enjoy labeling people—especially people who are opposed to the immoral behavior of homosexual sin. It seems that to them opposition to homosexual immorality and depravity = hate. Thus, any statement against their behavior or action against their positions, such as financially supporting Proposition 8 to repeal an obscene California Supreme Court decision, is a “hate crime?” Yet, it seems that any criminal behavior perpetrated against those in opposition to their behavior is an act of “love.” I guess there really are “love crimes” after all?—my addition)

• Personal property was vandalized.

• Profanity was spray-painted on churches

• Businesses were hounded into firing employees who had donated to Prop. 8.

• Death threats were sent to Prop. 8 supporters.

• White powder was mailed to make recipients fear that they had come into contact with the deadly substance anthrax.

(I haven’t read any of these things in my local paper! Therefore, they must NOT be true. Just more Christians spreading hate lies! Lies such as homosexual behavior is immoral, depraved, perverted, and an abomination to GOD!

According to the Dissenting Statement of members of the House of Representatives, California has a “hate crimes” law—probably one that includes crimes motivated because of religious beliefs—such as the belief that homosexual behavior is a sin and should not be permitted in a moral society. Do you think any of the individuals involved in the above mentioned criminal activities will be prosecuted for committing a “hate crime?” Do you think they would ever be convicted? Or, are “hate crimes” laws only used to protect rather than prosecute homosexuals? Can homosexuals be prosecuted for a “hate crime?” Have homosexuals ever been prosecuted for and convicted of a “hate crime?” Wouldn’t that be an interesting study! Or, are homosexuals incapable of committing crimes be they “hate crimes” or otherwise?—my addition)

Do these outrageous actions resemble anything even remotely close to ‘tolerance’? (As I’ve said many times before, homosexual activists only believe in tolerance if you agree with them. You MUST tolerate their sinful behavior but they WILL NOT tolerate any opposition to that behavior—that is hate. That is homophobic!—my addition)

No, these shameless acts are the last resort of people who have taken off the gloves of ‘tolerance’ for the express purpose of coercing opponents into surrender. The ACLU and its allies cannot tolerate a truly fair democratic process, so instead they seek advantage by intimidating and punishing citizens that disagree with their agenda.

Christians are treated harshly for living out their faith.” (No “hate crime” there! Ah, but they haven’t been MURDERED for their faith. Or have they?—my addition)

“Hate crimes” part 12


“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)

Tuesday, I posted a dissenting view presented by members of the House of Representatives when H.B. 1913 was being considered in the House. Tonight, I am posting a few comments about the dissenting view which hopefully have not been covered in previous posts. I also received one comment which I will briefly discuss tonight.

1) “The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts.”

There is no question in my mind that the bill is unconstitutional based upon any clear reading and understanding of the Constitution. Unfortunately, as I’ve repeatedly stated over the last five years, the courts in our system have repeatedly ignored the Constitution and precedent when it suited their purposes and have reached decisions by judicial fiat rewriting the Constitution to suit their own sense of morality or lack thereof. Consequently, it does little good to rely upon the position that the bill is unconstitutional. The bill should be defeated in Congress so that the courts have no opportunity to hear the issue.

2) “Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated primarily by the states.”

True and in almost all instances exclusively by the States. Again, Congress is trying to encroach more and more upon areas that they have no constitutional authority to deal with and historically have NOT dealt with. As Congress has lost more and more power to the courts, their response has NOT been to prevent the courts from this encroachment but rather to increase their dwindling power at the expense of the States. The courts grab power from Congress and in return Congress grabs power from the States to fill the vacuum. And all too often (too often because it should not be allowed) the courts allow Congress to do so so that the courts then have even more power areas to control.

3) “STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS”

As I’ve said before, “hate crimes” is an artificially created monstrosity of legislative bodies. But, even as this artificial category is going down, Congress feels compelled to act! They are acting for two reasons primarily—to reward homosexual activists for their political support and as a test case to pass even more contentious, contemptible legislation in relation to PROTECTING and PROMOTING homosexual behavior.

4) “In protecting limited categories of groups, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the Majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious groups such as current and former members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women. We can see no reason to distinguish among these groups—all of them deserve heightened protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority has made its priorities clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women.”

This in and of itself is proof of the motivation behind this so-called “hate crimes” bill. The Democratic Majority has simply admitted by their lack of concern for other victimized groups that this bill is intended to PROTECT and PROMOTE the immorality of homosexual behavior. These suggested additions, of course, were a method used by the Minority to demonstrate the true motives of the Democratic Majority.

5) “Unborn Children

Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his mother’s womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator Moynihan stated so poignantly, ‘this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus and, what on Earth is this procedure?’

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), ruled constitutional the Federal law banning partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion procedures that can be used if necessary. Id. at 1632.

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Jordan of Ohio offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization that unborn children are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the hate crimes law.”

The Democrats have to define unborn children as “non-persons.” If they ever admitted that an unborn child is a person then the very linchpin of their preposterous argument that a woman has a “right” to MURDER her unborn baby would be destroyed since the Court in it’s abhorrent decision allowing such MURDERS admitted that if an unborn child was a person then, of course, the mother could NOT MURDER that child. Thus, unborn children CAN NOT be people in the eyes of Democrats who support the MURDER of unborn children.

I received a comment in relation to the dissenting opinion on the “hate crimes” bill. The comment was from “anonymous.” It said exactly the following:

“There a certain amount of irony in the ex soldiers as a protected class since one of the groups protesting at military funerals was the homophobic westboro Baptist church.”

My comments: I’m not going to comment on the irony statement. When I was writing my first book (now published) the English teacher who was editing the book said I didn’t know what irony is. That may be true. The use of the “soldiers” example, of course, was to point out the motives of the Democrats in protecting homosexual behavior and not protecting other groups.

However, what I find interesting about this comment is that it demonstrates the problems of a bill that tries to determine the “thoughts” of the perpetrator(s) of a crime. The author identifies the Baptist group as “homophobic.” How does he/she know that? Is he/she capable of reading people’s thoughts? Did the Baptists declare that they are “homophobic?” Is anyone who believes, for whatever reason, that homosexual behavior is immoral automatically “homophobic?” Is GOD “homophobic” since HE destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins including the sin of homosexual behavior? Is JESUS, the SON of GOD, Isaiah, and Paul all “homophobic” because they each supported the truthfulness of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Would JESUS, Isaiah, and Paul possibly be prosecuted under this proposed legislation for stating that homosexual behavior is a sin and that GOD punished homosexuals by destroying these two cities? Would the Bible be condemned and burned as a “hate” book? Who among us has the ability to read minds and determine the “thoughts” of individuals?

THIS IS A DANGEROUS BILL THAT PROTECTS AND PROMOTES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD NOT BE PASSED! Do some members of Congress believe that the ruling bodies of this nation possess the authority and/or ability to shun GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES with impunity? Do they even know GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES?

“Hate crimes” part 11


The following is a dissenting view presented by members of the House of Representatives when H.B. 1913 was being considered in the House. I put it in my format. Otherwise, it is as presented in the “Dissent Report.” It is long so I’m posting it tonight without comment. I plan to make a few comments about it tomorrow night. The Dissent from members of the House of Representatives:

“H:\WORK\REPORTS\HR1913\DVIEWS.TXT

Dissenting Views

We oppose H.R. 1913 as an unconstitutional threat to religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under the law and basic federalism principles.

Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims. Under the Majority’s hate crime bill, H.R. 1913, criminals who kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen, or any other person. Hate crimes legislation hands out punishment according to the victim’s race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status.

We all deplore bias-related violent crimes. Every violent crime is a tragedy and we must do everything we can to ensure public safety in our communities. Violent crimes committed in the name of hatred of a group can be devastating to a victim and a community. These crimes must be vigorously prosecuted at the state and local level.

Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of ‘‘equal justice for all.’’ If enacted this bill will turn that fundamental principle on its head—justice will depend on whether or not the victim is a member of a protected category: a vicious assault of a homosexual victim will be punished more than the vicious assault of a heterosexual victim. A senseless act of violence, committed with brutal hatred and viciousness, will be treated as less important than one where a criminal is motivated by hatred of specific categories of people. Justice will no longer be equal but now will turn on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. All victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law, regardless of race or status.

By opening the door to criminal investigations of an offender’s thoughts and beliefs about his or her victims, this bill will raise more controversy surrounding a crime. Groups now will seek heightened protections for members of their respective groups, and require even more law enforcement resources to investigate a suspect’s mindset.

Even more dangerous, although perhaps unintended, the bill raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities. A chilling effect on religious leaders and others who express their beliefs will unfortunately result.

The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts. No matter how vehemently proponents of the bill try to defend a Federal nexus—there is simply no impact of such crimes on interstate or foreign commerce. The record evidence in support of such a claim is transparent and will be quickly brushed aside by any reviewing court.

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not extend to ‘non-economic, violent criminal conduct’’ that does not cross state lines. Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments.

Aside from the constitutional infirmities that riddle this bill, the sponsors are seeking to address a problem that is not overwhelming our state or local governments. FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has actually declined over the last ten years. Of the reported hate crimes in 2007, 9 were murders and 2 were rapes. Only 9 of approximately 17,000 homicides in the Nation involved so called hate crimes. A majority of the crimes reported by the FBI involved ‘intimidation’ with no bodily injury—words or verbal threats against a person. There is zero evidence that states are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving hate. Violent crimes are vigorously prosecuted by the states. In fact, 45 states and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already punishes violence motivated by race or religion in many contexts.

At the markup, we sought to address these infirmities with the bill—to restore equal justice under law, to protect the freedom of expression and religious freedom that is so important to our Nation, and to ensure that the enumerated powers of the Federal Government are not inappropriately expanded. We offered 18 amendments to this legislation but the Majority defeated each and every one of our attempts to address these problems.

H.R. 1913 RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS AND OPENS THE DOOR
TO THE PROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATION OF SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS

The first amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ America was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.

Hate crimes legislation that selectively criminalizes bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech is not likely to survive constitutional review; however, hate crimes statutes that criminalize bias motivated violence may survive a first amendment challenge. Cf. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (striking down ordinance that selectively prohibited types of hateful speech); and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (upholding a state hate crime penalty enhancement for a violent crime and finding that restriction on speech was justified when linked to violent act).

However, hate crimes legislation can have a chilling effect on speech and first amendments rights by injecting criminal investigations and prosecutions into areas traditionally reserved for protected activity. The line between bias-motivated speech and bias-motivated violence is not so easy to draw.

For example, in prosecuting an individual for a hate crime, it may be necessary to seek testimony relating to the offender’s thought process to establish his motivation to attack a person out of hatred of a particular group. Members of an organization or a religious group may be called as witnesses to provide testimony as to ideas that may have influenced the defendant’s thoughts or motivation for his crimes, thereby expanding the focus of an investigation to include ideas that may have influenced a person to commit an act of violence. Such groups or religious organizations may be chilled from expressing their ideas out of fear from involvement in the criminal process.

Moreover, under existing criminal law principles, the bill raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities. Using conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18 which allows for the prosecution of anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of a crime, or anyone who ‘willfully causes an act to be done’ by another, it is easy to imagine a situation in which a prosecutor may seek to link hateful speech by one person to causing hateful violent acts by another.

Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning religious beliefs and teachings could be considered to cause violence and will be punished or at least investigated. Once the legal framework is in place, political pressure will be placed on prosecutors to investigate pastors or other religious leaders who quote the Bible or express their long-held beliefs on the morality and appropriateness of certain behaviors. Religious teachings and common beliefs will fall under government scrutiny, chilling every American’s right to worship in the manner they choose and to express their religious beliefs.

Hate crimes laws could be used to target social conservatives and traditional morality. Hate crimes laws have already been used to suppress speech disfavored by cultural elites—indeed this may be their principal effect. Of the 4300 hate crimes against persons reported by the FBI in 2007, over 2,000 incidents involved ‘intimidation,’ usually defined as threatening words. The ‘intimidation’ category does not even exist for ordinary crimes. This vague concept is already being abused by some local governments, which target speech in favor of traditional morality as hate speech. In New York, a pastor who had rented billboards and posted biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials, who cited hate-crimes principles as justification. In San Francisco, the city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group, and recently passed a resolution condemning the Catholic Church because of its ‘hateful’ views. No viewpoint should be suppressed simply because someone disagrees with it.

H.R. 1913 IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERALISM PRINCIPLES

The bill raises significant federalism concerns, and provides protected status to victims based on religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

All violent crimes can be ‘hate’ crimes, and there is little justification for singling out specific groups of victims for Federal protection. A Federal law criminalizing violent actions based upon a victim’s real or perceived characteristics would be such an act.

Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated primarily by the states. Under the Federal system, the Supreme Court has observed, ‘States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.’ Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 135 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982)). ‘Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our Federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the states except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States.’ Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion).

The Court has viewed the expansion of Federal criminal laws with great concern due to their alteration of the balance of Federal-State powers. ‘When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.’ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n. 3 (1995) (quoting United States v. Emmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411–12 (1973)).

Congress should not act quickly or without due deliberation before it chooses to further federalize yet another area that generally lies within the competence of the states. Given the principles of federalism that govern the Constitution, Congress should not use its powers until it is confident that hate crimes are a problem that is truly national in scope.

H.R. 1913 VIOLATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND HAS NO
SUPPORT UNDER THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENTS

In addition to federalism concerns, the legislation creates Federal jurisdiction on tenuous constitutional grounds, relying on the Commerce Clause, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

Interstate Commerce Clause

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence, and specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the Commerce Clause or the 14th amendment over ‘non-economic, violent criminal conduct’ that does not cross state lines. The Court concluded that upholding the criminal provision of the Violence Against Women Act would open the door to a federalization of virtually all serious crimes as well as family law and other areas of traditional state regulation. Id. at 615–16.

The Supreme Court’s Morrison decision followed several other decisions in which the Court clarified the Constitution’s restrictions on Congress’s exercise of its powers under both the Interstate Commerce Clause and section five of the 14th amendment. See United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); see also Florida Prepaid Postsecondary
Educ. Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court. Not only does much of the hate crime problem go beyond what Congress may regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but Congress has yet to perform the extensive fact-finding required to demonstrate that hate crimes are a national problem that requires a Federal solution.

In cases in which Congress uses its enforcement powers under section five of the 14th amendment, the Court has said, it must identify conduct that violates 14th amendment rights, and its must tailor the legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct.
To meet these requirements, Congress must conduct fact-finding to demonstrate the concerns that led to the law.

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court found that Congress had ‘little evidence of infringing conduct on the part of the States’ in the use of facially-neutral laws to infringe religious liberties. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530–32. In Florida Prepaid, the Court noted that ‘[i]n enacting the Patent Remedy Act. . . . Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the States, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations.’ The Court held that Congress had found few instances in which states had violated Federal patent laws, and so invalidated the Patent Remedy Act’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 645–46.

In order to create a case for the constitutionality of a law criminalizing hate crimes, Congress must engage in fact-finding. Unfortunately, in their haste to rush this bill through the Committee, the majority has not done any fact finding whatsoever. To meet this standard, the Majority failed to hold adequate hearings concerning the scope of hate crimes in this country, their numbers, and their impact on the economy.

The only iota of fact-finding to be found in relation to H.R. 1913 is section two of the bill, which lays out various ‘findings’ regarding so-called hate crimes. Ironically, and inexplicably, the Majority chose to remove this section from the bill through adoption of a manager’s amendment offered by Mr. Scott.

Until Congress engages in this sort of legislative spadework, it will not be able to justify any factual basis for its action.

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments

The 14th and 15th amendments do not provide Congress with the claimed authority. The 15th amendment forbids the Federal Government or a state from denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of an individual’s race, color or previous condition of servitude. The 14th amendment prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the law, due process or the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship. Both of these amendments extend only to state action and do not encompass the actions of private persons. Hate crimes by private persons are outside the scope of these amendments.

Thirteenth Amendment

Section two of the 13th amendment stands on different footing. The Amendment proscribes slavery and involuntary servitude without reference to Federal, state or private action. In order to reach private conduct, i.e. individual criminal conduct, Congress would have to find that hate crimes against certain groups constitute a ‘badge and incident’ of slavery. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971).

The Court has addressed Congress’s power under section two in only a few cases, the chief of which is Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). In that case, the Court upheld 42 U.S.C. § 1982—passed originally as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—which was read to bar discrimination against African-Americans in the sale or rental of property.

Unlike the 14th amendment, the Court emphasized, the 13th amendment allows Congress to enact laws that operate upon the acts of individuals, regardless of whether they are sanctioned by state law. Section two of the amendment ‘clothed Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.’ Jones, 392 U.S. at 439. Therefore, the Court observed, ‘[s]urely Congress has the power under the 13th amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation.’ Id. at 440. The Court, however, has not provided much guidance beyond Jones on what constitutes ‘the badges and the incidents of slavery.’ See, e.g., Carpenters, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971).

Congress should tread carefully before it chooses to pass a hate crimes statute on the basis of section two of the 13th amendment. Such a law would have to be utterly clear that it is based on the grant of authority to combat slavery. Only vaguely asserting that some hate crimes might be linked to vestiges, badges, or incidents of slavery or segregation would not be enough.

Although there have been few judicial pronouncements on the scope of the 13th amendment, the Jones case was limited to discrimination on the basis of race, specifically discrimination against African-Americans. Efforts to include within a hate crimes prohibition those crimes motivated by national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and any other factor other than race would amount to a congressional effort to interpret the 13th amendment beyond that so far permitted by the Supreme Court. The Court will want to ensure that, in defining badges and incidents of slavery to include hate crimes, Congress has enacted remedial and preventative legislation that seeks to end the true effects of slavery, rather than attempting to re-define the term ‘slavery’ or ‘involuntary servitude’ as it has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court.

STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has declined over the last ten years. In 1997, a total of 8,049 bias-motivated criminal incidents were reported by the FBI. Statistics for four of those years, 2002 through 2005, demonstrated a steep decline in the number of hate crimes reported. In 2005, for example, 7,163 hate crimes were reported. In the last two years for which data is available, there has been a slight uptick in the number of hate crimes—7,722 incidents in 2006 and 7,624 in 2007—but fewer hate crimes are committed today than ten years ago.

In 2007, 51 percent of the crimes involved racial bias; 18 percent involved anti-religion bias; 17 percent involved sexual orientation bias; and 13 percent involved national origin bias. Anti-disability bias was about 1 percent. Further, in 2007, there were 1,083 violent crimes against persons—rape, murder, assault, intimidation, and robbery—that were based on bias against sexual orientation, or approximately 3.6 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. In contrast, there were a total of 1,408,337 violent crimes committed in 2007, or about 466.9 violent crimes incidents per 100,000 inhabitants.(1)

(1) The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act charged the U.S. Attorney General to ‘acquire data . . . about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.’ The Hate Crimes Statistics Act does not require collection of hate crimes statistics for violent crimes alleged to be motivated by ‘gender identity.’ A 1994 amendment added the disabled to the list of groups to be tracked. The Attorney General delegated data collection of hate crimes principally to the FBI. The FBI appended information on bias motivation to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).

According to FBI data, there were 16,929 murders in the U.S. in 2007. Of that number, nine murders were classified as ‘hate crimes’. By doing the math, we learn that ‘hate-crimes’ murders make up less than one-tenth of 1% of the murders committed in the U.S. in 2007. This begs the question of why the House would pass legislation that ignores 99.9% of the murders in this country.

STATE PROSECUTIONS ALREADY ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIMES AND HATE CRIMES

Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary: the underlying offense is already fully and aggressively prosecuted in almost all states. There is zero evidence that states are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving ‘hate.’

Moreover, 45 states and the District of Columbia already have laws punishing hate crimes, and Federal law already punishes violence motivated by race or religion in many contexts. In the absence of data that states are unable to prosecute or decline to prosecute hate crimes, there is no reason for the Federal assertion of jurisdiction or the diversion of Federal resources to such investigations and prosecutions.

Some of the most notorious hate crimes were prosecuted under state laws, and there is no evidence that states are unable or unwilling to prosecute such crimes. Of the 5 states with no current hate crime legislation (Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Wyoming), Georgia and Indiana have passed legislation pertaining to hate crimes in recent years, and in both states the legislation has been struck down by the courts.

NEED TO PROTECT MILITARY, UNBORN CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY, AND MOTHERS

In protecting limited categories of groups, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the Majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious groups such as current and former members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women. We can see no reason to distinguish among these groups—all of them deserve heightened protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority has made its priorities clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women.

Members of the Armed Forces

We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and to serving our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda. For example, recently we were faced with the practice of groups protesting at military funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. This sick and despicable behavior intruded on the family of the lost soldier and the need for privacy and respect. Congress acted in 2006 in passing legislation to restrict the right of protesters to interfere with military funerals.

With the rising debate over the Iraq War, we are seeing increased threats to Iraq War veterans. In 2004, Private First Class Foster Barton, of Grove City, Ohio, was brutally beaten in the parking lot of a music venue in Columbus as he was leaving a concert.
According to the Columbus police, six witnesses who didn’t know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers. Barton had been on a 2-week leave from service in Iraq when the incident happened. A year later, during a peace rally, a war veteran was spit on by a protester at the rally. Such incidents were all too common place during the upheaval surrounding the Vietnam War, when hundreds of threats and spitting incidents occurred against Vietnam War veterans.

We need to make it clear to everyone that we honor members of our Armed Forces. Any act of violence against a member of the Armed Forces must be met with swift and sure punishment. Crimes against our Armed Forces must be punished at a heightened level just like the other groups that are given protection under this Act.

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Rooney offered an amendment to add current and former members of the Armed Services to the list of classes protected under this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote.

Unborn Children

Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his mother’s womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator Moynihan stated so poignantly, ‘this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus and, what on Earth is this procedure?’

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), ruled constitutional the Federal law banning partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion procedures that can be used if necessary. Id. at 1632.

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Jordan of Ohio offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization that unborn children are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the hate crimes law.

Pregnant Women

All acts of violence against women are abhorrent, but they are especially disturbing when committed against pregnant women. When a violent crime causes injury to a pregnant woman that results in a miscarriage or other damage to the fetus, we all share the desire to ensure that our criminal justice system responds decisively and firmly to exact appropriate punishment. (2)

(2) In 2004, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1841, and created a separate criminal offense for the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime against a pregnant woman.

On December 16, 2004, Bobbi Jo Stinnett, in Skidmore, Missouri, was 23 years old when she was strangled to death and her unborn child was killed. The killer, Lisa Montgomery, who was 36 years old, had met Stinnett in an online chat room and met with her at her home under the pretext of buying a dog. Montgomery specifically targeted Stinnett because she was pregnant. Montgomery had lost a child she was carrying prior to murdering Stinnett.

A 2002 GAO report cited estimates from 15 states that between 2.2 percent to 6.4 percent of pregnant women had been violently attacked. This is intolerable and we should do more to protect pregnant women from attack.

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an amendment to add pregnant women to the list of classes protected by this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote.

Senior Citizens

Our senior citizens are vulnerable, like our children, to violent abuse. Recent events have underscored the harm to our senior citizens from violent crime, and the need to make sure that hate crimes against our senior citizens do not occur.

On March 4, 2007, a New York City man was videotaped by a surveillance camera mugging a 101-year-old woman in the lobby of her apartment building. The heartlessness and hatred of this attack is clearly conveyed on the videotape when Rose Morat was trying to leave her building to go to church. The robber acted like he was going to help her through the vestibule and then turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose Morat suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. Police believe the same suspect robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after fleeing from Rose Morat’s apartment house.

During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Goodlatte offered an amendment to add senior citizens to the list of classes protected by this legislation. The Majority rejected this amendment and defeated it in a party-line vote.

Conclusion

As outlined above, H.R. 1913 suffers from numerous problems. The Majority’s rush to judgment ensures that, even if enacted, the hate crimes statute will most likely be overturned by the courts, and therefore, will be counter-productive to its stated goal of assisting state and local law enforcement to reduce bias-motivated violence.

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
HOWARD COBLE.
ELTON GALLEGLY.
BOB GOODLATTE.
DARRELL E. ISSA.
STEVE KING.
TRENT FRANKS.
LOUIE GOHMERT.
JIM JORDAN.
TED POE.
JASON CHAFFETZ.
TOM ROONEY.
GREGG HARPER.”